Unemployment in Australia: the Coming Anarchy

Unemployment in Australia: The Coming Anarchy

Written: August 2019

Preface

We live in an era of great uncertainty. Even the most casual observer can appreciate dramatic changes have taken place in the Australian society over the past 30 years. For those of my generation, the so called ‘baby boomers’ much of the social and financial changes that have taken place since our birth have been little short of cataclysmic. It is deeply disturbing that the very values we, as a nation have historically prided ourselves on- ‘equality,’ ‘mateship’ and the ‘fair go’ are now a pale memory of how we used to be. Some still cling to such values, but for most, and particularly those of the younger generation, they have now become part of the great Australian myth.

One of the most central causes of growing inequity in Australia over the past thirty years has been workforce displacement. Deeply concerning, is the role played by successive Australian governments via Centrelink and the privatised employment service system, now called Jobactive, in promulgating inequity. This knowledge is based on our family’s experience of un/underemployment, networking of others experiences, as well as text research. It is glaringly apparent that this country is now at a crossroads and faces an existential crisis in dealing with the growing, chronic problem of un/underemployment which has been festering for several decades.

Clearly a massive cultural shift is required, both by politicians and the wider Australian society. The current Centrelink welfare system is anachronistic, punitive and wasteful. Its replacement with a streamlined, cost effective and incentivised system of a guaranteed minimum income, is now the only alternative to stemming an impending social collapse, caused by ballooning un/underemployment in a rapidly changing digital age.

The Mid 1970s to Present Day: The End of Full Employment and the Casualization of Work

The mid 1970’s saw a cataclysmic shift in the Australian labour market. It marked the end of guaranteed full employment and the beginning of unemployment and corresponding workforce casualization. As the graph below illustrates, 1974 marked the end of full employment, where the number of job seekers matched job vacancies, to a point now where there are about 1.8 million persons seeking work with about 200 000 vacancies.

(Source: Per Capita, 19 September 2018, Working It Out: Employment Services in Australia)1

(Source: Per Capita, 19 September 2018, Working It Out: Employment Services in Australia)2

In 1980, the average duration on unemployment benefits was less than 50 weeks. From 1980 the duration has climbed steadily, when in 2017 it reached a peak of about 250 weeks, or 5 years.

It cannot be overstated that the official Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) statistics significantly disguises the real extent of the un/underemployment crisis in Australia. Employment, according to the ABS, includes “pay, profit, commission or payment in kind”. It also includes persons who have worked “for one hour or more without pay in a family business or farm” Moreover these statistics are seasonally adjusted with data obtained by telephone interviews.

According to the ABS, a person who works 1 hour in a Centrelink reference period is classified as working, and not unemployed. Indeed the ABS refers to “not in employment” as:

“a total lack of work… persons who are ‘without work’ should not have undertaken any work at all (not even one hour) during the reference period, nor should they have been temporarily absent from a job to which they have formed attachment.”3

This largely makes statistical comparisons between the 1950’s and 60’s era of full employment and the present day meaningless. It means there is now a burgeoning mass of casual/underemployed many of whom have very scant and precarious work who do not show up in government statistics as unemployed. This is indeed, extremely misleading and deeply disturbing.

In contrast, Roy Morgan statistics “are based on weekly face to face interviews” A person is classified “as unemployed if they are looking for work, no matter when” Moreover, the findings are not seasonally adjusted. These statistics are widely regarded as a more accurate presentation of real unemployment levels in Australia. Given this, “Roy Morgan’s real unemployment figure of 11% for August (2018) is more than twice as high as the current ABS estimate for

July 2018 of 5.3%” Indeed. if unemployment and underemployment are calculated together the figure is about 19%4

Significantly, in 1982 casual employees constituted 13% of the Australian workforce but between May 1982 and August 1989 “the number of casual employees grew by 89%.” By 1992 it rose to 22%, then from 1992 to 1997 it rose again to 24%. Since this time, it has maintained a plateau of about 25%. Notably, these figures does not include ‘owner managers’ who are self-salaried, but don’t have leave entitlements5

Professor John Quiggin notes, “the period from the 1980’s to the mid 1990’s was one in which workers lost ground over working conditions.” He further comments, “The prevalence of long working hours, unpaid overtime and casualization all increased.”6

Hielke Buddelmeyer, Research Fellow, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economics and Social Research comments that “casual employment has generally been regarded as employment where there is no entitlement to paid leave, such as annual leave, sick leave or carers leave”7 Geoff Gilfillan, of the Parliamentary library notes that casual workers are “much more likely to face irregular and insufficient hours of work with fluctuations in earnings” with 53% experiencing earnings variability from one pay to the next8

So just how bad is the current situation? Roy Morgan estimates paint a grim picture. In August 2018 there were 1, 476,000 people unemployed. Additionally, some 1,071,000 people were classified as underemployed for this period.9 Even a cursory analysis will see that such statistics make a mockery of government backed Centrelink attempts to ‘crack down on dole recipients’ The system is in crisis, not due to the unemployed, but due to a systemic chronic malaise that has been some thirty to forty years in the making.

Neo Liberal Economics- The safety net develops holes

The turning point for public opinion occurred in 1973 when the oil crisis precipitated western economic stagflation, and the demise of the welfare state commenced. This economic downturn was seen by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in its Economic Outlook as “the most serious since World War 2”10. Prior to this, the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes were widely accepted. Then it was viewed desirable for a government to run a budget deficit which “increases the flow of money through the economy which in turn increases the demand for goods and services” The welfare state was viewed as positive, as it “enabled workers and the unwaged to have more disposable income to contribute toward the private market and therefore toward the maintenance of employment” 11

Milton Friedman’s monetary ideology of ‘trickle down’ economics presented a radical departure from Keynesian theory and was soundly lauded by the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) when he visited Australia in April 1975.12 In Friedman’s theory, the idea of government intervention in supporting the unemployed was to be discarded as unnecessary greed which resulted in higher taxes. The IPA argued that the market place should be responsible for redistributive processes, and not the State.13 This ideology became even more entrenched when the Austrian economist, Friedrich Von Hayek visited Australia in 197614. It was then that the great divide between ‘liberty’ vs ‘welfare’ became cemented. Hayek was unconcerned about the purchasing power of the poor, and more concerned with balancing the budget.15 Full support should be given to productivity in the capitalist market place. The benefits of a strong

5 economy would then, by some sort of mystical, osmotic force, ‘trickle down’ to the needy, with little, if any, government intervention required.

