politics

Scott Morrison says Aussies are deliberately choosing to stay on JobSeeker. But that's not true.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison is worried Australians are choosing not to work because their unemployment benefits are too generous.

"What we have to be worried about now is that we can't allow the Jobseeker payment to become an impediment to people going out and doing work, getting extra shifts," he told 2GB radio on Monday. 

He continued: "We are getting a lot of anecdotal feedback from small businesses, even large businesses. Some of them are finding it hard to get people to come and take the shifts because they're on these higher levels of payment."

In March, the federal government announced a Coronavirus Supplement of $550 a fortnight ($275 a week) for six months, ending in September, effectively doubling the JobSeeker Payment, previously known as Newstart.

There have increasingly been calls for JobSeeker to be permanently increased after the supplement ends. In 2019, with JobSeeker at its usual rate of $40 a day, Morrison refused to consider increasing the payment, even amid calls from within his own party.

At the time, the prime minister told parliament he wanted "to commend all those Australians who are on Newstart and looking for a job" and repeated a favourite line of his, that "the best form of welfare is a job".

The thing is, ScoMo, right now there are no jobs.

Image: ABS.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics reported in May there were 129,100 job vacancies, a decrease of 43.2 per cent from February 2020. At that same point, there were 927,600 people unemployed.

On Wednesday, the Australian Unemployed Workers' Union (AUWU) shared stats that found for every 18 Australians currently unemployed, there is only one job available: There are more than 1.6 million people unemployed, and just under 92,000 jobs advertised on Seek.

Following Morrison's comments about 'anecdotal evidence', the government released data from the National Skills Commission. The Guardian, which closely analysed the figures, found of the 2324 employers surveyed, only about 22 per cent (514) were currently recruiting.

Of those 514,139 reported they were having, or expected to have, difficulty recruiting. 72 out of those 139 cited lack of applicants as a reason.

The job market has collapsed during the COVID-19 pandemic. That is through no fault of those who are now receiving government assistance. Their jobs were sacrificed as we made decisions to ensure the health of other Australians.

It is simply unfair to demonise them.

This 'dole bludger' rhetoric has been picked up by Australian media. The Australian's front page on Tuesday read "Jobless opt for dole over work".

Image: The Australian.

Also on Tuesday, Channel Nine's Today show interviewed former Liberal MP and business owner Craig Laundy, who said those relying on government assistance should get off their "backsides". He later did an interview with News Corp, saying staff at his family's pubs had been "taking the Mickey" by refusing to turn up to shifts.

The 'dole bludger' rhetoric is damaging, and untrue. This was the case before the pandemic caused mass job losses, and it is the case now.

In a statement to Mamamia, the AUWU said it rejected the Prime Minister's statement, "because, as the Prime Minister should well know, Jobseeker recipients who turn down work are penalised for it under Mutual Obligations". 

"We also reject the claims made by spurned bosses who don't even understand the system well enough to lie about. It is a deliberate attack on jobseekers in an attempt to paint them in a negative light and further harmful myths about those on social security payments.

"Nobody chooses this - It’s obscene to say people are choosing to be unemployed right now. We are in the middle of the worst unemployment crisis in a lifetime."

What is true is Morrison's "how good is a job?" line. Having a job gives people purpose, and research shows it has a positive impact on mental health. 

Having a job is good, and those who can work overwhelmingly want to. But there needs to be jobs in order for them to do so (and this is not even taking into account specific skills and training required for many types of work. It is important to remember that not everyone can jump into any job. This drastically cuts the number of appropriate jobs someone can apply for).

Morrison's fears that JobSeeker is paying recipients too much is curious in its timing, too, considering upcoming decisions to be made by the government about the future of the payment after September.

As mentioned, he has long been against raising payments. Will it return to $40 a day, forcing those out of work to live below the poverty line? That provides another impediment to getting a job.

The future of the JobSeeker payment is unclear, but the future of those who are out of work, unable to find suitable employment in an empty job market should not be determined by 'anecdotal evidence'.

Feature image: Getty.

Related Stories

Recommended

Top Comments

healthglo 4 years ago 2 upvotes
It is actually true for some people and not for others. People are complicated - those recently unemployed would do anything to get back into the job market. 
But there is also a whole slab of society who don’t want to work for a variety of reasons - lack of self worth and anxiety being among it.  The new higher payment would be a blessing for those accustomed to wages.   But it is not without issues. My best friend is an alcoholic and the extra money has turned wine into vodka and escalated her dire problems into catastrophic.  I do actively know many people who will not try too hard to work ( mainly school leavers living at home) loving the boosted youth allowance. For some  of them  it literally is a disincentive to work.  4 of my siblings are long term unemployed. To be honest they are unemployable and I am of mixed feelings if the extra money is good or bad- because it literally has funded addictions and poor choices but also some good things- like a new washing machine or needed clothes.   I do think the way social welfare is done in the UK with more social housing and subsidised essentials like free medication is better then increased cash payments. 
The  current payment is too high compared to the minimum wage to be sustainable. 
The extra $75 a week sounds reasonable. I also think those recently unemployed need an extra supplement for a period of time. 
cat 4 years ago 1 upvotes
@healthglo it’s completely irrational to give people who are ‘recently unemployed’ higher payments than people who have been unemployed longer. Why would people with savings need more money than people who have lived below the poverty line for years? You’re basically just saying that you consider people who have been employed recently to be a better class of humans, whereas people with addictions, people facing age discrimination and people with disabilities don’t deserve the funds we think ‘real’ people are worthy of. 


