The concept of mutual obligation underpins Australian employment services. In return for receiving income support, there are three elements of mutual obligation: to actively seek work; to improve one’s competitiveness in the labour market; and to contribute to the community. Failing to undertake mutual obligation activities results in sanctions, usually unemployment benefit suspension or cancellation. In the year 2017/18, one mutual obligation activity, compulsory employment service provider appointments, accounted for more than 93 per cent of sanctions. The study reported here explores unemployed and recently employed workers’ experiences of appointments and their attitudes to the concept of mutual obligation. The findings are that unemployed workers say appointments have little utility for advancing elements of mutual obligation and are psychologically harmful. Non‐attendance may be a form of self‐protection although seeking a medical exemption or dropping out of the system altogether also appears to be a common self‐protection strategy. We also find that non‐attendance at appointments cannot be conflated with a negative attitude to mutual obligation and that unemployed workers want services that are effective and psychologically positive to help them to fulfil their mutual obligations.

中文翻译：

---

澳大利亚就业服务：在实现共同义务方面是帮助还是阻碍？

相互义务的概念是澳大利亚就业服务的基础。作为获得收入支持的回报，相互义务包含三个要素：积极寻求工作；提高在劳动力市场上的竞争力；并为社区做出贡献。未能开展相互义务的活动将导致制裁，通常是暂停或取消失业救济金。在2017/18年度，一项相互义务活动，即强制性的就业服务提供者任命，占制裁的93％以上。此处报告的研究探讨了失业和新近雇用的工人的任用经历以及他们对共同义务概念的态度。调查结果表明，失业工人表示任命对推进相互义务的作用很小，并且在心理上是有害的。无人看管可能是一种自我保护的形式，尽管寻求医疗豁免或完全退出系统似乎也是一种常见的自我保护策略。我们还发现，不能将缺勤与对共同义务的消极态度混为一谈，失业工人希望获得有效和心理上积极的服务来帮助他们履行共同义务。