|
The
Newman Letter
30
September 04
Long term unemployment
- a 20 year term
A
long-term dole recipient phoned me the other day.
He’d been unemployed almost 20 years and, after
reading some of the comments I’d made – about long-term
unemployment being an undeniable symptom of Government failure
– he wanted to tell me his side of the story.
He
explained that, 20 years ago, a Family Court Judge threatened
to pass an unfair verdict in a custody case involving his
children. He said he told the judge that, if he went ahead with such an
unreasonable finding, then he would refuse to ever work again.
The judge ignored his concerns, passed the judgment
and, the father alleges, he’s been on the dole ever since.
He
says it’s not difficult to fail the rare job interviews he
has to attend and, meanwhile, runs a company – paying
himself $60 an hour and living a double life.
He claims to know at least 20 others doing basically
the same thing, and scoffs at the Department of Work and
Income for its incompetence in failing to make him take a job.
Taxpayers
need protecting from those long-term unemployed – like my
unidentified caller – who are quite capable of working, but
choose to abuse the system.
We need mechanisms in place to require that anyone who
is able-bodied gets, and keeps, a job. At a time when the country is crying out for workers, it is
simply unacceptable for anyone to be unemployed in the
long-term.
Yet,
official figures tell us that there are around 78,000 people
receiving the dole. While
some 22,000 have been on a benefit for less than six months,
over 56,000 have been on welfare longer than six months –
with more than 30,000 for over two years.
Of those, some 5,000 had been receiving a benefit for
over 10 years.
Alan
Harper was one such person.
At the age of 45 – just six months ago – Alan got
his first full-time job after 20 years unemployment.
He’s delighted to be working:
“It’s great to have something to do in
the day, and it’s great having the extra money.
It’s great for companionship.
I’ve got a sense of purpose in life, and there are so
many good people that work here.
I used to wake up in the mornings and wonder what was
the point? What
was there for me?”
The
welfare system undeniably failed Alan, leaving him to waste 20
years of his life. Instead
of focusing on the easy-to-place short-term unemployed, the
department’s priority should be people like Alan who need
professional help and support.
Alan
believes that the main reason he had difficulty finding a job
is that he can’t read or write.
He says there is a lot of stigma attached to illiteracy
that turned many prospective employers off.
His
new employer concurs, but believes that more employers should
give the serial unemployed a fair chance at work:
“Don’t close your mind just because someone
hasn’t worked for a long time. Alan has been a very good
worker for me since we’ve had him and I’ve employed others
who have been long-term unemployed.”
It
is to make it easier to give the long-term unemployed – and
others with a dicey work record – a go, that I asked
Parliamentary Counsel to draft for me a new Private Members
Bill to introduce a three-month trial period into our
employment law. If
there were a clear provision in law, that enabled an employer
to give someone a go – ensuring that if things didn’t work
out, then employer and employee could call it quits without
costly litigation – then more employers would be prepared to
give people like Alan a job.
My
hope is that my Bill will be drawn in the ballot so that
Parliament can debate its merit.
While I don’t expect that Labour’s union friends
will view it favourably, I do believe that employers up and
down the country, as well as many employees – particularly
those who are inexperienced or viewed as a high risk – would
welcome a more practical, common sense approach to employment
relations.
But,
even if employment law is changed to allow those beneficiaries
who face challenges to more readily take on a job, the
discussion with the unidentified caller highlighted just how
vulnerable taxpayers are to being ripped off by beneficiaries
who want to rort the welfare system.
I
have a strong view that better checks and balances are needed
in the welfare system to protect the rights of taxpayers.
That’s one reason I favour time limits on welfare:
anyone who hasn’t been able to get a job within six months
of going onto the dole would be required to engage in a
40-hour a week work experience programme designed to support
them into the habits and disciplines of the workforce, to
enable them to network more effectively, and generally to give
them the skills to help them find and keep a job.
As
Alan Harper explains: “The
more people you get out and meet the more chance you have of
getting a job. It’s not just the extra money thing. It’s
also about getting out and having something to do all day and
meeting a lot of new people.”
While
most people on the dole are capable of earning their own
living, there is a small number that has limited prospects of
being able to earn an independent living without some form of
support. These
are the people who may have a mental or physical impairment, a
drug or alcohol dependency problem, a prison record, or some
other deterrent. But,
given that they are on the dole and not an Invalid Benefit,
then they can be expected to contribute with the right sort of
support in place. In
fact, there already exist a myriad of job programmes with
subsidies attached that reduce as new employees improve their
productivity and performance.
The
dole is there to provide an income for people who do not have
a job. We must
make sure that systems are put in place to protect taxpayers
who fund it, by preventing people from abusing it.
|