The polarisation of wealth in 21st Century Australian Society- The End of the ‘Fair Go’

The reality of what has unfolded over the past forty years has demonstrated the callous destructiveness of Friedman and Von Hayek theories, with the growing polarisation of extreme wealth in Australian society. This reality is starkly presented by the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) findings:

“The average wealth of the highest 20% rose by 53% after inflation adjustment (to 2.9 million) from 2003-2016, while that of the middle 20% rose by 32% and that of the lowest 9% declined by 9%. The wealth of the highest 5% grew even more rapidly by 60% over this 12 year period”16

Indeed ACOSS revealed that in 2016 “The highest 20% of households hold 62% of all wealth, the middle 20% hold 12% and the lowest 20% holds less than 1%”17

The recent ABS Household Income and Wealth Australia report for 2017-18 has now revealed that the rich are indeed getting richer, but not so the poor. It is apparent that, “after inflation, the worth of the top 20% jumped from $1.9M in 2003-4 to $3.2M in 2017-18 a rise of 68%” However the poorest 20% experienced a pitiful jump in wealth from $34 200 in 2003 to $35 200 in 2017-18, a miserable rise of 2.9%18

The rise of the “dole bludger” mythology

It is an alarming paradox that whilst wealth in Australia has become more polarised, and work more tenuous and difficult to obtain, the un/underemployed are increasingly being targeted as “the problem”. What more effective way is there to undermine this growing underclass, than to convince them that they are the problem. Thus, for decades, the mythical dole bludger has operated as a very powerful tool both in suppressing underclass dissent, as well as acting as a smoke screen for the masses by deflecting their attention away from the real causes of un/underemployment. It has been a case of ‘them- the undeserving” versus ‘us- the deserving’ or ‘out of mind’ and therefore ‘out of sight.’

It was in 1973 that a Liberal Party parliamentarian first used the term ‘bludger’ to describe the unemployed, giving rise to the notion of taxpayers having to fund unworthy social security recipients19 The term ‘dole bludger’ was first used “in December 1974 when an article appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald titled, “Minister hits at ‘dole bludgers’” 20 The minister in question was not a parliamentarian, but the former Anglican Dean of Sydney, the Rev. Dr. Stuart Barton Babbage who allegedly used the term in his sermon to the Scots Presbyterian Church in Sydney. During his sermon, he claimed that generous social security benefits had enabled a “generation of shameless bludgers” 21

However, the tactic of demonising the unemployed only works so far as the critical mass of un/underemployed remains below a prescribed threshold. Now, with well over a million un/underemployed in Australia, not to mention the impact on their families and friends, it is becoming increasingly difficult for governments and the media to perpetuate this myth. A

6 dangerous critical mass of displaced persons is fast approaching. The big question is- will this myth busting be a peaceful unwind, or will a violent anarchic social upheaval ensue?

The role of Jobactive agencies in the ‘internalization’ of the un/underemployment problem.

In the late 1990’s Commonwealth government commitment to the unemployed was finally disbanded as the old Commonwealth Employment Service (CES) gave way for privatised Job Network agencies. The old CES model was viewed by government as a wasteful, lazy culture which encouraged bludging. The new privatised Job Network agencies, operating on a contract basis, have since been viewed by successive governments as a more progressive approach to employment service provision. They have been justified by governments as they are ‘performance driven’ -unless they perform, their services are terminated. Their modus operandi is distinctly one of problem internalisation- the unemployed are the problem, not the system. This model is predicated on a hopelessly outdated 1950’s and 1960’s view of the Australian labour market where full employment was a given.

In this performance driven model, the onus of finding employment lies almost, if not entirely, with the unemployed, with agency responsibilities being relegated to surveillance and reporting for Centrelink breaching purposes. There are a number of false premises upon which Jobactive agencies operate:

1 That jobs are available but the jobseeker lacks the job seeking skills to get them.

Both major parties are locked into the mode of trying to fit ever increasing numbers of jobseekers into significantly declining numbers of job vacancies via skill provision and work readiness programs.22 This method is doomed to failure as no matter how appropriately skilled jobseekers are, there are simply insufficient vacancies for the number of applicants. All this effectively does is to raise the competitive bar, in making it even more difficult for the fortunate few who do obtain work. It is a case of the parable of the 100 dogs and the 95 bones. There will always be at least 5 dogs who miss out on a bone. To these 5 dogs, scores of professionals, case managers, psychologists are enlisted to address their shortcomings in finding bones which are not there, for the dogs who miss out.23

Both my wife and I were placed on numerous job training courses by Job Network agencies, where we were instructed to upgrade our resumes, make numerous contacts to employers, either over the phone or via cold canvass letters, interview role plays, or surfing numerous job search websites. None of these methods have ever been successful in procuring us employment.

This is a classic case of internalising the problem of unemployment, when the problem is clearly external.

2. A ‘one size fits all’ approach to jobseekers.

All job seekers are treated the same regardless if they are school leavers, blue collar workers, professionals, clerical, or newly arrived migrants. There needs to be a clear acceptance of people and job diversity. People are different. They have differing personalities and educational profiles, and therefore are suited to different jobs. Moreover, jobseekers have differing job

7 preparation needs, and some have significant disabilities to overcome. Failure to recognise this not only does a great disservice to the jobseeker but the community at large.

My wife and I were placed in the same type of job training courses despite our distinctly differing work and life backgrounds. I am an Australian citizen people professional with a teaching and social work background, and have English as a first language. My wife is a migrant with an economics and accounting assistant background with English as a second language. Clearly our job seeking needs are quite distinct. On one occasion a consultant tried to place me on a tele marketing course. I am typically reserved by nature, with absolutely no background in sales or marketing. No attempt was made to match me with training or employment suitable to my background. I have even witnessed a newly arrived migrant from Africa whose English was extremely poor being told to make a resume. The migrant had no idea, even of what a resume was! On another occasion a consultant appeared totally oblivious to an elderly southern European migrant’s poor english speaking ability stating to her ‘what do you mean you can’t speak english- if you’ve worked in a fish and chip shop you should be able to speak English!’

3. That the long term unemployed are recalcitrant malingerers, who need to try harder or be punished. You only need to try hard enough and you will get a job.

Psychological studies have indeed confirmed that protracted unemployment has a direct influence upon “ agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness with the influence contingent upon the year of unemployment, gender and reemployment”24 Moreover, that “unemployment is likely to entail unsettling and stress promoting situations”25, these “contribute to loneliness and low self-esteem” Particularly alarming is that “the experience of unemployment itself may create the personality traits which would subsequently be unfairly stigmatised against.” 26 What this means is that the process of unemployment makes people sick, inevitably leading to a psychological downward spiral, making people less and even totally unemployable. Compounding this is the negative personality traits created by protracted unemployment i.e. depression, withdrawal from society, which lead to ambivalence about one’s health and wellbeing such as poor hygiene and nutrition, drug and alcohol abuse which inevitably result in severe social stigmatisation.

