Did government data show work for the dole programs were the least effective?**
Yes - according to 2013 Department of Employment data cited in the SMH article, work for the dole programs had the lowest employment outcomes compared to other interventions:
- Work for the Dole: **19.8%** found full or part-time employment within 3 months [2]
- Unpaid work experience: **40.3%** [2]
- Work training: **28.4%** [2]
- Job search training: **25.7%** [2]
- Voluntary work: **21.0%** [2]
The 2016 ANU evaluation of the 2014-15 program found Work for the Dole improved employment probability by only **2%** [3][4].
**3.
Did the government lack modelling for employment outcomes?**
Yes - a Department of Employment official admitted in Senate Estimates (June 2014) that "the department does not have estimates on the number of job seekers for the under-30 measure expected to be in full or part-time employment three months after participation in work for the dole" [2].
The Gillard government (2010-2013) made participation voluntary and saw participation rates drop significantly, but did not abolish the program [1][6].
**Data Attribution:** The 2013 data showing low effectiveness was collected during the **Gillard Labor government** (2010-2013), not under Coalition administration [2].
The Abbott government was citing inherited data from their Labor predecessors.
**Program Evolution:** The Abbott government's 2014-2015 changes represented an expansion/modification, not a new introduction.
阿博特 ā bó tè 政府 zhèng fǔ 引用 yǐn yòng 了 le 他们 tā men 从 cóng 工党 gōng dǎng 前任 qián rèn 那里 nà lǐ 继承 jì chéng 的 de 数据 shù jù 。 。
Key changes included:
- Making participation effectively compulsory for most recipients aged 18-49 [1]
- Expanding age groups and requirements
- Introducing a results-based payment model for providers [2]
**Comparative Context:** The 2016 ANU study found that while employment effects were minimal (2% improvement), the evaluation noted the program served purposes beyond immediate job placement, including community contribution and skill-building [3][4].
The original source (Sydney Morning Herald article by Gareth Hutchens) is a **credible mainstream media source**:
- Fairfax Media publication (now Nine Entertainment) - generally reputable
- Author Gareth Hutchens is an established journalist covering federal politics
- Article accurately reported Senate Estimates testimony and departmental data
- No evidence of significant partisan bias in the reporting itself
However, the article's framing focused on government admission of "no modelling" and low effectiveness data, without emphasizing the program's long history across multiple governments.
**Did Labor have equivalent programs?**
Yes - Labor governments both maintained and modified Work for the Dole:
1. **Rudd Government (2007-2010):** Explicitly maintained Work for the Dole.
* * * *
Treasurer Wayne Swan stated in May 2008: "Work-for-dole to stay" [5].
2. **Gillard Government (2010-2013):**
- Maintained the program but made it **voluntary** rather than compulsory [1]
- Participation rates dropped significantly during this period [6]
- The 2013 effectiveness data cited in the claim was collected during this Labor administration [2]
3. **Historical Origins:** Work for the Dole was first proposed by the Liberal Party in 1987 and enacted by the Howard government in 1998 [1].
**Comparative Analysis:**
- Both major parties have supported work for the dole programs in various forms
- Labor governments have typically made the program more voluntary and reduced participation rates
- Coalition governments have typically made the program more compulsory and expanded it
- The data showing low effectiveness was collected under Labor and cited by the Coalition
While the claim accurately reflects that (a) government data showed work for the dole had poor employment outcomes compared to alternatives, and (b) the Coalition lacked modelling for its expanded program, it contains a significant factual error by stating the Coalition "introduced" Work for the Dole when the program had existed since 1998.
The Abbott government's 2014-2015 changes were an **expansion and intensification** of an existing program, not a new introduction.
显示 xiǎn shì 效果 xiào guǒ 低下 dī xià 的 de 数据 shù jù 是 shì 从前 cóng qián 工党 gōng dǎng 政府 zhèng fǔ 继承 jì chéng 的 de — — — — 联盟党 lián méng dǎng 引用 yǐn yòng 的 de 是 shì 他们 tā men 前任 qián rèn 工党 gōng dǎng 的 de 数据 shù jù , , 而 ér 非 fēi ' ' 他们 tā men 自己 zì jǐ 的 de ' ' 数据 shù jù ( ( 指 zhǐ 他们 tā men 自己 zì jǐ 执政 zhí zhèng 期间 qī jiān 收集 shōu jí 的 de 数据 shù jù ) ) 。 。
The data showing poor effectiveness was inherited from the previous Labor government - the Coalition was citing their predecessors' data, not "their own" data in the sense of data collected under their administration.
The government's justification for the expansion focused on "mutual obligation" principles and a results-based funding model for providers, arguing their changes would improve outcomes despite historical data [2].
The Assistant Minister for Employment claimed: "Labor watered down work for the dole and the number of job seekers moving into work decreased under Labor's watch...
Independent evaluations (ANU 2016) confirmed the program had minimal employment impact (2% improvement), leading ACOSS and Welfare Rights Centre to criticize it as expensive and poor value for money [4][7].
**Key context:** Work for the Dole has been supported by governments of both major parties over two decades, with variations in compulsion levels.
该 gāi 说法 shuō fǎ 错误 cuò wù 地 dì 将 jiāng 该 gāi 计划 jì huà 的 de 推出 tuī chū 归因于 guī yīn yú 阿博特 ā bó tè 政府 zhèng fǔ , , 而 ér 实际上 shí jì shàng 它 tā 是 shì 由 yóu 霍华德 huò huá dé 政府 zhèng fǔ 于 yú 1998 1998 年 nián 推出 tuī chū 并 bìng 由 yóu 随后 suí hòu 的 de 工党 gōng dǎng 政府 zhèng fǔ 维持 wéi chí 的 de 。 。
The claim incorrectly attributes the program's introduction to the Abbott government when it was actually introduced by the Howard government in 1998 and maintained by subsequent Labor governments.
The claim correctly identifies that government data showed Work for the Dole programs had the lowest employment outcomes compared to alternatives (19.8% vs 40.3% for unpaid work experience), and that the Abbott government proceeded without employment modelling.
However, it is **factually incorrect** that the Coalition "introduced" Work for the Dole - the program was introduced in 1998 by the Howard government and maintained by Labor governments.
The claim correctly identifies that government data showed Work for the Dole programs had the lowest employment outcomes compared to alternatives (19.8% vs 40.3% for unpaid work experience), and that the Abbott government proceeded without employment modelling.
However, it is **factually incorrect** that the Coalition "introduced" Work for the Dole - the program was introduced in 1998 by the Howard government and maintained by Labor governments.