Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2011. This bill seeks to introduce much needed improvements to the compliance requirements for job seekers. Unemployment is currently 4.9 per cent and many businesses are crying out for staff, yet job seeker income support for 2011-12 is still estimated to cost taxpayers $7.2 billion. In March 2011, 179,041 job seekers were classified as long-term unemployed, meaning that they have been on income support for 12 months or more. In yesterday's budget the term, which is already in existence but certainly featured in the budget, was 'very long-term unemployed'. That gives us a sense of the nature of this problem. On top of a very sizeable income support budget, billions of dollars is spent by the government to provide job search support.

Whilst I have a few criticisms of the current system, there are countless organisations offering employment services to job seekers nationally. These people are at the coalface and work very hard to place people into jobs. On a personal note it is a privilege to meet people who work in our job service agencies, particularly with challenging individuals. These people have dedicated their lives to getting those people into work and onto a meaningful pathway in life. But noncompliance has costs for these employment service providers and for Centrelink. Having to constantly phone job seekers to ask why they did not attend a meeting are distractions that take away from the core role of the employment services provider—getting someone into a job. It is as simple as that.

We need to ensure that job seekers are given the support they need to take up job vacancies that exist. However, if a job seeker is not attending appointments, they are not going to get off welfare anytime soon. The first stage or an early stage is to attend those appointments. In the last 12 months approximately two million job interviews, activities or provider appointments were missed by job seekers with no valid excuse given. This is a clear indictment of the failure of the current compliance system and of the urgent need for reform.

We need to drastically improve job seeker engagement with employment services providers. I suspect that part of the reason for this abysmal attendance record stems from the fact that many job seekers believe they will not be penalised if they fail to attend an appointment. In all likelihood they may well be right, with only half of all participation reports lodged with Centrelink being upheld. These are reports provided by the job service agency to Centrelink, which is the agency that must withhold payment for non-attendance.

We know that there are many reasons why people do not make job interviews and we understand that some of those reasons stem from the nature of that person's life. They may be vulnerable, they may be homeless and they may have all sorts of issues with which they are dealing, and those issues are recognised by the system. This is not an approach that suggests that everybody will be put into a category of losing income support should they not attend. But I am waiting with interest to see how this government describes those vulnerabilities in the regulations. In other words, how it draws that very careful distinction between those who need a bit of a push to attend an employment interview and those who, with the best will in the world, cannot.

The Rudd government has to shoulder the blame for watering down mutual obligation with their failed employment services reform legislation in 2008 and letters sent by both the then minister and the department deputy secretary urging providers to turn a blind eye to job seeker noncompliance. This was a clear strategy of the Labor Party, certainly the Labor Left, voicing their disapproval of the concept of mutual obligation. We have also seen Work for the Dole virtually abolished under Labor with the March figures indicating only 9,151 people were participating in Work for the Dole. This program has been remarkably successful in giving job seekers a work-like experience, and Teaching Skills in Demand has come under fire from Labor ever since its inception. This is a clear sign of the lack of commitment the government has to mutual obligation. But the decision that we see reflected in this bill, to get a bit more serious about making job seekers comply with their obligations, is a positive move in the right direction. Unfortunately, it has taken three years to come about, during which time many job seekers have become complacent. Mutual obligation requires people in receipt of income support to make reasonable efforts to look for a job. There are, regrettably, some Australians who do view welfare as a lifestyle choice. A firm but fair compliance regime sends to these people the message that it is not okay to sit at home and cash your welfare cheque with no intention of ever really looking for a job. Income support payments are designed to be a temporary safety net, nothing more. There is a continuum between somebody's obligations to contribute to the society in which they live and society's obligations to look after its most vulnerable and disadvantaged. We in the coalition will never walk away from the obligation that governments have to look after the most disadvantaged—those who cannot cope. But into the love has to come the tough. The tough love approach has been missing from this government's approach with some fairly poor results, particularly for the job seekers themselves.

Welfare dependency is a real concern in this country. There are suburbs where intergenerational unemployment is rife. We have to break the mindset that you can live on welfare from the cradle to the grave, but that is a very tough challenge and it requires a tough approach. Children should not be raised to believe that they are entitled to a lifetime of taxpayer funded welfare, but they need to be shown the benefits and possibilities of a job. That children are growing up in households where no generation has worked—we are into the fourth generation in terms of intergenerational unemployment—underlines the dimensions of that challenge. It is very hard for a child who has never known a parent or role model who has worked for a living to understand the reward a job brings, from both a social point of view and a financial point of view. The best way to help these children overcome the disadvantage that faces them is to help them get a good education and a job.

I mentioned the privilege of meeting people who work with job seekers. Everywhere I go I also meet those who are conducting the programs that try to bring a group of people who have been completely disengaged from the system back into the system and back onto that pathway. Some of those programs work amazingly well, and I thank the providers. I am not going to name them because I would miss out on somebody important.

