An independent review revealed yesterday that the Government has become over-zealous in catching and penalising people in breach of social security rules. The review as chaired by former Commonwealth Ombudsman, Professor Dennis Pearce, and funded by nine national welfare bodies.
The review found that Centrelink staff had been exposed to pressure and incentives top find breaches; were not communicating effectively with job-seekers; and imposed unreasonable conditions so that breaches were more likely. It called for less draconian penalties and a greater concentration on getting people into work.
Family and Community Services Minister Amanda Vanstone dismissed the report saying it was old because Centrelink had implemented or was about to implement 26 of the reports recommendations. Professor Pearce said that Centrelink had got hold of a draft of the report a month ago and made recommendations to the Government which were endorsed two weeks ago. They bore an uncanny resemblance to the review’s recommendations. But Professor Pearce said the authors of the report did not want to get into a fight about the origin of ideas. They just wanted to see the system improved.
Given the events that led to 26 things that the review recommended being endorsed by the Government so very recently, it indicates that there were things wrong with the system of providing for job-seekers – both in terms of work and sustenance while looking for it. In that context, the Minister’s statement that Centrelink staff had denied pressure to get breaches so the report was wrong to make that conclusion seems a little lame.
It appears that Professor Pearce’s review has hit the hammer on the nail. The Government and bureaucracy have gone too far in their tightening up process and that this is causing hardship and unfairness on the unemployed and resulting eyes being taken off the main game of job-finding. The latter point is of as much concern to ordinary taxpayers as pre-Howard-Government concerns that the unemployed were getting benefits without having to put enough effort into job-seeking.
Senator Vanstone’s dismissive response typifies this Government’s incapacity to accept constructive criticism. And Centrelink’s apparent pre-emptive strike in implementing things later recommended by the review typifies a defensive bureaucracy. They should have welcomed the review; agreed to study it in detail and do something about the shortcomings identified in it.
Changes to the penalty regime announced by Senator Vanstone in the past fortnight might go some way to help. But even with her changes unnecessary hardship is still likely – particularly for dependants of recipients.
Senator Vanstone is probably right when she says the review did not reflect wider community concern about welfare abuse. No doubt there is a vicious streak in parts of the community who would be happy to see a clampdown on dole recipients, or event he abolition of the dole altogether. But a Government does not always have to follow baser instincts, even if they are in a majority.
The Government has done a fair amount of good work in targetting the dole, ensuring people on it, work for it or are in training and means testing it. It those respects it improved somewhat on the previous regime. It would be a shame now if those improvements were negated by going to far in the other direction. The Government and society as a whole should concentrate on helping people find work, not on imposing penalties out of proportion to the breach of dole conditions.