Today I received an email which has been doing the rounds for a year or so. If you can't read the text in the image the basic thrust is that a bloke who operates heavy machinery for a living feels it isn't right that he has to take drug tests whereas people on the dole do not.
Don't know where it comes from but it's a fairlybasic Today Tonight style piece intended to provoke an emotional response whether it be typically conservative outrage at "dole bludgers" or typical lefty social worker anger at a percieved "victimisation of the unemployed."
Working in Government I've had some experience with various unemployed types and it occurred to me that while urine testing the unemployed is hardly a practical or civilised thing to do, perhaps there is a need to better monitor the way in which the long term unemployed spend their unemployment benefits.
Before you shout me down as a fascist, let's cover some basic facts.
1) New Start Allowance (the dole for those of you outside Australia) for a single adult with no children is $429 per fortnight. Not per week. Per fortnight. That should pretty much put the lie to the theory that anyone on the dole is living the life of Larry at the expense of the taxpayer.
2) Between 1999 and 2004 there were 127,000 people who remained unemployed for the duration of that five year period.
Now, no matter what job you have, you are expected to front up for work sober. It is actually becoming more and more common for employers to drug test their employees for everything from pot to ecstasy which is a little too 1984 for my liking but I can see where they're coming from.
Taking into account the money for nothing nature of the dole and considering the increasing prevalence of drug testing in the workplace, if you are receiving unemployment benefits (I'm talking New Start here, not disability pensions or single parent payments), and have been doing so for an extended period of time, perhaps you should have to demonstrate that you are using those unemployment benefits wisely and not spending them on booze, weed or purely recreational pursuits.
Obviously requiring the unemployed to provide a urine sample when they hand in their forms at Centrelink would be demeaning and simply not the done thing in a democracy, but if you have been unemployed for more than 12 months, perhaps you should have to provide receipts demonstrating what you have spent your payment on.
Surely it's not that different to employees having to provide receipts when they take money from petty cash?
As we've already established, New Start allowance is a paltry pittance and yet remarkably it seems sufficient to provide certain people with the necessities of an ongoing holiday, albeit one carried out on a shoestring budget.
Let's err on the side of fantasy and say that you have managed to find a place where you only have to pay $80 a week rent. Unlikely in 2008 but let's be generous.
After paying your rent you have $269 to play with. It's bugger all but if your receipts tell a story something like this;
Caltex: $20
Woolworths: $100
Liquorland: $100
Civic Video: $50
then perhaps you need to be given a not so gentle reminder that you're not supposed to use the dole to spend your days kicking back sinking piss and playing XBOX.
After all, even though you're hardly living some sort of laisez faire dream, you nevertheless are maintaining a fairly unproductive life at the expense of people who are subject to all sorts of restrictions e.g. having to spend their days sober, clothed and engaged in an activity they would probably rather not be doing, that you as an unemployed person are not.
If you are happy to take money drawn from the salary of people who are working, perhaps it's reasonable to suggest you should be willing to demonstrate that you're not taking the piss out of them by spending it on alcoholic beverages and entertainment devices.
What percentage of unemployed people fall into that category? Probably a very small one. But considering between 1999 and 2004 there were 127,000 people who had been unemployed for that full five year period, we're talking about more than seven billion dollars worth of unemployment benefits.
Call me idealistic but seven billion dollars, would build a lot of homeless shelters, air condition a lot of schools, build a few new hospitals or go a long way towards subsidising university fees for professions currently experiencing a shortage.
I know I'm kidding myself and it might be a bit utilitarian but that seems like a much more constructive use of taxpayer funds than propping up people in the unlikely situation of having been unable to find work of any description for five whole years.
The irony is that I'm proud to live in a country that has a well developed welfare system. In my mind it is one of the hallmarks of an advanced and compassionate, first world society. However, I believe a welfare system exists to help those who have fallen on hard times. Not to support the lifestyle of people so lacking in ambition that their goals extend no further than getting mashed and playing video games.
I'm not suggesting the unemployed should have to take the first crappy job that comes along. What I will suggest is that if a rewarding, prestigious job is not forthcoming, perhaps lowering your sights is a necessary evil. After all, any job, no matter how menial is more respectable than no job and even minimum wage is better than trying to scrape by on $429 a fortnight.
I can fully understand the point of view of those who would say that a program such as this would result in increased levels of homelessness and poverty. It's possible, although unlikely in my opinion. Unfortunately the federal government is not a charity and it is not the responsibility of the workers to provide a free ride (even if it's a crappy one in the steerage compartment) to the unpleasant minority to whom any handout is a victory and dignity takes a back seat to lazy opportunism.
Am I being too harsh? Probably. Would it help decrease long term unemployment? Maybe. Maybe not. Would it make me a lot happier about the ATO sending me a bill for extra tax at the end of each year. Absolutely.
The fundamental flaw in my theory rests in the fact that Centrelink is already an incredibly bloated bureaucracy capable of horrendous blunders and the odds of this kind of system being successfully implemented are slim to nil. Still, we can dream eh?
*Disclaimer* I am aware that my theory rests on the assumption that unemployment rates remain low. If the global economy turns to shit and business starts to struggle, then the public purse will be stretched a lot thinner to accommodate the throngs of poor bastards who have found themselves newly unemployed.
I am also aware that the amount of New Start allowance has increased slightly over the past five years making my figures less than 100% accurate. However these incremental changes are insufficient to shift the balance of the argument. So just eat around it alright?