Both my wife and I have been subjected to this mindset by job network agencies. After many years of unemployment one consultant said to my wife, “What’s wrong with you, why can’t you get a job?” On another occasion a consultant informed me, after many years of un/underemployment that I had been classified by Centrelink as ‘highly employable’ therefore I would be hammered by the agency with job interviews, until I was finally off welfare. I replied, if that was true, then an employment agency should have found me work years ago.

This is again, a clear attempt to internalise the problem which is external. Labelling the long term unemployed as recalcitrant malingerers, who need to try harder, is akin to giving a person dying of thirst, a glass of salt water

4. That jobseekers lack work experience and that by providing them with this it will enhance their job prospects. The adage “I can’t get a job because I don’t have the work experience and vica versa”

This has been a primary rationale by successive governments for ‘Work for the Dole’ as well as government subsidies to employers to hire the unemployed. At best, it is a tacit attempt by governments and agencies to address the alleged lack of skills by jobseekers. In reality, the application of government subsidies to employers is, an implied admission by government, that there simply aren’t enough jobs to go around. There is an assumption that once the person has work experience, the employer will extend their employment. This rarely, if ever happens. What usually happens is, once the subsidy expires and the agreed period of employment has finished, the jobseeker is dismissed, often with little or no warning. This has a devastating psychological effect on the jobseeker who ends up feeling ‘used and betrayed’

This is exactly what happened to my wife, who due to this demoralising experience, ended up needing medical attention for acute depression. It serves as a poignant illustration of how the system is designed to make people ill.

Work for the Dole, Mutual Obligation and Internalisation of the unemployment problem.

Both political parties have been complicit in the internalisation of unemployment, under the guise of “mutual obligation” and “work for the dole”

It was Bob Hawke in 1986 who first raised the idea of work for the dole:

First, while society has a responsibility to the unemployed, this is a two way process. The time has come, we believe when this two way responsibility will be best served by providing as far as possible, the opportunity, particularly for the younger recipients of unemployment benefits to undertake some community work in return for that benefit. I know from my experience with Priority One that this is the overwhelming view of our young people themselves27

The idea was further supported by the then leader of the opposition, Hon John Howard who in December 1986 proposed a “rationalisation of welfare programs including the phased introduction of work for the dole”28

It is important to recognise that on top of work for the dole, the unemployed are still required to maintain their other ‘mutual obligation’ requirements, ie 10 job applications a fortnight attending at least monthly appointments with their Job Network Provider, Centrelink appointments and any job interviews that they may have. This is indeed, an oppressive workload for an allowance that is well below the Henderson poverty line.

To her credit, in January 2019 the opposition ALP spokeswoman for employment services Terri Butler stated that a better framework for employments services would involve, “Less onerous compliance obligations imposed on providers and their unemployed clients” but stopped short by stating that, “A revamped version of mutual obligation would serve the purpose of making people employable and work ready (emphasis author) 29 Clearly, both

9 major parties remain committed to work for the dole with the ALP stating it would merely “redesign work for the dole”30

There is nothing “mutual” about “mutual obligation.” Both major political parties are stuck in the anachronistic mindset where the onus of responsibility for obtaining work lies squarely in the hands of the unemployed, not the government or business. Even if mutual obligation as a concept really existed in Australia (which it doesn’t) it is highly unlikely to succeed. The problem is there are simply not anywhere near enough jobs for those who want them, not to mention the rising tide of ‘underemployed’ those who have scant, unpredictable work who desperately want more. Any government faces a massive task in returning Australia to the idealistic levels of full employment in the 1950’s and 1960’s. With the projected rise in information technology, and automation, the crisis is set to escalate to unprecedented levels.

The Rise of the Machines: Artificial Intelligence and the future of work in Australia

If the current scenario isn’t grim enough, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is set to decimate an already dismal Australian job market. AI, once a morbid threat for many in blue collar industries is now set to be unleashed on white collar professions. It is apparent an AI work displacement tsunami is on our doorstep for which we are woefully unprepared.

Already AI is decimating blue collar jobs. Fastbricks Robotics is an ASX listed Perth based company which has designed a one armed Hadrian 105 robot with the ability to lay “225 standard brick equivalents per hour, which is about half a day’s work for a top human bricklayer”. The next prototype, Hadrian X, will have a brick laying capacity “of up to 1000 standard bricks equivalents an hour…that is double the daily output of a top bricklayer in just one hour.”31 Labour market experts Adzuna predict that “one in three Australian jobs are at risk of being automated by the year 2030,”32 Steve Worrall, the managing director of Microsoft Australia and Telstra executive Michael Ebeid paint a grim picture where up to 6.5 million Australian jobs will be displaced by robots.33 Venture capitalist Daniel Petre, co- founder of AirTree Ventures and a friend of Bill Gates assisted the writing of the McKinsey report. This report also includes input from other prominent business figures such as Commonwealth Bank of Australia, Chair, Catherine Livingstone. The report states that “up to 46% of existing work activities could be automated in Australia by 2030, displacing between 3.5million and 6.5 million full-time jobs”34 The report co-author Seckin Ungur makes the poignant comment that most workers think of displacement by AI as a blue collar phenomenon. This is no longer the case as “a new wave of automation is hitting all sectors and levels in almost every job, including white collar workers like accountants and legal clerks”35 In the financial services industry which deals with highly sensitive, confidential information about family investments, people are seeking out ‘robo-advisors’ as never before. Not only are such advisors viewed as cheaper, but also more trustworthy as, since the scandalous revelations of financial services royal commission, many investors have lost faith in human advisors.36 Australian supermarket chains are now taking up AI in order to cut costs, with self-serve no cash registers, safety robots that check isles for hazards, remote voice ordering and smart trolleys37 Moves are underway to introduce robots into the Australian hospitality industry, with UK based Yotel making its mark in Melbourne’s Southbank. This includes the use of mobile phones to check in and out and “having robots deliver food and housekeeping items”38

Indeed even medicine, which is widely regarded as an elite sacrosanct profession, is not immune from the onslaught of AI. Lord Darzi, who holds a chair of surgery at the Imperial

College, London commented that many of the functions that have previously been done by nurses and doctors could be performed by technology. This includes helping to feed patients, the use of “rehabilitation robots” and “telemedicine.” “Asking for a robot’ could increasingly be the norm in hospitals”. 39 Many in the medical profession may argue that it is well-nigh impossible to replace the intimate and sensitive doctor-patient relationship. However, there is little doubt that the outsourcing of many medical tasks to AI will mean doctors will have more time on their hands. It is logical that such efficiencies will mean fewer doctors required for the same workload.

