Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

With respect to the member for Murray, the Howard government’s policies in relation to employment services were neither humane nor fair. Those opposite have a certain collective amnesia. Their view on that almost mimics their Work Choices legislation—they really did not understand the consequences. But here they should have understood the consequences because, if they had spoken to anyone involved in the employment service industry, they would have seen the impacts. They should have spoken to the people in the charitable sector—those dealing with the homeless, those dealing with the vulnerable and disadvantaged. If they had spoken to the churches, the charitable institutions and other groups in their electorates they would have seen the rise in activity and attendance at those particular institutions because of the punishment that was meted out by the Howard government. This policy of the Howard government was not about participation in the workforce. It was not about engaging people in employment; it was about punishing those who were their political opponents. That is what it was about.

I support the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Employment Services Reform) Bill 2008 before us today. It is a welcome reform not just nationally but in my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland. It is a very important bill for my electorate, because my electorate has historically been very vulnerable to downturns in the manufacturing and agricultural sectors. In my electorate I have very large meatworks, the aerospace industry, metal works, industrial parks and many large farms not only in the dairy and beef industry but also in the horticultural area. So my area is particularly vulnerable, and, historically, Ipswich and its surrounds have suffered enormously when there have been downturns nationally and internationally. Often the people in my electorate would be among the first to lose their jobs, so engaging and re-engaging in employment is crucial for my electorate south and west of Brisbane.

It is also important because of what has happened in that area. The Queensland state Labor government’s South-East Queensland Regional Development Plan of 2005-06 is strategically dragging people across into that area. As the Sunshine Coast, the Gold Coast and Brisbane fill up, more and more people are spilling over into Ipswich and rural areas outside it, looking for jobs in whatever sector they can. We have in fact in the Ipswich area about 43 per cent of the designated industrial land in South-East Queensland. We have big housing developments going on, and people are moving there. The streets are becoming more clogged, and we are seeing people looking for employment in whatever industry they can.

We have got big, growing suburbs like Flinders View, Raceview, Deebing Heights and the Ripley Valley, which will have 120,000 people just south of Ipswich and just south of the suburb where I live, Flinders View, in the next 20 years. The Swanbank, Purga, Ebenezer industrial land is slated for further development. That means that people getting access to jobs is crucial, and people not being punished if they cannot get access to jobs is also important. This is not just in Ipswich but also just outside. For example, Gatton will double in population over the next 20 years, with the Woodlands Rise Estate and a new prison going in. Hatton Vale and Glenelg Grove could be any suburb of Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane when you look at it. So new schools and new hospitals and other health facilities are important in this area.

My area currently has an unemployment rate of about 4.2 per cent. According to the latest figures, there are about 7,887 people looking for a job, the average job seeker’s age is 32 and the average duration of unemployment for a job seeker is about 20 months. That the majority of working age people are engaged in Centrelink and the Job Network, customer populations by allowance, shows that Ipswich and its surrounds are really vulnerable to downturns in the global economic situation. The number of people on disability pensions is very high compared to other areas. There are a large number of people on parenting payments single and also Newstart. I will not go through and bore you, Madam Deputy Speaker, with all the facts and figures, but take it from me that what I am saying is true in that regard. It is true; it is absolutely true. With about 17 per cent of people in employment in the manufacturing industry, about 30 per cent in agriculture, 14.3 per cent in retail and 10.2 per cent in the health and community sector, jobs are crucial to my area.

This legislation will deal with people in my area in a more just and humane way. It will create a new welfare compliance system for people seeking employment in my electorate of Blair. This bill implements announcements made in the May 2008 budget to support our $3.9 billion employment services strategy. The bill is about job seeker compliance, and that is crucial to my electorate. It is about jobs and participation; that is the focus. It is about ensuring there is a balance, an equilibrium, between job seekers and noncompliers—that is, those deserving a penalty. I think average Australians, and certainly the people in my electorate, believe that, if you are healthy and well, if you do not have parenting responsibilities or if you are not so aged that you are entitled to a pension, you should be looking for employment. I think that is how the average Australian feels and I certainly believe that is the case in my electorate. I also think that people feel that, if you are not genuinely looking for a job and you should be, there should be a penalty. We are going to retain the eight-week nonpayment penalty for wilful and persistent noncompliance. I will not go through the legacy of the Howard government and how this will change the noncompliance system, as the member Braddon has already outlined that very well indeed. But I will say that this is about having a just measure; this is about treating people with respect and treating people with dignity.

The Minister for Employment Participation has described the new welfare compliance system as restoring the balance between participation and penalty, and I agree. If you have a good look at the legislation, you see that it is a fair piece of legislation. The changes in employment services begin on 1 July 2009 and it happens after we have reviewed the Job Network and other employment programs. I have spoken to a number of service providers in my area in relation to the review. What we need in our Job Network program and in our employment services system is equity and firmness. We do not need to be soft marshmallows but we also do not need to be to the right of Attila the Hun when it comes to this sort of thing. What we really need is fairness.