And self-worth, addiction and anxiety are very real medical conditions which often prevent people from working, they aren’t ‘choosing’ not to work. If you genuinely want to address those issues then people need medical care, stability, money and support, not poverty and shame. Our ‘Hardline’ approach to welfare  just pushes people into situations they no longer have any chance of getting out of.
healthglo 4 years ago
@cat people recently unemployed often have bigger outgoings - ie mortgage payments higher rent etc so losing a job suddenly is pretty drastic if you don’t have a lot of savings. They are not a better class of person but they do have an acute money flow issue that is not their doing with lockdowns etc.   Long term unemployed often have reasons they can’t work/hard to employ and I just don’t think throwing cash only is the solution- more social housing so people are not paying ridiculous rent and free medication I do think would make a huge difference to stability and quality of life.  I speak from experience - I come from a low socioeconomic back ground. Half my childhood friends now 40 have not really worked and have barriers to employment - like severe addiction and mental health issues that money will not address. Money just gets turned into junk and alcohol.  This friend who has kids was homeless for a year due to severe housing shortages and long waits for housing.  WhAt would help her is better access to rehab, free medication for her mental health and a home. More money has helped with some things but it ain’t going to be budgeted by someone with an addiction. That Is the reality for many.  Real life changing funding of free medicine, free specialist appointments Without needing $200 up front and positive support would be great.- along with some extra cash. 
cat 4 years ago 1 upvotes
@healthglo the vast majority of people on welfare long-term are just over the age of 50. They aren’t spending money on drugs. And people who work don’t have higher outgoings than people who are unemployed, we all have the same basic requirements. Unemployment doesn’t mean that you get free accommodation, food, services, cars, or anything else, and long term unemployment means you don’t have any of the savings that a recently employed person should. A mortgage doesn’t mean that some people deserve more government support than others. 

There’s no doubt that we need free medication, more mental health treatment and public housing. But we also need to treat everyone as a equal human being. You’re basically saying that people who are employed can be trusted with money, but people who are unemployed can’t do we need to treat them like children. Many many people with jobs don’t have a great sense of how to spend money, and there are so many welfare recipients who know exactly how to look after themselves. The only system that works is to pay everyone enough to survive on. And then if some people are struggling to manage that and need support in other ways, that should be addressed. But forcing all people who are long-term unemployed to choose between food or clothes or rent just so you can make sure they don’t have ‘drug money’ is just terrible policy. And creating two different payment levels inherently creates classes of humans. 
healthglo 4 years ago
@cat . I do think someone who has just lost a regular income with have debts higher then someone accustomed to a lower wage. You can’t just find a cheaper rental overnight or Stop your car payments, hence why I think an  adjustment period In a time of forced unemployment is fair. Time to either find a new job or down size the rental, sell the car etc. 

Life is not equal. We should target help to those that need it is a way that is useful and not another barrier to a better life.   Many people have addictions, it’s just easier to cope/ hide with them if you have a job to pay for it.  Long term unemployed under a certain age usually have real issues why they don’t work and addiction or mental health is right up there. I and not talking out my arse- these are my friends, my siblings my step sister. More money doesn’t make them equal. More support and safe house is what makes a change. My step sister was unemployed for 30 years but now has a job at Kmart are targeted support and easing back into work in a way that built her confidence. She is still an alcoholic and stoner but it’s more in control now.
My brother was helped by finally getting into supported housing with all meals provided and supervision as he has schizophrenia. Giving him more money when living alone should have just make his situation worse. Having a public trustee and NDIS has been a life changer- but not until his live was a rock bottom mess.  my other friends and sibling are lucky enough to to now be in public housing after years of waiting and living in squalid/ sub standard condition and the stability is helpful. They extra money they have been getting has not been a blessing though as it has literally gone on drugs/ alcohol.  I can think of better ways to spend money on them that might actually create positive change.   It’s not about being equal- but offering support to those that need it most in a way that actually helps.  If it was equal we would all be getting money for nothing. 

cat 4 years ago 3 upvotes
Ah, I see we’re now basing social and economic policy on what a man who inherited billions, and who pays staff minimum wage to work bar jobs says on tv. Fortunately for Laundy there are a lot of international students looking for jobs right now if he’s serious that he needs more help. They don’t even get jobseeker so that’s perfect. 

I’m willing to ‘anecdotally’ Say that employers who are having trouble getting people to cover shifts are trying to pay their workers for a minimum amount of work, which is enough to cancel their support payments but not enough to cover their expenses. 

But I’m sure ScoMo thinks we should let employers exploit employees to ‘get the economy back on track’ , that seems entirely consistent with his level of contempt for anyone outside his party or church.