Richard Baldwin uses the term “Globotics” as “the phenomenon of white collar robots that will work for nothing” and “tele- migrants who will work remotely for next to nothing” Baldwin is an optimist believing the tide of AI job displacement is overstated as there will be more jobs that robots simply cannot do, which he describes as jobs of the heart “What this (revolution) does is give more head to people who have heart but not more heart to people who have head.” 40 Baldwin argues there are facets of the human personality which are extremely difficult to replicate such as “social and emotional reasoning; coordinating with many differing people; acting in emotionally appropriate ways; and social and emotional sensing”41

But it is clear that we cannot all be teachers, nurses or social workers, and even Baldwin’s optimism is tempered with anxiety about the future of work. There is the danger that there will be winners and losers. Politicians will need to “find ways of sharing the gains” or at least “offering a perception that everyone has a fighting chance of being a winner”42. As well as firm government commitment to find displaced workers new employment, Baldwin emphasises that government tax and redistributive policies will undoubtedly need to be part of a social equalising platform. Baldwin believes,

“The bad news is the potential for a backlash from disaffected blue and white-collar workers who together could cause even bigger headaches for our politicians than displaced manufacturing workers already have in places such as the US”43

What politicians need to realise is that disaffected white collar workers, and particularly professionals, are a distinctly different cohort to unemployed blue collar workers. These people are highly intelligent, motivated, socially connected and are much less likely to blame themselves for their employment displacement, than blue collar workers. Many of them have studied and worked hard all their lives and believe that they have a social entitlement. Their displacement will mean that they present a direct threat to socio-political stability.

Government and tax redistributive policies, to redress this imbalance, are urgently needed, not only as a moral imperative, but also in order to stem an impending storm of bitterness and resentment of the “have nots” towards “the haves.”

The Centrelink compliance regime

As stated previously, it is a cruel paradox that there is an almost inverse relationship between increasing scarcity of job vacancies, duration on unemployment benefits, and Centrelink imposed compliance measures. Whilst from 1989 to 2017 the number of job vacancies has dramatically dropped and the duration on Centrelink benefits dramatically increased, so too has the number of Centrelink imposed compliance measures.

(Source: Per Capita, 19 September 2018, Working It Out: Employment Services in Australia)44

The Centrelink compliance regime is vast, complex and constantly changing. The system is brutally oppressive. Currently, Newstart recipients are required to sign up with a Jobactive agency, develop an employment plan, attend at least monthly interviews with a consultant, make 20 job applications a month, attend any training or education programs and attend any job interviews they might receive or might be organised by their Jobactive agency. After 6 months, recipients are also required to engage in Work for the Dole for up to 50 hours a fortnight.

According to the current Commonwealth Budget 2019-20, assistance to the unemployed and the sick is estimated to cost $10,476M for 2018-19 rising to a projected figure of $11,754M for 2022-23. However, while this may seem concerning, the estimated total welfare budget for the same periods are $172,749M and $200,217M respectively45. Therefore, for these periods, it is estimated that the unemployed and sick will cost taxpayers a mere 6.06% and 5.87% respectively of the total welfare package. For all the hype about dole bludgers, the unemployed are clearly a minute drain on the welfare budget.

Fortnightly earnings and job search reporting requirements

The past twenty years has seen enormous changes in these requirements. Prior to the year 2000 NSA recipients lodged fortnightly paper forms at their local Centrelink office. The form consisted of documenting any fortnightly earnings, and listing two job contacts they had made. They were required to attend the Commonwealth Employment Services (CES) on a six or twelve monthly basis, for an informal interview and to match their employment profile with any available job vacancies on the CES notice board.

Since 2000, the system has been progressively digitized, with NSA recipients being required to report fortnightly online via a Centrelink portal their earnings and confirm that they have met the mandatory job search requirements. Job search requirements have been radically tightened, from the pre year 2000 level of 2 per fortnight to the current level of 10 per fortnight, for most NSA recipients. In addition, NSA recipients are now required to report job contacts via the Jobactive website, which involves automatic digitized cross matching of recipients to any available vacancies.

It is assumed the recipient will apply for any cross matched vacancies. In reality, the cross matching is often ridiculous, bearing little, if any, resemblance to the recipient’s profile. Moreover, negotiating the system requires a relatively high level of computer literacy, and ready access to an on-line computer. It is, in short, no more than a digital surveillance system of NSA recipients for Centrelink and Jobactive agencies.

Jobactive

Jobactive, the Federal Government initiated system designed to find jobseekers work, is a dismal failure. A recent Government review has found that whilst in 2007 about 18% of employers used the system, by 2018, this figure had dropped dramatically to 4%. Moreover that 19.6% of jobseekers on the system had been out of work greater than 5 years46 The scheme is enormously expensive, costing some “$1.3B per year to run making it the second largest area of government procurement outside of the defence portfolio.”47 Even more alarming is that the system is fraught with corruption with the federal government clawing back some $41M of false claims made by employment agencies in three years. An ABC Four Corners investigation uncovered rampant forgery and records manipulation by Jobactive agencies48

At the grassroots level, the system is rife with complaints received by the Australian Unemployed Workers Union and other non-government agencies from NSA recipients of bullying, intimidation and standover tactics.

Work for the Dole

As previously mentioned, work for the dole was first suggested back in 1986 by Prime Minister Bob Hawke, as a form of mutual obligation for receiving unemployment benefits. It was then later taken up that same year by the leader of the opposition John Howard.

The required number of hours for Work for the Dole depend on a person’s age. For NSA recipients aged 18-49 years it is 50 hours a fortnight, for those aged 50-59 years it is 30 hours a fortnight, for those aged over 60 it is 10 hours a fortnight. The rationale given for the program is that it develops work skills, and personal confidence as well as the possibility of meeting people to be suitable work referees.49

However the reality is quite different. It is clear that work for the dole as a pathway to meaningful work has been an abject failure. A 2016 review into work for the dole found that, “The Coalition’s $1B work-for-the-dole scheme has improved the probability that an unemployed person will find a job by just 2 percentage points”50

Many applicants have complained about lack of training, unsuitable work placements, and sexual harassment. There was a case of a woman with two university degrees, when told she would be improving her administration and computer skills, spent her time cleaning the bathroom. Another applicant, with a broken leg was required to climb a ladder to prune trees and move furniture, including up to 100 chairs. When shown the doctors certificate, the workplace didn’t care. Another woman was sexually harassed by customers in a shop. The manager simply told her to “get out of the shop front” 51 Deeply disturbing is the incident of an eighteen year old who died when doing Work for the Dole. The young man fell off the back of a trailer being pulled by a tractor after it hit a bump. 52 According to ABS data, Work for the

Dole injury rates are 4.3 per cent. That equates to around one person in twenty on Work for the Dole who can expect to be injured53

