Luke Hartsuyker (Cowper, National Party, Assistant Minister for Employment) Share this | Hansard source

I thank those members who have spoken on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill 2014. The government is committed to enhancing the integrity of our social security system so that it is fair and sustainable into the future. The government understands that most job seekers do the right thing and meet their participation requirements. However, there are some job seekers who flout the rules and are not serious about moving from welfare to work. This bill will ensure that there are appropriate consequences in place for those job seekers who do not do the right thing by the taxpayer.

The changes in this bill apply only to what are called 'serious failures'. For someone to have committed a serious failure, they would have had to have refused a suitable job without a reasonable excuse or to have been persistently and wilfully noncompliant. These are not the behaviours of someone who is genuine about moving from welfare to work. These are people who, by their actions, are saying, 'I am not prepared to do my bit in return for income support.' These are people who deliberately do not meet their mutual obligations, not because of a disability or a vulnerability but because they choose to flout the requirements that are placed upon them. These are the people that Labor wants to let off the hook—those who deliberately do not meet their mutual obligations.

The bill introduces changes to ensure that the existing eight-week non-payment period is actually applied in these cases. The protections for vulnerable job seekers remain in place. I will repeat that because there has been a lot of misinformation circulated by members opposite: the protections for vulnerable job seekers remain in place. If a person had a reasonable excuse or was a vulnerable job seeker—for instance, a person with a mental illness or an intellectual disability— these factors will continue to be assessed before a decision is made to apply a penalty. That is a very important point.

It is not surprising, however, that Labor oppose the bill and are seeking to confuse the debate—because the need for these amendments arises because of the actions of those opposite. The previous government watered down the job seeker compliance framework by allowing those job seekers who do the wrong thing to avoid a financial penalty. Those opposite were happy to allow taxpayer funds to continue to go to those job seekers who had no respect for the rules. The government does not think it is reasonable that a job seeker on income support can keep on promising to do the right thing 'next time' but never actually deliver on that promise. That is what Labor's waiver provisions allowed. They allowed those job seekers who were intent on doing the wrong thing to keep on getting a benefit at the taxpayers' expense simply by agreeing to do some additional activities. Labor's waiver provisions allowed them to make promises time and time again—without an appropriate sanction for breaking those promises.

Ms Collins interjecting—

The member for Franklin claimed that there was no evidence for the measures in this bill. I must say to the House that it just goes to show how out of touch the member really is. To the contrary, there is clear evidence of the need for the measures in this bill—clear evidence indeed. Labor's approach was an unmitigated failure. In 2008-09, under the Job Network approach, there were 644 penalties applied for refusing a suitable job. In 2012-13, after Labor's new waiver provisions were introduced, there were 1,718 serious failures for refusing a suitable job. That is a trebling in the number of people refusing a suitable job under Labor's watch and, because of Labor's lax approach, the penalties were waived in 68 per cent of these cases. Over the same time frame there were 25,286 serious failures for repeated noncompliance—repeated noncompliance, not just noncompliance—and the penalties were waived in 73 per cent of these cases. This is simply not acceptable.

Labor needs to explain why they think it is reasonable that a job seeker can elect to stay on welfare rather than take a job. Why should a person who refuses a suitable job—and a suitable job is a job for which they have the skills and ability—be allowed to turn it down and continue to ask the taxpayer to fund their lifestyle? Why should they be able to turn down a job and still expect the taxpayer to pay them benefits? Those taxpayers who get up every morning, who have a long commute to work and who juggle the demands of family should not have to pay their taxes so other people can be picky about the jobs they choose—or simply choose not to work at all. If people turn down a suitable job or are persistently noncompliant, it is reasonable that they should lose access to taxpayer funded income support for a period of time.

Most people understand that there comes a point when people who do the wrong thing should pay a financial penalty. The job seekers who are the subject of this legislation have already had plenty of opportunities to engage with the system and receive support from employment services. These job seekers are making a decision that says, 'I prefer welfare over work.' The coalition, unlike those opposite, does not think that is legitimate choice. Last night and today we have had members opposite saying that the government should be focusing on job creation. The coalition, unlike those opposite, can do both—we can focus on job creation and we can ensure compliance with the requirements of the job services system.

It is this side of the House that has a plan to grow the economy in order to grow more jobs. To build a stronger economy, we need to get taxes down and cut red tape. That is why we scrapped the carbon tax—no help from you, Member for Franklin.

Ms Collins interjecting—

We scrapped the carbon tax this morning—you voted against it—and we are scrapping the mining tax. We are cutting company tax, we are slashing red tape and we are making the employment services system more efficient.

To build a stronger economy, we also need to get the budget under control. That is why the government introduced a range of important structural changes in the May budget. What has happened? Labor of course is standing in the way. Labor is standing in the way of these very important reforms. To illustrate the hypocrisy of those opposite, you need look no further than the bill introduced by the Treasurer yesterday, a bill that included the budget savings announced by Labor before they were kicked out of office by the Australian people. Not only is Labor standing in the way of the savings measures introduced by the government; they are also blocking their own savings measures. We have a Labor Party that does not even agree with itself, so confused is the Australian Labor Party. Labor says they support job creation, but everything they did in government made it difficult for Australian businesses to grow and employ people. On their watch unemployment increased by more than 200,000. On their watch youth unemployment increased by 55,000. On their watch the rate of youth unemployment increased by almost three per cent.

Labor left Australia on a path to $667 billion in debt and left us with $123 billion in cumulative deficits. After being thrown out by the Australian people you would think members opposite would allow the government to get on with the job it was elected to do. Instead, Labor is standing in the way of the very reforms that will free up Australian business to grow, to employ people and to create the opportunities that are so much needed around the country.

Labor liked to claim that they support mutual obligation and clear rules for job seekers, but their actions suggest otherwise. In a media release on 13 June 2014, the member for Gorton said:

In return for receiving support, of course young people should complete certain duties and look for work.

But Labor is opposing this bill, which would reinforce the importance of mutual obligation. This is clearly another backflip by Labor.

The coalition government is not afraid of providing strong deterrence so that more job seekers will do the right thing first time around. This bill will ensure that the existing penalties for serious failures are applied more rigorously, in keeping with taxpayer expectations. Regrettably, those on the other side of the chamber are happy to let the minority of job seekers continue to rort the system. The coalition government stands firm in our expectation that people in receipt of income support are asked to undertake certain reasonable activities in return for that support, and that, where they do not, appropriate penalties should be applied.

This bill will only affect job seekers who refuse a suitable job without a reasonable excuse or are persistently and wilfully noncompliant. Safeguards will remain in place to ensure that where a person has a reasonable excuse, or a particular vulnerability, such as a medical condition, these factors are appropriately considered before the penalty is applied. These amendments will help restore the integrity of our social security system so that it is fair and sustainable. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context