The Claim
“Forced the unemployed to apply for 40 jobs per month. This will bombard businesses with over 1,000,000 applications per day. There's currently about 1 job availability for every 10 unemployed people, so a lack of job applications is not the problem.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim contains several elements requiring verification:
The 40 jobs per month proposal: The Coalition government did announce a plan in July 2014 to require jobseekers to apply for 40 jobs per month as part of its welfare reforms [1][2]. Employment Minister Eric Abetz outlined the new rules on July 28, 2014 [3]. The existing requirement at that time was 20 jobs per month [1].
The "1 million applications per day" figure: This was a projection/calculation published in the Sydney Morning Herald opinion piece, not an actual outcome. The article stated: "About 740,000 Australians are unemployed... Forcing most to apply for more than one job per day... will see them sending out pro forma emails at a pointless rate" and calculated this would result in "more than 1 million applications per day, every working day of every year" [3]. This was a theoretical projection, not a reported fact.
The 10:1 ratio claim: The claim states there was "about 1 job availability for every 10 unemployed people." In mid-2014, Australia had approximately 740,000 unemployed people according to the SMH article [3]. ABS data from late 2014 shows unemployment hit a 12-year high of 6.3% [4]. The job vacancy to unemployment ratio in Australia has historically fluctuated, and the 10:1 figure appears to be an estimate from the opinion piece rather than official ABS statistics.
Critical fact: The 40 jobs per month policy was abandoned in October 2014, approximately 2.5 months after being proposed [1][2]. The government backed down after facing opposition from business groups (Business Council of Australia, Council of Small Business of Australia), crossbench senators, and welfare advocates [1][3]. The original 20 jobs per month requirement remained in place [1].
Missing Context
The claim presents the 40 jobs per month requirement as implemented policy that "forced" unemployed people, when in reality:
The policy was never fully implemented - It was announced in July 2014 and abandoned by October 2014 before taking effect [1][2].
The government responded to criticism - The Coalition backed down after legitimate concerns were raised by business groups about being "inundated" with applications [3]. Peter Strong of the Council of Small Business stated: "It's an embarrassment for everybody and it's going to make people angry" [3].
Business community was divided - While some business groups criticized the volume of applications, the Business Council of Australia acknowledged "many aspects of the new model are welcome" [3].
The policy was part of broader "earn or learn" welfare reforms - The 40 jobs requirement was one element of a larger welfare overhaul announced in the 2014 budget that included work-for-the-dole requirements and changes to Youth Allowance [5].
The timeframe matters - The claim uses future tense ("will bombard") from July 2014 articles predicting consequences, but these predictions never materialized because the policy was abandoned before implementation.
Source Credibility Assessment
Sydney Morning Herald (SMH): The first source is an opinion column by Peter Martin, then economics editor of The Age (Fairfax Media). Fairfax publications generally have a center-left editorial stance. Peter Martin is a former Commonwealth Treasury official and visiting fellow at ANU, giving him economic policy expertise [3]. However, this was explicitly an opinion piece, not straight news reporting.
SBS News: The second source is labeled as "Comment" - an opinion piece. SBS (Special Broadcasting Service) is Australia's publicly funded multicultural broadcaster, established by statute with a mandate for diversity. While publicly funded, SBS operates independently with its own charter [6].
Assessment: Both sources are opinion/commentary pieces, not objective news reporting. They reflect legitimate criticism of a controversial policy proposal, but readers should recognize these are perspectives rather than neutral factual accounts.
Labor Comparison
Did Labor have similar job search requirements?
Yes. Mutual obligation requirements for jobseekers existed long before the Coalition's 2014 proposal:
- Work for the Dole was introduced by the Howard government in 1997-1998 and continued under subsequent Labor governments [7].
- The Gillard Labor government maintained mutual obligation requirements for unemployment benefits throughout its term (2010-2013).
- Jobseekers under Labor were already required to apply for 20 jobs per month - the Coalition's proposal was to double this to 40, not create a new requirement from scratch [1].
- The Rudd and Gillard governments also reformed welfare-to-work programs and maintained compulsory job search requirements as a condition of receiving Newstart Allowance [7].