Centrelink robo debt collection

The Centrelink Robo debt compliance system is rife with systemic flaws. Using a generic computer algorithm, the systems works by cross checking a recipients Centrelink income with taxation records averaged over a financial year. The problem is, it doesn’t take into account the largely casualized nature of the Australian workforce-when a person may have worked there may have also been significant time periods when they have not. Thus, there have been cases where income is “invented” by Centrelink when a person hasn’t been working. Many thousands of recipients have been wrongfully sent debt letters of thousands of dollars, in one instance as much as $30 000. A total of about 193 000 robo debt notices have been sent in the 2018-19 financial year54 Terry Carney, a former member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is scathing in his criticism of the scheme, saying the onus of proof lies squarely in the hands of Centrelink recipients, and that Centrelink doesn’t have to prove anything. “That is ...what we usually say is extortion” Mr Carney stated. In a shocking indictment of the system, “more than 77500 Centrelink robo-debts have been reduced, waived or written off” by the Department of Human Services.55 Tragically, robo debt has already claimed at least one life. Twenty two year old Jarrad Madgwick, took has own life after learning that his claim for Newstart would be rejected, as he apparently owed Centrelink $2000. It was the last straw for Mr Madgwick, who was forced to leave his job due to workplace bullying, had other debts to pay, and had just broken up with his girlfriend. After learning of his death, Centrelink cancelled the debt.56 Victoria Legal Aid has now launched two Federal Court challenges to the scheme.57

Parents Next Program

Parents who have a child under 6 years of age, and who have been on parenting payment for six months are required to report fortnightly and develop a participation plan with set activities. These may include

“Confidence building courses, personal development or presentation skills financial management attendance at medical or health related appointments or activities”

It may also include vocational preparation activities such as, “training or education activities, for example, TAFE, secondary school, adult education courses part-time work voluntary work Skills for Education and Employment (SEE) programme Adult Migrant English Program work preparation activities”58

It is a belittling program that makes young parents lives even more stressful, some with quite difficult children. One young mother complained about having to work 20 hours a fortnight, with no flexibility, despite having a child with an autistic disorder. Others complain about being required to read to their children at libraries or to take them to swimming lessons. Failure to engage in the program results in the accumulation of demerit points, with the potential to have Centrelink payments cut to vulnerable families with children59

These humiliating, heavy handed state sanctioned programs assume the poor are unable to look after their children, or seek out help if they need it. It smacks of hypocrisy. Perhaps we need to target politicians and Centrelink bureaucrats who place their toddlers in day care centres, so they can advance their careers- a socially acceptable form of emotional neglect.

Income management

Income management was first introduced by the Howard government in 2007 in the Northern Territory and the Cape York Peninsula. It initially targeted Aboriginal communities under the heading of ‘welfare quarantining’ where a prescribed percentage of Centrelink benefits were set aside for basics such as food, clothing, health, housing, education.60 Its primary objective has been to ensure welfare money is not being wasted on alcohol, drugs, gambling or pornography thereby reducing domestic and other violence. It has since been rolled out in targeted communities throughout Australia under headings such as the Basics Card and Debit Card

However, a Government commissioned review found “no evidence of changes in spending patterns, no evidence of any overall improvement in financial wellbeing, no evidence of improvement in community wellbeing, including for children” moreover, a report by Orima research found that 23% of respondents “said it had made their life better” while “42% said it had made their life worse”61

The scheme is expensive. According to the 2010-11 Federal Budget, it cost $405M in the Northern Territory alone. Moreover, it is a simplistic and naïve solution to complex pycho- social problems that emanate from unemployment, low self-esteem and depression. People don’t magically have their problems of alcohol or substance abuse solved by the introduction of an income rationing regime. Arguably, it actually makes a bad situation even worse, as alcoholics and addicts desperate for a drink or fix seek out money, “by other means.” Moreover, the card is open to undermining. It assumes that aboriginal people and other welfare recipients are stupid, when clearly they are not.

The Centrelink Breach Penalty System

The penalty system for NSA recipients who fail to comply with mutual obligation requirements is complex and severe. Mutual obligation includes entering into a Job Plan, attendance at all appointments, activities, and interviews arranged by the employment service provider, and the recording of job search efforts.62

A demerit point system currently applies. Each mutual obligation violation incurs a demerit point. A recipient starts off in the “green zone” with no demerit points. A “warning zone” operates, where a demerit point is issued for each violation, which results in payment suspension, until the recipient readdresses the violation. This is known as “reconnection” Once this happens they receive back payment. However, a recipient who fails to reconnect within four weeks risks benefit cancellation. In the “penalty zone” where a recipient has incurred five or more demerits, ‘they will loses 50% of their payment’ for a first violation. For the second violation ‘they will lose 100% of their payment’. A third violation results in payments being stopped for four weeks. Significantly, it is the employment service provider, not Centrelink, who is responsible for the issuing of demerits.63 More serve penalties exist for an “unemployment failure”, where a person chooses to leave a job without a valid reason or due to misconduct. This results in no payment for at least 4 weeks. A “work refusal” that is refusal to accept a suitable job offer or start a job will result in benefit cancellation64

Of particular concern is that the issuing of demerits is now not the responsibility of Centrelink, but Jobactive. Given Jobactive’s track record for corruption and fraud, this is indeed very alarming.

A sociological interpretation of the Centrelink compliance regime.

Over the past thirty years, ‘mutual obligation’ has been the rationale promulgated by successive governments for this oppressive compliance regime. We are constantly told by politicians and the media, that as welfare recipients receive a ‘generous’ stipend from the government (ie taxpayers) they are obliged to repay this, at least in kind. It is oppressive with good reason, so they say, in order to encourage recipients to get a real job and stop bludging on the system. After all, ‘the best form of welfare is a job,’ we are continually told by politicians in Canberra.

However, the reality of jobseekers to available vacancies is starkly different, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to perpetuate this ideology. Politicians have basically given up on solving the unemployment crisis and are now embarking on an orchestrated campaign of social control. How else can the inverse relationship between the diminishing number of job vacancies and explosion Centrelink compliance breaches be explained? The unemployed are being bullied into getting a job, any job, it doesn’t matter how demeaning, dangerous or unreasonable it may be- in order to make the government’s ABS statistics look good. In short, Australia has become a type of police state, targeting the unemployed. Like the Dutch boy who keeps his finger in the dyke hole to prevent the dam from bursting, the Centrelink compliance system keeps the unemployed busy, very busy and in constant fear of losing benefits- in order to focus attention upon the recipient and prevent social dissent. Given the dam is about to burst, this is now a dangerous strategy. I would suggest there is a much better way, both morally and economically, to resolve this crisis.

The case for an incentive based system: The Guaranteed Minimum Income

Given the situation of chronic unemployment is now so dire, and with the onslaught of AI set to become even worse, the proposal of a Guaranteed Minimum Income (GMI) is really the only option available. Failure to do so will invite impending social collapse, the dimensions we have never seen since probably the 1930’s era of the Great Depression. More disturbing, the moral ‘glue’ of mateship and community solidarity, which assisted previous generations though dire economic circumstances, is now largely absent. This makes the prospect of social collapse even more frightening.

