Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation) Share this | Hansard source

I do not want to take up the time of the parliament, and I do not want to keep repeating myself. I did say this in summing up the second reading debate on this bill, but obviously the shadow minister was not listening. It is important to get the penalty right. I think it is important to work out what measure we require to have an influence over the behaviour of people, including job seekers. Of course we have to get the penalties right. The shadow minister refers to the no-show, no-pay penalty as not being sufficient. But I would like to remind the shadow minister that currently a person can miss an interview, be in breach and receive no more than a letter warning them that, if they have another breach, they will get warned again. Finally, a third breach will see an eight-week, irreversible non-payment. But there is no penalty attached to the first two warnings under the current arrangements. The reason why that is a problem is that, if they are not in any way materially affected, people do not fully understand that not complying is going to lead to a withdrawal of income.

That is why we have designed a work-like approach to the compliance arrangement. It will mean that a person who misses a day of activities without reasonable excuse will lose a day’s income, just like would happen in a job. That is exactly the way in which we believe we can assist job seekers to realise that their actions have consequences. Currently, you can miss an activity and not have any adverse material effect. I would also like to indicate that the government consulted widely in relation to these matters and in relation to the new compliance arrangements being proposed by the bill. Indeed, we have had support from NESA, the peak employment provider body. We have spoken to employers, and I can tell you that employers would like to see a more work-like approach to the compliance arrangements for job seekers.

The shadow minister opposite refers to Frank Quinlan from Catholic Social Services. Can I say that, whilst Catholic Social Services do not agree with everything we do, I know in the main they are very happy with the changes we are making to the employment programs. Indeed, they certainly believe we are moving in the right direction in relation to compliance. They have no time for the current arrangements, which of course is something that was sadly forgotten in the contribution made by the member for Boothby today.

I believe it is important for the shadow minister and the opposition to understand that within 12 months we have seen a doubling in the number of eight-week non-payment penalties. There have been more people affected by the eight-week non-payment penalty this year than in any other year. A significant proportion of those people suffer great harm as a result of having that penalty inflicted upon them. I do not think it is the intent of people for them to suffer great harm, but that is what happens. In many cases people are evicted from homes because of this penalty. There is a significant proportion of people who cannot pay their rent and therefore their accommodation is under threat. There are people who have not been diagnosed and people who have been diagnosed with mental illness who have had this penalty applied to them.

What we want to do is ensure that the arrangement allows for people to re-engage. That is why we say that whilst wilful and persistent noncompliance will attract the eight-week penalty—and that is why we have kept it—we want to focus on re-engagement. So we say to people, ‘If you re-engage and undertake 25 hours activity throughout the course of the week, equivalent to a full-time Work for the Dole program, then you can resume your income.’ What is the gain in having people lose income, not participate with their provider, not participate with Centrelink and find themselves, one way or another, a greater burden on the state and social services because they cannot afford to stay in their homes? That is why we have struck the balance. I think the balance is right. I believe the opposition should reconsider the bill. We cannot support the amendments because they fundamentally change the intention of the government. (Time expired)

See this speech in context