Andrew Southcott (Boothby, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment Participation, Training and Sport) Share this | Hansard source

According to the Department for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations labour market and related payments monthly report, the number of long-term unemployed fell from 205,212 in June 2006 to 146,533 by August 2008. That is the department’s own figures from their labour market and related payments monthly report. That represents a drop of almost 30 per cent in just over two years. Also in response to the minister’s comments about stream 1—the job ready job seekers—on the department’s own figures they still estimate that 34 per cent of those job seekers will still be unemployed in 12 months time. With the lack of support that will be there for stream 1 job seekers, there is a real concern that they will just be languishing there for 12 months. There will be no incentives to connect them up with a job. I might say those figures are based on historical figures. They do not take into account what seems to be a consensus amongst market analysts that we will have rising unemployment, we will see more Australians lose their job over the next 12 months and we will see higher unemployment over the period that we are considering.

But the reality is this: in order to sustain our welfare system we must be assured that it is appropriately fair. By this I mean we provide support to those who need it and in return they accept their responsibility to actively seek work. Labor’s model does nothing but encourage increased welfare dependency by watering down mutual obligation to the extent it provides no real incentive for people to attend their appointments. By watering down mutual obligation, we are condoning people not turning up to Work for the Dole, provider appointments or even job interviews. There will always be those who want to push the boundaries, and by loosening mutual obligation requirements like this more and more jobseekers may be encouraged to do so.

Labor has not made the case for watering down the compliance regime. We need to ensure that the system is firm but fair. The current system is fair. Sanctions are a last resort. Safety nets are in place to ensure that job seekers are not penalised if they have a reasonable excuse for failing to engage. Financial case management is offered to ensure that vulnerable job seekers do not lose their accommodation and remain able to support their families during any non-payment period. But Labor’s proposal does away with financial case management.

Of further concern is the decision to empower the departmental secretary to use legislative instruments to determine whether a job seeker is in breach of their mutual obligations. The parameters determining these guidelines should be set out within the act to ensure consistency and should not be determined on the whim of the secretary or the minister. Legislative instruments will grant discretion to the departmental secretary to determine whether someone should be exempt from mutual obligation. This allows for enormous discretions at all levels—at the level of the minister, the department, effectively Centrelink and employment service providers. The effect of this will be that very few people will incur a no-show, no-pay failure, ultimately giving job seekers the impression that the system does not really require them to engage with mutual obligation.

I conclude where I began: Job Network was very successful in reducing unemployment. It was a very bold reform; it was a bold innovation. Australia, when it went down this path in active labour market programs, was doing something that no other country around the world had done. What we see in the net impact studies for the Job Network and all of the labour market programs is that they are amongst the world’s best. It does require a very fine balance between the incentives that are there for employment service providers to connect up job seekers with a job, the support that we provide for job seekers, the compliance regime and ultimately as a last resort the sanctions. We argue as the opposition that Labor have got this balance wrong and that their employment services model will not work in an environment with rising unemployment where more Australians are likely to lose their jobs, where we could see up to 200,000 more Australians out of work by the time this employment services model begins. It is for those reasons that we support these amendments. We do not support Labor’s weakening of mutual obligation and the no-show, no-pay failures.

Question put:

That the amendments (Dr Southcott’s) be agreed to.

See this speech in context