It is clear the crowbar approach to welfare over the past thirty years is not only inhumane, cruel and unjust; it is also incredibly expensive, at times arguably illegal, and simply doesn’t work.

Indeed, a streamlined GMI system which ensures a safety net for the most economically disadvantaged, could, in this hi- tech digital age be very easily administered via the ATO, making the function of Centrelink largely redundant or reducing it to a caretaker role of ensuring people get their correct entitlements, in much the same way as Medicare operates.

I am well aware there are many critics who will argue, “but this only encourages dole bludging!” After all, won’t people simply sit around all day and watch TV, play video games on computers? Such accusations are based upon a flawed understanding of human psychology. Whilst indeed many people are lazy, emotions based on reward and incentive -some would say greed, significantly override this. After all, isn’t this what the democratic free enterprise system

is supposed to be based on? With a GMI there really would be an incentive to work. In any case, so what if there are a small minority of ‘bludgers’ (I would suggest they are a very small minority)- they are probably doing the rest of the unemployed and the nation a favour- as there are plenty of other people who desperately want and need work.

Many politicians argue that we can’t afford a GMI. However, given the number of unemployed already vastly outweigh current job vacancies, and with automation, this gap is set to blow out to cataclysmic levels, such assertions are irrational. There is an enormous government expenditure associated with running dysfunctional, corrupt and arguably illegal Centrelink robo debt collection, and Jobactive systems. A strong economic argument could be put forward for scrapping these and simply introducing a GMI. This is aside from the powerful moral imperative we now have to introduce one.

I am also aware that others may argue, “the wealthy don’t need a GMI!” I agree, and this could be effectively dealt with via the taxation system. I, as a self-funded retiree, certainly don’t need the support of a GMI. I want to make it clear that I am not advocating for a Universal Basic Income scheme which has been soundly refuted by many economists, as it only enhances “price elasticity” which ultimately benefits no-one. (for detailed argument of this, see footnote)65

Nor I am suggesting that we simply abandon the un/underemployed. There will always be a real need for quality employment service provision, but one based on incentive, not punishment. Indeed a voluntary system, underpinned by a GMI, would be a powerful motivating force for engagement for both jobseekers and employment service providers alike.

A system where the most disadvantaged have a guaranteed GMI , no questions asked, which ensures an iron clad safety net for the most disadvantaged would solve many current and impending future social and economic problems:

1. It would greatly assist in eliminating the tax welfare poverty trap of the working poor, who suffer significant financial oppression via both the Centrelink and taxation systems. Many un/underemployed are in the absurd position of obtaining casual employment and being financially worse off than on Centrelink benefits, once the factors of transport cost, work clothes and Centrelink reapplication waiting periods are factored in.

2. It would inject more much needed money into the Australian economy, which is currently stagnating. People are not spending money, because they don’t have money to spend, resulting in a downward spiralling negative multiplier effect. Unlike the wealthy, who have a propensity to save and invest, the poor are much more likely to spend any additional money they have. This in turn boosts the economy. There is a massive and growing domestic debt problem in this country. It has been widely accepted by economists that major political reforms are long overdue and badly needed to tax, industrial relations, competition and innovation.66

3. It would help alleviate pressure on costs associated with crime and health systems. Punitive Centrelink income deprivation regimes only encourage crime, as people are forced to seek income ‘by other means’ Others become severely depressed, even suicidal, whilst the stress of welfare deprivation engenders domestic violence This only results in further massive financial imposts on the judicial and medical systems, which are already at breaking point.

4. It would greatly reduce government financial waste of the punitive Centrelink/ Job Network compliance regime. A GMI rather than being “the system we can’t afford” as many politicians argue would probably be cheaper than the current system of welfare provision. Dysfunctional welfare compliance systems are enormously expensive, and largely ineffective. Arguably, it costs far more to implement these systems than they recoup. They are a very bad investment, both socially and economically.

The Centrelink compliance system is so complex that even educated professionals have trouble understanding it. Errors are constantly being made resulting in further cost blow outs. A simple more streamlined GMI system would greatly assist stamping out fraud. Sophisticated criminals take advantage of complex multi- layered systems and become easily hidden in the veil of complexity- often not discovered until years later. The current system is a soft target for identity fraud. For example, the separate cases of the Karlie Pearce Stevenson and the notorious Snowtown ‘bodies in the barrel’ murders both involved Centrelink identity fraud.67

Whilst a detailed analysis of how a GMI might be implemented is outside the scope of this paper, it could possibly operate along similar lines to the Family Tax Benefit (FTB) system. Payments could either be made in arrears for the previous financial year, or as a forward estimate for the following financial year. Any excess payments would need to be repaid in a similar way to current FTB arrangements. A person could opt to have the payments made fortnightly, or as a yearly lump sum.

Conclusion

The provision of welfare for the un/underemployed in Australia is now approaching an existential crisis, which threatens the very social fabric of our society. We urgently need to reappraise how we view ‘unemployment’ and the future of work generally. It is a tragic irony that whilst the digital economy threatens the working lives of so many, it also has the potential to make all of our lives less stressful and to increase our leisure time spent with family and friends- if only its benefits were distributed evenly and fairly to all. Tragically, we as a society are choosing not to do this. Whilst I laud those who ‘long for the good old days’ of government guaranteed full employment, I fear this is simply not possible. The genie is out of the bottle, and one cannot unscramble an egg.

The Australian welfare “industry” is a corpse on furlough, which urgently needs to be relegated to the dustbin of history. Our country can no longer afford the current system- both economically and morally. A massive cultural shift in Australian society is now required, and particularly by federal government, business and the media. The endemic and growing problem of un/underemployment requires an immediate radical policy reorientation. I am aware many politicians will argue that as the general electorate will never accept a GMI, it is a politically unfeasible proposition. But just who is responsible for this callous hardened perception of the unemployed? It would seem that government and media have largely driven public opinion. Education, truth and justice are the hallmarks of strong and wise leadership. Governments have a moral responsibility to ‘tell it like it really is’ rather than employ the brainwashing techniques of deception and distortion- so that we can all tackle this very serious problem with intelligence, maturity and integrity. The un/underemployed are no longer to be seen as ‘the problem.’ The problem belongs to us all.

Failing our ability to guarantee full employment for all, we as a nation, have a moral obligation to provide for the un/underemployed via a non-negotiable GMI . Australians more than ever seek politicians with vison and courage. They are sick and tired of political opportunism. Australians’ confidence in the ‘democratic’ system is now at an all-time low. The qualification age for the aged pension has now been increased from 65 to 67 years on the premise ‘we are all living longer’. To hear this, when politicians only have to serve two consecutive terms in office, to qualify for a parliamentary pension is particularly galling, and smacks of blatant hypocrisy and contempt for the Australian people

Inequality is rising in this country. In my lifetime I have seen enormous changes in the social fabric of this country, sadly for the worse. We have become a shallow, divided, mean spirited nation. There are times I feel deeply ashamed to be called an Australian citizen- because it really doesn’t have to be this way. Unless this cultural shift occurs, not just within government but the wider Australian society, then I hold grave fears for the social cohesion of this country, which is slipping toward a French or even South African form of anarchic decay.

