menu_open Columnists
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close

Don't be fooled. JobSeeker's new look is still hiding some nasty business

27 0
08.06.2026

When the government unveiled its long-anticipated overhaul of JobSeeker last month, the reaction was predictably upbeat.

Subscribe now for unlimited access.

Login or signup to continue reading

A "modernised" system. A "fairer" model. A "more humane" approach to mutual obligations. After decades of punitive compliance, the new three-tier structure was framed as a reset, a chance to finally treat unemployed Australians with dignity.

But look past the branding and an uncomfortable truth emerges: the government has changed the architecture, but not the ideology. The new system still rests on the same old assumption: that unemployment is a personal failing requiring behavioural correction. The problem, we are told, is still the people.

This is the quiet continuity no one wants to name: if the problem isn't the people, then it must be the system. And if the system is the problem, then the government must confront the reality that it has spent 25 years building, funding, and defending a model that harms the very people it claims to help.

The three-tier model is being sold as a shift away from punishment. But it is still a system built on conditionality: it still assumes jobseekers need to be nudged, monitored, corrected, and incentivised. It still treats unemployment as a behavioural issue rather than a structural one.

For decades, governments have relied on the myth of the "noncompliant dole-bludger" to justify the increasingly punitive system. The idea that people are lazy or rorting the system has been politically useful, serving as a distraction from the real drivers of unemployment: insecure work, stagnant wages, skills mismatches, and a labour market that simply does not produce enough suitable jobs.

The "new model" softens the language, but not the logic. "Mutual obligations" become "participation requirements". "Penalties" become "pauses". But the underlying message remains the same: if you are unemployed, the burden of proof is on you.

This ideological framing is not just wrong. It is........

© The Examiner