David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support this bill, which amends the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to introduce a stronger compliance framework for job seekers. The need to do this is a reflection of the undesirable and unintended consequences of having some sections of our communities become welfare dependent and even welfare expectant. While welfare is a privilege that the Australian economy can support and the Australian people are prepared to support, there need to be some parameters that stop people easily defaulting rather than working.

In my area, I commonly see the problems associated with long-term unemployment. The aim of our changes is to encourage people to get out of that rut in life under reasonable circumstances. In too many places around the nation, you can see the societal problems that come with long-term unemployed people. This bill will mean that the job seekers who incur a penalty for refusing or failing to commence work without good reason—and that is the most important part: when it is without good reason—will no longer be able to have the penalty waived.

Under the current job seeker compliance provisions, in division 3A of part 3 of the Social Security (Administration) Act, job seekers who are receiving a participation payment may incur an eight-week non-payment penalty for serious failures—that is, the refusal of suitable work or consistent noncompliance with their participation obligations. That participation payment includes Newstart allowance and, for some people, youth allowance, parenting payment and special benefit.

Currently, such a non-payment penalty can be waived if the job seeker begins to comply with a serious failure requirement—namely that they go on Work for the Dole, they go back on JobSearch training or they undertake more serious job searches. The non-payment period may also be waived if the job seeker does not have the capacity to comply with such a requirement and would be in serious financial hardship if the non-payment period was not ended. Schedule 1 would strengthen the job seeker compliance framework by providing that job seekers who incur an eight-week non-payment penalty for refusing suitable work will no longer have that penalty waived. Job seekers who consistently fail to comply with participation obligations will only be able to have the penalty waived once—and then only if they begin to comply with a serious failure requirement.

I will use a baseball analogy. If someone is under Work for the Dole or JobSearch and then they find a job and they do not take it they may have a valid reason such as that they are mentally ill or physically ill. They might get a job as a bricklayer but have heart disease or be riddled with arthritis or have some other problem that means they cannot do it. But, if they are physically fit and well and they refuse the job, they have to wear the penalty. It is okay to get out of it once but, at the moment, it is possible to have two strikes, three strikes and further recurring strikes. It can become a merry-go-round where you go on the JobSearch pathway and do all the searching and then if you get a job and you choose to not comply—that is, you do not take up the job—you can go back to the beginning again and go round and round again perpetually looking for a job.

The best thing we can do for those people is get them into employment. In fact, the best form of welfare is a permanent job. The best help for people who are getting depressed from being chronically unemployed is to give them dignity and a job. Unfortunately, there are some citizens in the system who think they can be perpetually looking for a job and knocking back offers when they are given them. So the intent of this bill goes to fairness and equity. The key principle is that the best thing for anyone is to get a job and, when one is offered, they should take it.

There are thousands of hardworking Australians who go to work every day, week in and week out, and pay taxes. They work weekend shiftwork. They earn money to support their families, homes and lifestyles. They also support the social welfare system that our nation is proud of. But they do not want to support people who are offered a chance to get out of that system and do not take it up without a reasonable, fair and understandable situation or excuse to explain it.

Many of us work for over a month to support one person on welfare for a day. As the number of workers drops, the burden on taxpayers rises. This initiative is trying to get those people who are taking advantage of the nation's generosity into work. Seventy per cent of the people on unemployment who get the chance for a job take it up. One of the observations is that 11 per cent of the people on unemployment have had four or five serious failures in one year. That means that for over half the year they have a penalty put against them and then they just get out of it by saying, 'I will go on JobSearch or Work for the Dole rather than taking a job.' That is what this legislation is aimed at.

In developing this bill, the government has considered the principles of the right to social security, the right to an adequate standard of living and the right to work. A job would not be considered suitable if the person lacks the skills to do that work. That is quite reasonable. No-one is going to be penalise you for that. If the only job in your town is for a rocket scientist but you did not get a good education, you would not be expected to take that job. But if they are going to teach you a skill you do not have and are there is training for it and you are fit and healthy, you will be expected to take it up. If you have a medical condition, as I have mentioned before, that is aggravated by the job or you have serious mental problems, no-one is going to see that as a failure.

As I mentioned, 70 per cent of people follow what is expected by the nation—and that is that you take a job when you are offered it. But, for that 11 per cent who seem to go round and round again, time is up. It is not one strike and you are out, but it is two strikes and you are out. It is not perpetual—three strikes, four strikes and five strikes—and you just go back to the beginning again. This bill will provide a strong deterrent for that behaviour and it will encourage job seekers to accept suitable employment. The bill will not impact on job seekers who cannot get work despite their best efforts but will target those who refuse an offer of suitable work without a reasonable excuse. I find this quite reasonable and I support the bill.

See this speech in context