End notes

1 Owen Bennett, Emma Dawson, Abigail Lewis, David O’ Halloran, Warwick Smith, “Working It Out: Employment Services in Australia” Percapita September 2018 p13 https://percapita.org.au/wp- content/uploads/2018/09/Working-It-Out-FINAL.pdf viewed 22/07/19 2 IBID 3 Labour Statistics: Concepts, Sources and Methods released 11:30 AM Canberra Time 12/02/2018 in www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@nsf/Lookup/bysubject/6102/0.55.001~Feb2018~Main Features~Unemployment~6 cited 04/03/19 4 Roy Morgan, Unemployment at 11% in August highest for more than two years Article No 7728 Thurs 13 September 2018 www.roymorgan.com/findings/7728-roy-morgan-australian-unemployment-august-2018- 201809130135 viewed 05/06/19 5 IBID 6 Prof. John Quiggin, ARC Australian Laureate Fellow, School of Economics, University of Queensland, in Das, Sushi and Campbell, David. RMIT ABC Fact Check in Fact Check: Has the Rate of Casualization in the Workforce remained steady for the last 20 years? www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-17/fact-check-casualisation/ cited 04/03/19 7 H. Buddelmeyer,Transitions from Casual Employment in Australia Project 09/05 Melbourne Institute of Applied Economics and Social Research, University of Melbourne Dec 2006 P21 in Casual Employment in Australia: A Quick Guide, Parliament of Australia, 20 Jan 2015, Anthony Kryger, Economics Section 8 Geoff Gilfillian, Statistic Mapping Section, Parliamentary Library, Information Analysis Advice Statistical Snapshot 19th Jan 2018 Research Paper Series 2017-18 parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/library/prspub/5742396/upload binary/5742396.pdf in Das, Sushi and Campbell, David. Op. Cit. 9 Roy Morgan Article No 7728 Thurs 13 September 2018 Unemployment at 11% in August highest for more than two years www.roymorgan.com/findings/7728-roy-morgan-australian-unemployment-august-2018- 201809130135 viewed 05/06/19 10 Quoted in E.G. Whitlam, “The Whitlam Government 1972-1975” Penguin Books, Ringwood VIC 1985 P183 in Verity Archer, Dole Bludgers, Tax Payers and the New Right: Constructing Discourses of Welfare in the 1970’s p180 11 Verity Archer p180 12 Verity Archer p183 13 IBID 14 Verity Archer p184 15 Verity Archer p181

16 Inequality in Australia 2018- Australian Council of Social Service. P22 Pub. By Australian Council of Social Service in partnership with the University of NSW https://www.acoss.org.au/wp- content/uploads/2018Inequality-in-Australia-2018.pdf cited 23/04/19 17 IBID p51 18 ABS Household Income and Wealth Australia 2017-18 Report, in Stephen Long and Michael Janda, ABC New Business Friday 12 July 2019 “Rich are getting richer, but stagnating wages mean income inequality is steady” https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-12/household-income-and-wealth-abs-data-shows-rich-are- richer/11302696?section=business 19 Keith Windshuttle Unemployment: A Social and Political Analysis of the Economic Crisis in Australia, Penguin Harmondsworth 1979 pp 156-57 in Verity Archer, Dole Bludgers, Tax Payers and the New Right: Constructing Discourses of Welfare in the 1970’s p179 In Labour History No 96 (May2009) pp177-190 Pub. Liverpool University Press 20 “Minister hits at ‘Dole Bludgers’” Sydney Morning Herald 16 Dec 1974 p3. In Verity Archer p179 21 IBID 22 Terri Butler MP ALP Opposition spokeswoman for employment Services, and young Australians emphasises that mutual obligation should be about ‘making people employable and work ready” as well as “delivering labour market programs,” Terri Butler, “We Should Make this Broken Jobs system Redundant”, The Australian January 18, 2019 P10 23 Emeritus Prof Bill Mitchell Job Services Australia- Ineffective and Rife with Corruption- Scrap It Posted on Mon Feb 23 2015 bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=30248 24Journal of Applied Psychology 2015, Vol 100, No4, 991-1011 copyright 2015 American Psychological Association Personality Change Following Unemployment. www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/apl- a0038647.pdf viewed 11/03/19 25 D. Dooley,.,J Prause,, & K. A. Ham-Rowbottom, (2000). Underemployment and depression: Longitudinal relationships. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 41, 421–436. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2676295 in Journal of Applied Psychology 2015, Vol 100, No4, 991-1011 26 L.M. Heinrich, & E. Gullone,(2006). The clinical significance of loneliness: A literature review. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 695–718. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2006.04.002 in Journal of Applied Psychology 2015, Vol 100, No4, 991-1011 27 Hon R J L Hawke AC MP Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia. Address to the Nation on the Economic Situation and Supporting Statement Delivered 11 June 1986 P4 28 Hon John Howard MP Leader of the Opposition at the Boulevard Hotel Sydney 8th Dec. 1986 Address to Committee for Economic Development of Australia (CEDA) The Australian Economy: 1986 in Retrospect, 1987 in Prospect p14 https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/media/pressrel/HPR09019254/upload binary/HPR09019254.p df;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22media/pressrel/HPR09019254%22 viewed 7/08/19 29 Terri Butler MP ALP Shadow Minister for Employment Services, Workforce Participation and Future of Work, “We Should Make this Broken Jobs System Redundant” The Australian, Jan 8 2019 P10 30 Rick Morton, Social Affairs Writer, “Labor plans overhaul of job welfare” in The Australian Jan 8 2019 p1 31 Chris Pash, July 27, 2016, “A one armed Australian robot can build a house four times quicker than a brickie” Business Insider Australia, www.businessinsider.com.au/video-a-one-armed-australian-robot-can- build-a-house-four-times-quicker-than-a-brickie-2016-7 viewed 13 July 2019 32 David Scutt , Rise of the Machines: New Research predicts a third of Australian jobs will be lost to automation by 2030 www.businessinsider.com.au/rise-of-the-machines-new-research-predicts-a-third-of-australian-jobs- will-be-lost-to-automation-by-2030-2018-3 21 March 2018 cited 04/03/19 33 Patrick Durkin, “Devastating’: Robots to take 6.5 million jobs” The Australian Financial Review Monday 1 April 2019 p10 34 As above 35 As above 36 Luke Housego, “Australians embracing ‘robo-advisors” The Australian Financial Review Tuesday 23 April 2019 p20 37 Sue Mitchell, “AI Coming to an aisle near you” The Australian Financial Review 13-14th July 2019 p6 38 Su-Lin Tan, “Hotel Yotel to offer robot maids”, The Australian Financial Review 18th July 2019 p36 39 Tim Adams, “The robot will see you now: could computers take over medicine entirely?” The Guardian, 29 July 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/29/the-robot-will-see-you-now-could- computers-take-over-medicine-entirely viewed 22/07/19

