the positive benefits of work for the dole for participants, means that the initiative should be regarded as reasonable in its requirement of a contribution to the community from participants.” unemployed persons as a condition of receiving unemployment benefits is not unreasonable, or disproportionate when weighed up to the positive benefits received by them and the community. 4.17 The author had received unemployment benefits for four years before her referral to the programme, at age 21. Previously, she had been involved in a number of activities enhancing her employability, including a year-long Intensive Assistance programme. Her benefits were cancelled because of her failure to provide supporting evidence for alleged illness and thus being unable to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for her absence. This decision was upheld on review. In the review, she also contended she was unable to carry out concreting work as part of the project. However the Community Work Coordinator for the project advised that the concreting was minor, there were other young women involved and nobody was asked to do anything they were incapable of physically performing. In the State party’s view, these processes show how checks and balances work to ensure that Work for Dole participants are given reasonable and suitable work. 4.14 Assessing the two dimensions of penalty and involuntariness, the State party points out that a failure to participate in the programme, without reasonable excuse, initially only leads to a reduction in the rate of unemployment benefits payable, with repeated failure—again without reasonable excuse— leading to non-payment for 2 months only. There is no absolute right to social security, and ILO standards on unemployment benefits accept that they may be withdrawn where an individual refuses an offer of suitable and reasonable employment.7 In this light, there is no element of penalty for failure to participate in the Work for Dole programme that would raise participation in the programme to the threshold of compulsory labour. 4.15 In terms of involuntariness, the State party argues that the programme modalities satisfy requirements of reasonableness and proportionality. Unemployed people are not required to accept benefits but, if they do, a precondition to receipt may be participation in the Work for Dole programme. Long-term youth unemployment is a serious problem in Australia, and this programme is part of a series of innovative responses to the problem. The programme is based on the concept of mutual obligation between an unemployed person and the community supporting him or her. The relevant projects provide real tangible benefits to communities in the form of community facilities, infrastructure, care and assistance. The programme is specially designed to improve the skills, employability, self-esteem and experience of young unemployed people. 18–20-year-olds are only required to work 12 hours per week, while older persons work 15 hours per week, with working hours corresponding to those in the general marketplace. 4.18 In conclusion, the State party invites the Committee to find that the author was not required to engage in compulsory labour, within the meaning of article 8 of the Covenant, or that, if so, the labour is justified by the exception of “normal civic obligation” contained in article 8, paragraph 3 (c) (iv), resulting in no violation of the Covenant. 4.19 On the merits of the article 2 claims, the State party argues that as the substantive claim under article 8 is either inadmissible or without merit, the assertion of an article 2 claim must also be considered to be without merit. In any event, the author has not provided evidence sufficient to enable a proper consideration of this claim. Even if the communication could be said to contain any substantiated evidence, the State party contends, in the light of its admissibility submissions on article 2, that it fully protects Covenant rights under common law and Federal, State and Territory legislation. In the present case, numerous appeal and review instances were available but not utilized. Her failure to exhaust domestic remedies also supports a finding that there is no violation. 4.16 In addition, participants can only work in the programme for six months at a time, and for six months per year. Job search requirements applicable to participants are reduced to two employer contacts per fortnight. Checks and balances, coupled with review processes, ensure specific work is suitable and reasonable, with a participant being able to raise these issues. The State contracts personal injury and third party liability insurance for participants. Finally, a fortnightly supplement is paid in view of the extra costs. In light of these elements, the burden the Work for Dole programme imposes on young 4.20 On the specific claim that HREOC did not make a report and recommendations to the AttorneyGeneral, the State party points out that this was because HREOC rejected the author’s complaint and thus cannot serve as a basis for an article 2 claim. The author’s comments on the State party’s submissions 7 ILO Convention No. 44 of 1934 Ensuring Benefit or Allowances to the Involuntarily Unemployed and ILO Convention No. 168 of 1988 Concerning Employment Promotion and Protection against Unemployment. 5.1 By letter of 1 September 2002, the author challenged the State party’s submissions, rejecting 71