Just on the weekend, in the west of my electorate of Farrer, near the small town of Pooncarie—which is on the Darling River for those who do not know it—I met somebody who was involved in taking a group of kids from the bush who had never known meaningful employment and training them in horticulture. The training they received would lead to a horticulture certificate II. The feedback I got about this program, which is one of the government's current programs, was that it was not really working very successfully. The young people concerned would come, they would have the sandwiches at morning tea—which underscores the fact they may not have eaten at home—and then they would disappear, because there was nothing actually forcing them to stay there for a day's work. The other problem was that they were completing training that did not really mean much to them at that point in time. There are times when there is much work for those with a horticulture certificate but there is an abundance of people qualified in this area and at the moment there are very few jobs, given the shocking state of our wine grape industry. They could not see a connection between what they were being asked to do and a future job.

My friend was frustrated, quite frankly, because he had put a lot of effort in—he wanted them to get out of the cycle they were in—and people were turning up and not doing what they were supposed to. When he asked them in detail, they said what they really wanted to do was to learn to read and write. They really wanted to learn to read and write because then they could get a drivers licence and could drive. Many of these people, unfortunately, do drive but are not licensed. That was a practical thing that they could see, and it is a piece of education that has been sorely missed. I see some literacy and numeracy funding in the budget—not very much—and I am really interested to see that it does not just dissipate at bureaucracy level but hits the ground in a really meaningful sense.

The point is that in the current environment there is no TAFE course for these particular work experience people to attend that could be signed off as allowing them to participate in this program. They had to do a certificate II in horticulture or some other comparable certificate, but what they really needed was literacy and numeracy change. That comes down to an area in our VET and training system that needs to be looked at carefully. So when we see the headline numbers and when we see that this is the outcome, we really do have to look in detail at the program, and the simple approach often works best.

To finish this story, the fellow I was talking to spent quite a bit of time, out of hours, teaching these young people how to read and write. He put in front of them information that was relevant—not the sort of story books you would see in grade 2 but something they could actually read: road signs, traffic rules and basic instructions. They all came to life. They all loved it and actually saw a meaning and a purpose, and that is the key.

Youth unemployment remains an ongoing concern. We need to address this to prevent longer term social disadvantage. I have spoken with employers desperate to take on apprentices, but they cannot find people willing to take on an apprenticeship and who are capable of doing so. There is currently a seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 11.3 per cent for people aged 15 to 24. That is just not acceptable. It is so critical that we keep these young people engaged with their employment services provider and that we work with them to help them get the skills and education they need to lift them out of the poverty trap and decrease the threat of social isolation which can occur with long-term unemployment. Long-term unemployment is not that far away for someone who today does not have a job, who lost their job three months ago. The slide from being in that position to being long-term unemployed and struggling to get a job can happen very fast and in quite a dramatic sense that affects your entire life experience. Something we should be aware of with the long-term unemployed is that it would be better for those in the early stages of unemployment to be looked after and helped—that is, perhaps more help is needed at the front end of that experience—before they actually slip into long-term unemployment. Underlying this legislation is a clear and simple message. It is one of responsibility. People must take responsibility for their own lives. If they have a legitimate reason and are unable to attend a meeting with their job services provider or if they cannot attend a job interview then they need to advise in advance. It is simple and it echoes what the vast majority of us take as a given: if you know you are ill, pick up the phone and let your office or workplace know. This is what is being asked of job seekers—not much more than a common courtesy. I know that vulnerable people in difficult positions may not be able to manage this, but we have to take it as just a small thing and a step in the right direction. You may still be in bed, you may be struggling to cope, but you can pick up the phone, you can make the call and you can say, 'I will not be there for today's interview; I need to reschedule.' As soon as somebody re-engages with their employment services provider, their payment will be reinstated.

So, to put it simply, at the beginning, if they do not turn up, their payment is suspended. If they re-engage, their payment is reinstated. Therefore, the responsibility rests with the job seeker to determine how long they will have their welfare payments withheld. In other words, when they re-engage, their welfare payment is reinstated and they will also be back paid. Those job seekers who do the right thing and attend their appointments or reschedule them in advance if they are not in a position to attend will not be penalised. But for those who deliberately shirk their responsibilities there will be a price to pay. Yet it is vital that the most vulnerable of these job seekers are not penalised unfairly. As I said, the legislation is designed to afford a measure of protection, but we need to see how that protection is described in the relevant regulations.

In my describing in a simple sense the principle behind this—of course, like most legislation, this is full of unbelievably complicated detail—the House will note that there are significant requirements on Centrelink. They are that Centrelink act in real time, that Centrelink suspend payments while the person is disengaged and, if the person reconnects, that Centrelink reinstate payment in order to give the person the message that once you are in the system and working to assist yourself and to meet your obligations then your welfare payments will continue.

