Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Energy and Resources) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak today on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Employment Services Reform) Bill 2008 and the changes to the job seeker compliance regime. Labor’s proposed changes to the compliance regime comprehensively roll back the Welfare to Work reforms introduced by the coalition government, and this only reinforces the Labor Party’s weak approach to tackling welfare dependency. We have to ask ourselves why they are watering down the compliance regime. We know this is for base political purposes. This is because they wish to pander to the electoral advantage they can see in keeping people on the welfare teat. They see this as something that will help them electorally and at the ballot box.

The new system provided for in this bill is inherently flawed. And that is not surprising, as Labor are traditionally soft on people who just do not want to work. We know that, while that is only a small proportion of people, these people need sufficient incentive to work. In fact, as the shadow minister for employment participation and the member for Boothby, Dr Andrew Southcott, has pointed out, it will be the most lenient system that there has been since unemployment benefits were introduced in 1945. Labor’s no-show, no-pay principle means that, for each day of a mutual obligation activity that a job seeker misses, they are docked a day’s worth of benefit. For a single person on Newstart allowance, that is around $42.90 a day. It is all very well to dock somebody’s pay for a day, but that is not how the world works. If a worker repeatedly fails to show up for work without a valid reason, they will lose their job. It is the long-term disincentives that matter. It is ironic that the Labor Party want to quarantine welfare payments for truancy but they are happy to keep paying people who repeatedly fail to show up for work for the dole activities. What sort of message is that sending to the next generation?

In fact, when I was previously a schoolteacher many years ago, I worked in a school in a very low socioeconomic area whose principal—one Mr Ted Sleight—said to staff: ‘We are here as cycle busters. We are here as cycle busters because coming through this school there are generations of children that are on the same cycle as their parents whereby they do not wish to engage in the workforce and they continually want to stay on the welfare system and this is inculcated in their children. We as teachers have got to show them a better way.’  If teachers in schools have to show them a better way, the government have to do the same.

Under the model outlined in this bill, job seekers can miss six days of work for the dole activity or six job interviews over the course of six months before they risk any substantial penalty. In any case it is unlikely that the eight-week suspension period for noncompliance will ever be invoked because the comprehensive compliance assessment conducted following serious breaches gives Centrelink a wide breadth of discretion. In fact, it is a discretion so huge that it can mean that any of the following options is available: a job capacity assessment again, a review of the employment pathway plan, an eight-week non-payment period—that is there but whether they use it is another thing—or, finally, Centrelink are not obliged to take any action at all if they wish. Labor’s leniency on perpetual welfare cheats was confirmed when the Minister for Employment Participation, the Hon. Brendan O’Connor, wrote to job network providers in April encouraging them to go easy on those who breach mutual obligations. So you get a direction from the minister to go easy! That was followed up by a letter from the department reminding providers that they have a discretion when there has been noncompliance—in other words, again to go soft. There is also the risk that the changes will bring greater administrative costs to employment service providers, who are already under pressure because of the changes that Labor have made to the job network and training services, which I will go into later.

The coalition is unapologetic for its stance on welfare cheats and those who simply do not want to work. The coalition government designed the mutual obligation system with the aim of reducing welfare dependency, encouraging people into the workforce and giving them the necessary support to do so—it is often called the carrot and stick method. Our compliance measures were not designed to be punitive but were instead designed to encourage job seekers to return to the workforce and use available resources to better their opportunities.

Welfare to Work was an incentive for people to re-engage. There was a clear link between receiving an income support payment and contributing to society through an employment related activity. I remember talking to a number of people in my electorate who said: ‘I really didn’t want to get involved in this. How dare they send me off to work so I can receive my payments!’ But they said, ‘Once we got into the workforce and realised that the minimum number of hours that we did were not onerous, we actually wanted to work more.’ They enjoyed being back in the workforce because of the people they met, the health and welfare it had brought to them through getting out and mixing with others, and the fact that they got more money.

The eight-week non-payment period acted as a deterrent for those who did fail to meet their end of the bargain, and despite what those on the opposite side of the chamber may think it was not unreasonable. Job seekers who missed three appointments, interviews, Work for the Dole activities or other mutual obligation activities over the course of 12 months without a valid reason could have their payments suspended for eight weeks. That certainly is an incentive to turn up and engage.

In Canning, the overwhelming majority of those people receiving income support payments do the right thing, meeting their obligations and actively seeking employment. But there are, as I said, a small percentage of Australians who just do not want to work to receive a benefit from the taxpayer. Following long periods of unemployment, there are people who simply become welfare dependent by choice. The longer they are out of work, the harder it is to get back into the workforce. That is why early intervention programs are so important. Under the new system you can be on the dole for 12 months or more before Work for the Dole kicks in—this is compared to six months under the previous government.

The coalition introduced Work for the Dole and it had almost 600,000 participants. Mutual obligation was designed to discourage those long-term unemployed from skirting their obligations—and it worked. In fact, in June 2006 there were 205,000 people who were deemed long-term unemployed. Two years later, in August 2008, that number had decreased to 146,000—quite an achievement. The coalition remains committed to ensuring all unemployed persons have the programs, assistance and support that they require to get upskilled and job ready, and this philosophy was instrumental in getting the unemployment levels in this country down to four per cent—and in Western Australia we know it got to under three per cent, into the twos.

Locally in my electorate, instead of Labor taking it easy on those who blatantly breach workplace obligations, perhaps the government should give greater assistance to those who really deserve it. I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House of the changes that the coalition made to social security legislation last year, particularly those relating to grandparent carers that extended participation exemptions to principal carers who are relatives but not parents of the children—in other words, grandparents who took the place of parents as principal carers or other relatives who took care of the children.

