James Bidgood (Dawson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Employment Services Reform) Bill 2008. The bill will create a fairer, more effective compliance framework for our nation’s unemployed. Long-term unemployment is a challenge and addressing it requires a sensible and concerted approach by government and industry. It is not an issue that is going to go away overnight. Indeed, the proportion of people on unemployment benefits for more than five years has increased from one in 10 in 1999 to almost one in four today—an increase from 74,000 people in 1999 to more than 110,000 almost 10 years later.

The goal of the bill is to increase participation in the system, to get more long-term unemployed people into jobs, into training and into the work community. This new system will be fair, taking into account the individual circumstances of job seekers in rural and regional areas. That is applicable to many parts of my electorate of Dawson—for example, where issues such as transport difficulties may impact on the ability of job seekers to meet their participation requirements. This bill is not about keeping a system that punishes the long-term unemployed. Instead, it is about putting in a system that will get people back into work: off benefits and into our workplaces.

Despite what those on the other side may say, this government is committed to fairness in the social security system. This government remains committed to mutual obligation. We believe that those who can work should work, and those who are unable to work should be adequately supported to be in a position to be able to enter the workforce. We believe that this principle is reflected in the fairer and, most importantly, more effective compliance framework proposed by this bill.

Some, when talking about the unemployed, cannot resist taking a cheap shot at them and their circumstances instead of looking at the circumstance and the issue holistically. Some prefer to rely on preconceived stereotypes about the unemployed. We on this side of the House will not do that. We will instead look at the facts and deliver a system that will work for those who are unemployed. The government believe unemployed people need to be given every opportunity to enter the workforce not just for the sake of fairness to the taxpayer but for their own benefit. The simple fact of the matter is that work is rewarding and unemployment is not. I reiterate that point: we in the Rudd Labor government have a very clear mandate and we have very clear views on the benefits of being employed over the lack of benefits of being unemployed. It comes to issues such as self-esteem—that is, a person’s perception of their value to the community, themselves and their families and their individual self-sufficiency in being able to work and provide for themselves, for their families and for the ones that they love.

The compliance system that exists within the bill encourages commitment rather than the current, punitive approach used. That is an approach that saw too many people cut off from their benefit and from the employment search cycle. The previous system had a number of flaws that this bill will address. A key element of the new system is a no-show, no-pay clause, which aims to instil a work-like culture to employment services. In the bill, if a job seeker without a reasonable excuse does not attend an activity that they are required to attend, Centrelink will impose a no-show, no-pay failure. Centrelink will also impose a no-show, no-pay failure, for example, if the job seeker does not attend a job interview or if they attend the interview but deliberately behave in a way that would foreseeably result in a job offer not being made. This is fair.

The important thing to remember in this bill is that the extent of the penalty that a job seeker who is on government benefits receives will be in the hands of the job seeker. The job seeker’s actions will determine what happens within the system. It is important to note that in this bill we have not scrapped the eight-week non-payment periods. They have only been retained for job seekers who commit serious failures. A job seeker commits a serious failure if they refuse a suitable job offer or if they have been wilfully and persistently non-compliant. Again, this is also fair.

With the issue of fairness aside, the other issue here is that the previous government’s tactic in addressing non-compliance quite simply did not work. In 2006-07 there were around 16,000 eight-week non-payment penalties applied. In 2007-08 this had doubled to around 32,000 eight-week non-payment penalties. These statistics show that what was in place was not working. These figures are proof that the Liberal government presided over a harsh and counterproductive compliance regime.

We understand that wilful noncompliance is different from when a job seeker is experiencing circumstances beyond his or her control. We want a system with incentives to seek work. We want a system that has jobseekers actively participating and searching for work the entire time they are unemployed. We do not want them to be off the radar for two months, missing out on services aimed at getting them a job, as happens now.

In conclusion, the government is determined to maintain a strong but fair compliance regime to encourage people to look for work and improve their chances of employment. The new system will provide a stronger safety net for vulnerable jobseekers while reinforcing the idea that jobseekers who are capable have a personal responsibility to actively seek work and participate in activities to prepare them for work.

The reality is that there are many circumstances that come past everybody in life which are beyond their control. From time to time, life circumstances—bereavement, the closure of industry or change in modes of production, or global economic crises, things beyond the control of everyday human individuals—mean that people are buffeted from pillar to post and they lose their sense of confidence. When they have lost their job or if they take time away from work through the shock of or depression caused by bereavement, or the loss of a loved one from an unforeseen accident, this can destroy a person’s confidence and their ability to do jobs well, thus affecting their performance.

I believe that the role of government in society is to help people like that and to give them a helping hand. I believe the emphasis and the purpose of this bill is to be fair, reasonable and just to people such as that, people who are genuine in their circumstances and who, for one reason or another, are not participating in the workforce. It is this government’s intention to encourage people who are genuine, to give them self-confidence and to bring them back into a productive workplace that increases their self-esteem, increases their self-worth, gives them dignity, respect and, God willing, a decent day’s pay for a decent day’s work. But this government does not go soft on people who deliberately and wilfully choose not to participate in the role of work and the productivity of this nation.

It is absolutely essential that we show very clearly that we will have no quarter with people who wilfully refuse to attend interviews and people who wilfully act and behave badly in interviews with the express intention of not wanting the job. We need to show that there is a role for government to be very firm and to bring disciplinary measures to pass. So, given all of this context, I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context