40 Helen Trinca , “Position Vacant: Human” The Australian Tues Jan. 8th 2019 P8 commenting on Baldwin Richard, The Globotics Upheaval: Globalisation, Robotics and the Future of Work Pub. Hachette 41 IBID 42 IBID 43 IBID 44 Owen Bennett, Emma Dawson, Abigail Lewis, David O’ Halloran, Warwick Smith, “Working It Out: Employment Services in Australia” Percapita September 2018 p13 https://percapita.org.au/wp- content/uploads/2018/09/Working-It-Out-FINAL.pdf viewed 22/07/19 45 Budget 2019-20: Budget Strategy and outlook: Budget paper No1. Circulated by the Hon. Josh Frydenburg MP Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Australia and Sen the Hon Mathias Cormann, Minister for Finance and the Public Service of the Commonwealth of Australia 2 April 2019 Statement 5: Expenses and Net Capital Investment. Table 9: Summary of Expense- Social Security and Welfare P5-22 viewed 08 July 2019 www.budget.gov.au/2019-20/content/bp1/download/bp1.pdf 46 Department of Jobs and Small Business I Want to Work: Employment Services 2020 Report Commonwealth of Australia, p8 47 Per Capita, 19 September 2018, Working It Out: Employment Services in Australia https//percapita.org.au/our_work/working-it-out-employment-services-in-australia viewed 10/07/19 48Linton Besser, Ali Russell , and Mario Christodoulou,:”Government Recovers Over $41 Million of False Claims after Rorting of Job Services Australia Scheme” ABC News Four Corners www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02- 23/government-recovers-millions-after-rorting-of-jobs-scheme/6193022 viewed 08/07/19 49 Australian Government, Department of Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Work for the Dole information for jobseekers https://www.employment.gov.au/work-dole-information-job-seekers viewed 17/07/19 50 Heath Aston, “Work for the dole has little effect on finding work: review” Updated Feb 11 2016 9:09PM Sydney Morning Herald www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/work-for-the-dole-has-little-effect-on-finding-work- review-20160211-gmrpuw.html viewed 13 May 2019 51 Claudia Taranto, Michele Weekes and Erica Vowles for life Matters, ABC News, updated 21 Sept 2018 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-21/whats-it-really-like-to-work-for-the-dole/10255350 52Chris Dengate, Stephen Smiley “Work for the Dole ‘should be scrapped’, says family of teen who died while working for the program” ‘The Signal’ ABC News https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-19/calls-to-close- work-for-the-dole/9673238 viewed 17/07/19 53 Claudia Taranto, Michele Weekes and Erica Vowles for life Matters, ABC News, updated 21 Sept 2018 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-21/whats-it-really-like-to-work-for-the-dole/10255350 54 Emily Mc Pherson, July 4 2019 “Centrelink robo debt customers left in the dark over Centrelink debt” Nine News https://www.9news.com.au/national/centrelink-robodebt-customers-left-in-the-dark-over-centrelink- debt-claims-australia-news/38d75381-1a97-4f35-83da-4e18167da08f 55 Shalailah Medhora, ABC Triple j Hack 28 March 2019 https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/more- than-77500-centrelink-robodebts-waived-or-reduced/10948942 viewed 30/07/19 56 Emily McPherson, “Queensland man took his own life after learning of Centrelink debt, mum says”. Nine News 30th July 2019 https://www.9news.com.au/national/centrelink-robodebts-queensland-man-took-his- own-life-over-debt-mum-says-australia-news/e31e6f28-2e4b-4d3f-9095- d8f74e00cbc1?ref=BP RSS ninenews 0 queensland-man-took-his-own-life-after-learning-of-centrelink- de 300719 viewed 30/07/19 57Paul Farrell and Alex Mc Donald, “Centrelink robo-debt system is extortion, says former tribunal member” ABC News 27 June 2019 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-27/centrelink-robo-debt-system-extortion- former-tribunal-member/11252306 58 3.5.1.167 Parents Next Summary and Participation Requirements in the Australian Government Guides to Social Security Law-Social Security Guide Version 1.255- Released 1 July 2019 http://guides.dss.gov.au/guide- social-security-law/3/5/1/167 viewed 15/07/19 59 Norman Hermant, National social affairs correspondent,:” Parents Next program comes under fire from single mothers who say it ‘makes life harder’ updated 1 Feb. 2019 ABC News https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-01/centrelink-payment-parentsnext-under-fire/10763732 viewed 15/07/19 60 Luke Buckmaster,Carol Ey, Michael Klapdor, Social Policy Section Parliament of Australia: “Income Management: An Overview” 21 June 2012 https://www.aph.gov.au/About Parliament/Parliamentary Departments/Parliamentary Library/pubs/BN/201 1-2012/IncomeManagementOverview viewed 15/07/19 21

61 Peter Martin “The cashless welfare card may not be quite the success it seems” Sydney Morning Herald updated Sept 7, 2017 https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/the-cashless-welfare-card-may-not-be-quite-the- success-it-seems-20170906-gybm0q.html 62 Department of Human Services, “Demerits and penalties for not meeting mutual obligation requirements” https://www.humanservices.gov.au/individuals/topics/demerits-and-penalties-not-meeting-mutual- obligation-requirements/44416 viewed 23/07/19 63 Legal Services Commission of South Australia, last revised Tues 18th September 2018, https://lawhandbook.sa.gov.au/ch32s01s02s02.php viewed 23/07/19 64 Department of Human Services, Op Cit. 65 Larkin Stirling, Chief Investment Officer, Australian Standfirst “Why universal basic income is a bad idea“ in The Australian Financial Review Wednesday 3 July 2019 p24 comments: “UBI is economically flawed for one rudimentary reason: if some in any given society receive additional cash or income from whatever source, then yes, assistance or advantage can be gained by some; but universal income, then market forces naturally accommodate and the price of everything moves accordingly, dollar for dollar” 66 John Kehoe in “Incomes to be weak for years” states that economists are clear both sides of politics have failed to deliver major economic reform to these areas for well over a decade Australian Financial Review Tuesday 26th Feb 2019 p1 67 Natalie Whiting, “Details of fraud in Karlie Pearce-Stevenson murder investigation similar to Snowtown killings, journalist says” ABC News ,updated 27 Oct 2015 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10- 27/similarities-between-pearce-stevenson-and-snowtown-killings/6890334 viewed 22/07/19