As I have said before, this should have been called the Margaret Saunders amendment, because Margaret Saunders from Pinjarra in my electorate was forced to leave her full-time job in her 50s when, because of a severe drug habit, her daughter became unable to look after her children. It is these sorts of people the government should be making sure there is flexibility in the system for. Margaret again contacted me this week regarding the government’s announcement of bonus payments to pensioners, carers and children. In Margaret’s email she said to me: ‘What really hurts is that grandparents looking after their grandchildren were overlooked again. Yes, some of us will receive the bonus for the kids, but a lot won’t.’ Margaret is certainly putting in her fair share, contributing to the community. She has a degenerative spine condition and the two young grandchildren. She takes them to school, makes lunches for them, runs them to sport and does everything she can, as she did many years ago for her own children.

Regarding the bonuses, Margaret makes an extremely valid point. The mother of her grandchildren will receive a bonus as a disability pensioner, and her 19-year-old granddaughter also has a baby, so she gets a bonus and then becomes her mother’s carer, so gets another bonus. While Margaret will receive some money for the children she is caring for as a grandparent, she is not entitled to the carers bonus that recognised foster parents will receive. It is an inequality and it should be addressed. Margaret is one of up to 50,000 grandparent carers who believe they are perpetually overlooked. While the exemption from workplace participation was a step in the right direction, together with childcare and immunisation assistance, these people deserve the same level of assistance as foster parents receive.

While I am on this social security topic I would also like to mention a recent event I attended in my electorate. Year 10 students at Armadale Senior High School held a ceremony and made a commitment not to collect dole payments in the future. On No Dole Day the students pledged that when they complete their high school studies they will not accept the dole, as they will do everything possible to get their careers underway through further studies, training or employment. This is a fantastic initiative of a group called the Beacon Foundation which makes young people really think about making a go of it. The innovative program is designed to break the cycle of welfare dependency and addresses the issues of youth unemployment. When I was re-elected as member for Canning in 2001, youth unemployment was around 17 per cent. While that number has come down to a single-digit figure, it is still a strong priority to get young people into jobs. Nationally this year 7,000 students signed the No Dole charter, with 55 schools participating. What a great example to set for young people.

Let us not forget it was the coalition’s economic management and workplace reforms that, as I said previously, resulted in lower unemployment levels. In March 1996, when I was first elected to this place, the unemployment rate was 8.4 per cent. Under the Howard government, unemployment fell to 4.2 per cent, the lowest level since 1974. On the coalition’s watch, 2.1 million new jobs were created. In Canning, unemployment was at a low 4.1 per cent in June this year, which is just over half what it was when I became the member in 2001.

Despite the worsening labour market under the current financial conditions, Labor has slashed funding to employment services by $279 million to 2012. Not only is funding being cut but services are being consolidated by combining seven contracts into one. Providers will now have to offer the following services: Job Network, Personal Support Program, Job Placement Employment and Training, New Enterprise Incentive Scheme, Harvest Labour Services, Work for the Dole and Green Corps. They are all going to be lumped together for providers. That is a lot of work for any one provider, and no doubt many aspects of these programs will suffer.

As I have spoken about before, I think it is a terrible waste and tragedy to axe Green Corps as we know it now, and I know that those who are involved in the program agree with me. In fact, I attended a launch in Mandurah a few weeks ago and they were all talking about it. Last week I met with a local Green Corps coordinator who is desperate to find a way to keep Green Corps operating in its current form. It was designed to be a youth training and development program and it has been extremely successful in securing outcomes for young Australians as well as for the local environment. Now Labor is merging it with Work for the Dole and other services in a scaled back form. Green Corps provides young Australians with far greater skills than practical horticultural skills; it gives them certification. In many cases the experience helps shape these young people’s directions and gives them the confidence they need to get ahead in life and their future careers. In fact, the City of Mandurah council is on its 17th Green Corps program. Tragically, this will end some time next year. It has done a great deal of good for the local environment, as I said, and also for the many young people who have entered into Green Corps.

One of the great tragedies of the Labor Party messing with this program is that young people entering the program now will not get the same opportunities because they will be lumped in with all of these other programs including Work for the Dole. The age demographic will change, payment to the young participants will change and the whole ethos of the program in the community will change. I know that there are many people in my electorate who are very concerned about the way the Labor Party has essentially undone Green Corps in this country.

The government wants us to believe that this bill is fair. I heard the previous speaker, the member for Dawson, waxing lyrical—it certainly did not bring a tear to my eye, but it probably brought one to his. The fact that he was suggesting that people after bereavement could not work may have some validity in the short term, but eventually those people should go back to work. It is probably better for their health that they re-engage rather than sitting back disengaged from the community and the workforce. It is actually healthy to work. I find it appalling to use those examples for long-term unemployment, but then again I suppose you get that from the dripping wet Left.

It is certainly not fair for people who want to do the right thing and re-engage and for those who believe that the work ethic is honourable. The Minister for Employment Participation has already signalled his leniency on perpetual welfare collectors, but he was right about one thing. Those who can work should work and the government should do all it can to get people back into the workforce as soon as possible. Going light on those who abuse the system and delaying mutual obligation activities for the newly unemployed will only increase a dangerous cycle of welfare dependency. In the coming economic circumstances, where the Labor Party has already predicted in its budget that 134,000 jobs will go and many commentators are saying 200,000 people will be out of work, getting people back into the workforce, particularly the long-term unemployed, should be a priority, rather than making it easier for them not to engage.

See this speech in context