[Commpsych] FW: [Womenforwik] some bad social policy

[Heather Gridley]

More good sense from Eva Cox on bad policy ....
 
________________________________

From: womenforwik-bounces at whatsworking.com.au on behalf of eva cox
Sent: Thu 19/08/2010 8:45 AM
To: dissenting-voices at listserv.uts.edu.au; ausfem-polnet at postoffice.utas.edu.au; socialjustice at yahoogroups.com
Cc: womenforwik at whatsworking.com.au; feministconference at yahoogroups.com; Welmembers List
Subject: [Womenforwik] some bad social policy


Persecuting The Poor?
Centre for Policy Development http://cpd.org.au/
AUGUST 19, 2010
There are clearly more jobseekers than jobs, writes Eva Cox. So why are
Australian politicians so set on punishing the victims of social inequality?
It is NOT the mark of a civilised society if its laws punish the victims of
its inequities. It should be very obvious to anyone with half a brain that
there are not enough jobs for all of those who either want one or is
compelled to look for one. The ratio of job vacancies to official job
seekers, is at least more than three seekers per listed job - and more
realistically probably more than 10 to one.

There were approximately 170,000 job vacancies listed by ABS in June and a
similar number of ANZ advertised job vacancies in July. At the same time,
there were about 808,000 recipients of Newstart registered with job agencies
and more than 600,000 listed as unemployed in the ABS labourforce survey
(meaning those with not even an hour a week of paid work). Given that many
jobs go to people already in employment and most of the jobs on offer would
require particular skills, the ratio of possible job seekers per available
job would escalate. The current unemployment rate of around 5 per cent is
seen as a "natural" level of full employment - which should please the
government as it also makes the Reserve Bank less likely to raise interest
rates.

A responsible government should be looking for equitable ways of sharing
available jobs and making sure that those unfortunately stuck on benefits
can maintain a decent standard of living. However, the only times that the
unemployed have rated any attention in this campaign have been when one or
both major parties have assumed they are guilty of causing their own
predicament. Therefore both major parties' policies include linked bribes
and penalties to punish those not seen as trying hard enough. The indigent
"dole bludger" fits neatly into populist politics and the rather
paternalistic (parentalistic?) prejudices of both political leaders. "Get a
job" is an easy slogan to gain public support, even when the likelihood is
very limited for most recipients of Newstart.

These proposals ignore the pain of futile job seeking, the shortage of jobs
and the effects of discrimination. Being unemployed can undermine confidence
and enhance risk avoidance, particularly if people have experienced many
rejections from complying with already tough job seeking requirements.
Newstart payments go to a wide variety of groups that do have difficulties
in finding work because of disabilities, sexuality, ethnic or Indigenous
backgrounds, age, youth, and just not having the confidence and networks
that help people find work.

Policies that fund work experience/job creation would be better than those
currently on offer as they are often the necessary first stage of giving
people the confidence to seek other employment. It is likely that the
proposed payments to move for work will attract only the more confident -
and probably more competent - workers who are more likely to get work
anyhow. For many, the threat of losing 3 or 6 months benefits if they fail
to keep the job will be a major disincentive for even trying.

These new proposals reinforce earlier welfare proposals with problematic
similarities such as the joint threat to extend Income Management to all on
benefits - including sole parents. There appears little space for policies
that recognise social exclusion is not usually an individual deficit
problem. Current ALP justifications for introducing Income Management assume
that nearly all welfare recipients lead 'disordered lives' that cause their
problems, unless they can prove otherwise. This extreme view ignores the
majority of payment recipients who manage poverty and exclusion quite
competently. There are obviously families and individuals with a range of
personal problems in the welfare system, but assuming all do disrespects and
risks damaging those who are now coping adequately.

We need to recognise that most recipients of payments are damaged by social
inequalities and external problems that not of their making. Basing policies
on assumptions that the faults are in the person not the system means there
is no reason for social changes. Stigmatising the poor and disadvantaged to
gain some voter brownie points makes both ineffective policies and social
fragmentation. It is also deeply unethical.

Eva Cox



_______________________________________________
WomenForWik mailing list
WomenForWik at whatsworking.com.au
http://www.whatsworking.com.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/womenforwik




This email, including any attachment, is intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. It is confidential and may contain personal information or be subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure, reproduction or storage of it is unauthorised. If you have received this email in error, please advise the sender via return email and delete it from your system immediately. Victoria University does not warrant that this email is free from viruses or defects and accepts no liability for any damage caused by such viruses or defects.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.curtin.edu.au/pipermail/commpsych/attachments/20100819/0b8a5fd4/attachment.htm