Everything you need to know to dob in a dole bludger
The prime minister has called on the Australian public to "dob in a dole bludger". That's appropriate — the PM and his colleagues have a wealth of experience in pointing a finger at the unemployed. We need the benefit of that.
Participation is what it's all about. Anyone can join in. The unemployed can dob on each other or even dob themselves in.
Getting started
Spotting a dole bludger can be frustrating for the uninitiated, although most people will claim to know at least one. Shopping malls are an ideal location for novice sleuths. Use the following list to eliminate as suspects:
- part-time worker
- shift worker
- on rostered day off
- hangin' out after school
- casual worker
- on lunch break
- student
- on holiday
The others clearly have no good reason to be in the mall — they must be unemployed and bludging off the system.
A few tips from a veteran bludger sleuth (BS)
(i) Anybody in the 15-24 age group is a prime suspect — there are such high levels of unemployment in this group.
(ii) A rough guide to identifying the 25-35 age group is that not wearing a collar and tie probably means no job.
(iii) The 40+ group are less likely to be in shopping malls; their lifetime of work has made them goal-oriented (all outings have an objective). As a rule of thumb, any of these people at home during the day create enough suspicion to warrant further checks.
(iv) Suspects who leave their house on regular days in work clothes or carrying a briefcase are obviously earning money on the side. (Caution: the smug smile of the suspect may be because their Centrelink file shows their casual earnings or details of their training course, volunteer work or work for the dole project.)
(v) Develop a good selection of bludger anecdotes. They always break the ice at BBQs and you'll probably be invited into the group where all the stories will sound worse than your own. Take care not to blow your cover — even bludgers have partners and friends who may not be easily identified,
Bludger-spotting does have a code of conduct which you should become familiar with. It includes:
- never ask others to support their gossip with facts or evidence;
- don't offer any proof with your own stories — others might feel embarrassed if they have none, then everybody misses out on hearing the best yarns;
- it is bad manners to record or take notes during group gatherings (see above);
- alcohol-induced anecdotes are for entertainment value — no need to try to remember them the next day;
- where group conversations expose a new bludger, a roster will determine who makes the dob-in call;
- boasting about individual or group dob-in kill sheets is not permitted — it only encourages others to do better;
- Centrelink will need to thoroughly investigate dob-in reports so anybody doing the right thing has nothing to worry about if you make thing a mistake;
- All dob-in reports should be anonymous — this policy will be reviewed if monetary rewards are introduced to the scheme.
Red alert! The government has now doubled the number of potential bludgers. Those on lone parent or disability support pensions will now be subject to the same "mutual obligation" criteria as the unemployed. You will need to look more closely at people you may not have suspected in the past.
This is a satirical response to the government's rhetoric and propaganda which prejudices public opinion against welfare recipients in general, and the unemployed in particular.
But what are the facts?
In July 1998, the office of family services minister Jocelyn Newman stated that cases of proven social security fraud involved around 1% of all claimants and that this figure has not changed in years.
A 1999 federal government advertising campaign announced that 4471 claimants were convicted of fraud between July 1996 and March 1998. A further 3000 cases were in the court system. Even if all cases before the courts were proven, that adds up to 0.12% of Centrelink's 6.3 million customers.
This compares to nine Coalition MPs forced to resign over travel rorts or conflicts of interest — almost 8% of the government's seats in both houses.
The three government MPs convicted of fraud received a slap on the wrist and walked away with million-dollar superannuation payouts and other perks, all funded by taxpayers. Where does this fit into the government's good welfare/bad welfare divide?
The record shows that a small minority of social security claimants are responsible for deliberate fraud. This should not be confused with Centrelink's system of "breaches", which include not replying to a Centrelink letter, not turning up to an employment agency appointment, having an insufficient number of job applications in a dole diary. Administrative or minor "breaches" are the main reason for reducing or cancelling claimants' benefits.
Much of the "recovered" money is, in fact, over-payments due to Centrelink errors or genuine mistakes by claimants who find the system difficult to understand (570,889 over-payments from July 1996 to March 1998 amount to just 9% of Centrelink's customers).
The best way to reduce social security costs is to get the unemployed into jobs, not to more than double the number of employment seekers by imposing "mutual obligation" onto two more categories of social security recipient.
[Abridged from a leaflet produced by Unemployed Persons Advocacy, Level 2, 16 Peel St, South Brisbane 4101, phone (07) 3255 1253, fax (07) 3255 0873, email <Kebar@bigpond.com>.]