Comparison: The Coalition's 40 jobs proposal represented an intensification of existing mutual obligation requirements, not a new type of policy. The underlying framework of requiring job applications in exchange for benefits has been consistent across Coalition and Labor governments since the 1990s.
Balanced Perspective
The claim presents the 40 jobs policy as evidence of punitive Coalition welfare policy, but the full story is more nuanced:
Criticisms that were valid:
- Business groups legitimately raised concerns about being overwhelmed with applications [3]
- Critics argued the policy would generate "pro forma" applications rather than genuine job searches [3]
- Welfare advocates noted the difficulty of applying for 40 jobs monthly while also doing work-for-the-dole [3]
Policy rationale provided by government:
- The Coalition argued the policy would ensure jobseekers were actively looking for work
- Employment Minister Eric Abetz defended the proposal, suggesting jobseekers could apply for "one job in the morning and one in the afternoon" [1]
- The policy was part of broader welfare reforms aimed at reducing long-term unemployment
What the claim doesn't acknowledge:
- The policy was abandoned in response to criticism - showing the government responded to stakeholder concerns
- Similar mutual obligation requirements existed under Labor (20 jobs/month)
- The "1 million applications per day" was a projection, not an actual outcome
- The business community had mixed views - some welcomed aspects of the welfare reforms
Key context: This was a proposed policy that was never implemented due to stakeholder opposition. The Coalition abandoned the proposal after 2.5 months, maintaining the status quo (20 jobs/month) that had existed under Labor.
MISLEADING
4.0
out of 10
The claim presents the 40 jobs per month requirement as an implemented policy that actively "forced" unemployed people and created outcomes ("will bombard businesses"). However:
- The policy was proposed in July 2014 but abandoned by October 2014 before taking effect [1][2]
- The "1 million applications per day" was a theoretical projection from an opinion column, not an actual outcome [3]
- The claim uses future tense predictions from 2014 that never materialized
- The policy was an intensification of existing 20 jobs/month requirements that existed under Labor governments [1][7]
The claim omits that the policy was abandoned and that similar mutual obligation requirements existed across both major parties. It presents a two-month policy proposal that never took effect as if it were implemented Coalition doctrine.
Final Score
4.0
OUT OF 10
MISLEADING
The claim presents the 40 jobs per month requirement as an implemented policy that actively "forced" unemployed people and created outcomes ("will bombard businesses"). However:
- The policy was proposed in July 2014 but abandoned by October 2014 before taking effect [1][2]
- The "1 million applications per day" was a theoretical projection from an opinion column, not an actual outcome [3]
- The claim uses future tense predictions from 2014 that never materialized
- The policy was an intensification of existing 20 jobs/month requirements that existed under Labor governments [1][7]
The claim omits that the policy was abandoned and that similar mutual obligation requirements existed across both major parties. It presents a two-month policy proposal that never took effect as if it were implemented Coalition doctrine.
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (7)
-
1
Abbott dumps 40 jobs a month plan for jobseekers
News Com
-
2
Coalition denies plan for unemployed people to apply for 40 jobs a month
Assistant minister says the freshly scrapped proposal was for 40 job searches, not applications, a month
the Guardian -
3
Lousy days loom for small businesses bombarded by job-seekers
Red tape? It's only just begun. Forcing job-seekers to apply for 40 jobs each per month will bombard employers with more than 1 million applications per day, every working day of every year.
The Sydney Morning Herald -
4
Unemployment hits 12-year high despite jump in job creation: ABS
Unemployment has risen to a 12-year high of 6.3 per cent, despite almost 43,000 jobs being added in November.
Abc Net -
5
Employment Minister defends 'earn or learn' strategy in federal budget
Federal Employment Minister and Tasmanian Liberal Senator Eric Abetz has defended the tough budget, saying it seeks to lift the Tasmanian people. There are concerns changes to welfare spending and eligibility requirements will have a disproportionate impact in Tasmania. Senator Abetz rejects suggestions the changes are an attack on unemployed young people, saying they seek to break the welfare mentality.
Abc Net -
6
Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991
Federal Register of Legislation
-
7
Mutual obligation requirements - Social Security Guide
Guides Dss Gov
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.