Those of us who understand the complicated computer systems in our large departments will agree it is quite a tall order. I am concerned that the IT system in Centrelink may not be up to this, with the best will in the world. We saw that the budget is slashing Public Service numbers, and Centrelink needs to be resourced to do this job properly because the whole principle that underpins this legislation will fall to bits if a person who re-engages with the system actually does not receive their payment and catch up quickly. I know that those who are receiving Newstart allowance—some $239—are not in a position to look after themselves. This is a necessary and tough message, but it also needs the counterpart of the agency acting quickly to reinstate the funding where required. It is pretty scary when you look at some public policy which is designed around IT systems. The response so often when you contact an agency is, 'The system won't allow it.' So we need to make sure that the Centrelink system does allow this. It is a sensible measure which should go a considerable way towards reversing the sharp increase in attendance failures by job seekers. We need to drive home a real work ethic whilst ensuring that the system is both reasonable and manageable.

There are real problems with the current system, and NESA have identified these in their submission to the House inquiry into this legislation. I should note that this legislation was referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment. The report was done very quickly. Congratulations to the members. I think it was tabled this morning. NESA, who I just mentioned, are the National Employment Services Association. They are the peak body for Australian employment services, the only national peak body that represent the community, private, public and government sectors. Some of their comments in their submission to the House standing committee are instructive and I think they bear repeating. They make the point that there is clear support for the principle that individuals should take responsibility for undertaking steps to improve their circumstances and not be dependent on the welfare system to the extent that they have the capacity to do so.

NESA also believe that, following a period of implementation, there will be a further opportunity to strengthen the compliance framework to better support job seeker engagement and workforce participation. They indicate that there is more to be done in this area and there are improvements that can be made around the compliance requirements. They note that a considerable investment is made by government to ensure the welfare of its citizens and to provide services to assist them to address circumstances. That is the biggest outgoing cost that governments face, and it is significant. The amendments, NESA says, as outlined in the current bill are considered welcome improvements to the job seeker compliance framework and will provide greater emphasis on engagement and participation. Because they are a peak body, I think it is worth noting that they have endorsed the principle that is at work here.

Just on the subject of the inquiry of the House of Representatives standing committee, there were 10 recommendations. I am not going to read them all out, but there are a couple that I will note because I think that when a committee looks at legislation in detail and takes submissions—and there were some good submissions; they have not all agreed with this and they have not all agreed with the approaches that are in place, but they have still been good submissions—the recommendations that it comes forward with are certainly worth noting. It recommended that a brief, plain English explanation of the proposed changes be produced and made available to job seekers. That is so important. We are talking about people amongst whom many are barely literate. The principle is sound but if we were to confront them with the requirements, even perhaps not in a legislative sense, it would go over the heads of many of them and perhaps even many of us. So that is a good recommendation.

The committee recommended that the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, the Department of Human Services, employment services providers and other stakeholders work together to develop consistent guidance and training material to accompany the bill. That comes down to resources. The government has to not only announce measures but walk the walk, and resources are needed in this area.

The committee recommended that Centrelink and employment services provider staff be provided with comprehensive training in relation to the measures proposed by the bill and the guidelines. Centrelink have a huge workload. Those of us who have Centrelink agencies in our towns and have a relationship between our electorate offices and those people know how hard they work. It seems that when the government—and this is common with all governments—needs to put a program or something somewhere it often ends up with Centrelink. So they certainly need, as I said, the resources and the training. The committee also recommended that employment services providers be given clear and comprehensive guidance on how to utilise their discretion to submit a participation report on a missed appointment. We need discretion built in, because no government could legislate for every single set of circumstances for a vulnerable job seeker. But the discretion has to be used well. Officers who are required to suspend payments need to have the confidence when the time comes to actually suspend the payment.

The committee also recommended that employment services providers should be advised to utilise all re-engagement mechanisms available to them in relation to vulnerable job seekers. That recommendation comes from having looked through the submissions, including from ACOSS and some of the welfare rights organisations and headspace. That is what they highlighted—they were worried particularly about young, vulnerable job seekers. We need to be assured that there is not a one-size-fits-all approach. I know there are indicators for those people already in the Centrelink and Job Services system, but again we need to see how their circumstances will be addressed when this actually takes place. Of course the committee recommended that the House pass the job seeker compliance bill, which is clearly what we are doing.

I said that there were real problems with the current system, and NESA have identified those in their submission—in particular, the administrative burden of submitting participation reports is onerous for providers and can in some instances take up to 28 days. The NESA submission says:

... where no reasonable excuse is determined, providers generally consider that the more immediate loss of payment will provide better reinforcement and a stronger and more direct deterrent for the reconnection failure.

As I have said, we need those who operate within the system to have the confidence to actually take the step—not easy—to suspend the payment, recognising that it is in the best interests of the job seeker.

In conclusion, the coalition supports this shift to a more rigorous compliance regime—one that is firm, but certainly still fair. Under these rules, job seekers will lose their payment immediately, which in turn should help reinforce in their mind the linkage between welfare and responsibility. I congratulate the government on finally recognising that the coalition's approach in this area is the right one. I commend the bill and the committee's report to the House.

See this speech in context