I have to say that the Howard government failed in this area—they really did. Their policy in terms of employment and how they treated people failed. They failed to prevent noncompliance. In 2006-07 there were approximately 16,000 eight-week non-payment penalties applied. In 2007-08 that had risen to 32,000. That is double; it doubled in a year. It is not good policy when it doubles. Their idea of three strikes and then an eight-week non-payment penalty is really about punishing. In my electorate of Blair, in 2006-07 there were 104 instances of applied eight-week non-payment periods. In 2007-08, that had risen to 263. That is an increase of 159, or 153 per cent in one year—a 153 per cent increase in non-payment periods. That is extraordinary. That is failed policy. How can they claim it was a success? It is quite astonishing.

Under the Howard government, during the eight-week non-payment period the job seeker who was guilty of the infringement was not compelled to report to Centrelink or the job seeker’s employment service provider or to undertake training or look for employment. Their policy was apparently about doing these sorts of things: getting people into training, getting people into employment. Why didn’t they provide for that as criteria? Why didn’t they do it? They did not do it because their policy was about punishment. That is what it was about. It was not about participation. The draconian penalties imposed under the Howard government failed miserably. It is clear; the facts and figures are there. Despite what the member for Murray has to say, the facts and figures are there. It was failed government policy. There was no improvement in attendance at interviews or at training, for example. Three-quarters of all job seekers in the last year went back into the system of income support within a couple of weeks of finishing the eight-week, non-payment period. So it was not about training, it was not about employment and it was not about getting people off the dole; it was about punishing those who may not be their supporters.

The minister has said that figures show that 15 per cent of job seekers who received an eight-week non-payment penalty have a mental illness, while a further five per cent have unstable housing. So the Howard government’s policy had a disproportionate impact on those who are disadvantaged—those with a mental illness; those who had left, for example, the Challinor Centre in my electorate and are now working in sheltered workshops or are in supported accommodation; those people who are dealing with departments who help them in that regard and the churches and charities that help them. People who have attended my church and continue to attend my church are in that sort of category. That is what the Howard government did to those sorts of people. It meant that those who work in the charitable sector and those who work with homeless people found that they were dealing with more and more people. The idea of penalising first is not the kind of policy that we need in a fair and humane society. What we need in our society is to treat people with dignity and respect. What we need is to ensure that we create new jobs. I am very pleased that as part of the Rudd government’s Economic Security Strategy we are investing in new jobs. We are investing $187 million to create 56,000 new training places this financial year.

The bill that we are dealing with today amends the law for about 620,000 people on Newstart, youth allowance, parenting payment and other benefits. It is about a fairer Australia. The current system has little deterrence or early intervention, as the member for Braddon so eloquently put it.

I have spoken to Brad Strong, who is a Salvation Army officer. I see the member for Oxley here; he would know Mr Strong as well. The Salvation Army run a great facility at Riverview, and I have talked to Mr Strong and other service providers. What they report back to me in my electorate is that they had dealt with the Howard government with real frustration, because it is challenging for people who are working in the church and charitable sector, whose motivation is to care for the disadvantaged, to then have government policy come in like some sort of sword of Damocles, hanging over the top of them, and have to deal with it. It is difficult for those sorts of people because it challenges their faith, their conviction and their human compassion for those who are homeless, disconnected and often suffering intergenerational poverty. The legislation before us today will go an enormous way towards improving the employment participation of people in my electorate of Blair.

Before I finish, I just want to comment about someone who has done more in terms of employment in Blair than just about anyone. Their business is now celebrating 20 years of making a contribution locally in the Ipswich area in getting people into jobs. I want to recognise the great work that Recruitment at Top has done. Jan Gadsden established the Top Office group 20 years ago. She and her husband, John, have been responsible for putting thousands of people in jobs in the Ipswich area. Recently, I was pleased to attend their celebration and to hear Tom Edwards, a very well-known and well-respected businessperson in Ipswich, congratulate them. The Mayor of Ipswich, Paul Pisasale, was also there. That particular business has done a lot for not only Ipswich but the entire Brisbane area. It is a preferred supplier of staff for the Queensland government. In 1994 it became a primary supplier of staff for Queensland Transport and expanded its business. That business deals with people who deal with the system every day. Jan, John, their daughter, Belinda, and their son-in-law, Warren, have made a huge contribution in my area in getting people into employment, recruiting people, training them and giving them the kinds of jobs which they need to feed their families and to ensure that they have the kind of lifestyle they deserve.

The legislation we are dealing with today is about getting people back into the workforce. It is about helping people like Brad Strong. It is about helping people like Jan Gadsden and others to get people into employment, to help people in Ipswich and the rural areas outside. I warmly commend the bill to the House. It is a great piece of legislation, and it is a great shame that those opposite are not supporting it.

See this speech in context