Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

For a government that claims to want to get away from big government and for a party that likes to preach about being a party that supports small government, those opposite really do like to go after job seekers and stand over them. Just consider the words of the former immigration minister, then social services minister and now Treasurer—the demonising language he uses. He says, 'We have got to stop young job seekers taking the welfare bus from the school gate to the Centrelink office.' This is a government that really likes to stand over job seekers, that really likes to demonise them and say that they are people who are bludging on our system. Quite frankly, that could not be further from the truth. Those people who are not genuinely looking for work quite often have something more complex going on in their lives. The majority of job seekers that I have met in my electorate and throughout regional Australia are genuinely wanting and looking for work. The problem that we have in this country at the moment is that there are just not enough jobs for the job seekers we have. There is more that this government can be doing to help create and secure good jobs in this country.

Labor's position, as some of the previous speakers have spelt out, is that we are supporting some of the measures in this bill but not supporting others—because we believe they will make it harder for vulnerable job seekers. It was Labor that first moved to encourage job seekers to engage with employment service providers, and we did this because we believe it is going to increase the likelihood of job seekers gaining work—keeping them active, keeping them positive. Yes, I acknowledge that there is some work we need to do with employment service providers; there are some good ones and there are some that need to pick up their game. That is something that any government needs to be vigilant about.

For these reasons Labor will support some of the proposals in this legislation. Labor believes that more closely aligning the dates of suspensions and/or penalties with the actual date of noncompliance will ensure that people re-engage more quickly. It will also ensure that any mistakes that are made can be corrected sooner. It does happen—we have all heard of examples of people accidentally being suspended and then not realising that that mistake has been made until they have had the money deducted from their pay. Closely aligning the date of suspension with the actual date of noncompliance will help to clean up those mistakes that occur and will encourage people to re-engage sooner.

We have previously supported similar moves in this regard for missed opportunities—ensuring, however, that the right of job seekers to have the decision reviewed is protected so we can make sure that we pick up those mistakes when they occur. It is about protecting the right of job seekers to show 'reasonable excuse'—so that there can be some compassion and understanding about why somebody has missed an appointment. It can be due to simple things: the bus did not turn up; there was a flat tyre; or, as a previous speaker mentioned, they went to a funeral. There needs to be an opportunity for job seekers to demonstrate reasonable excuse, because this is what happens in people's lives.

If we expect employers to be reasonable about excuses for why employees may be late to work, then Centrelink, job agencies and service providers should do the same. They should have that compassion and that understanding. We will only support the measures in this bill after preventing government attacks on the scope of what is reasonable excuse. We need to make sure that we are supporting people in helping them to work. We should not be slapping them down and standing over them with a big stick. We need to be supporting these people in genuinely finding work—extending the hand as opposed to slapping them down. As a result of the protections that Labor introduced, the average suspension for missing an appointment dropped from 5.2 business days down to 3.1, and the reforms that are before us today will help to reduce that even further.

Labor, however, is going to fight some of the proposals that are in this legislation. We will not support the broad changes that seek to penalise the behaviour of job seekers based upon criteria that are unfair, unclear and potentially will harm unemployed Australians. We do not support the penalties that prevent job seekers from re-engaging in activities that will help them to find work, especially when we know that such penalties will increase hardship. Also, we will not support any attempts to coerce jobseekers and undermine the mutual nature of the formation of a jobs plan. We need to make sure that there is independence within any plan, and that there is not any kind of untoward behaviour going on.

Labor have referred this bill to the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee for hearings and look forward to finding out the outcomes, because this is complex policy and we acknowledge that. We want to hear the experience of people seeking jobs.

As I said, we need to be getting on with the job of creating jobs. These measures would not be as important and necessary if we had a government that was genuine about creating jobs and not just more rhetoric. We are talking about people throughout the age spectrum—we are talking about younger workers, older workers, people who are genuinely looking for work, and there are not a lot of jobs available. There is more that the government can do in this space.

Recently, I caught up with Life Essentials in my electorate, and they are one of the early organisations that signed on the Work for the Dole program. What struck me when I went there was not just the professionalism of the participants but that they saw what they did every day—arriving to work on time, running the rosters and doing the work they did—as a job. They did not need to be under the banner of Work for the Dole. They had been volunteers previously. They were now Work for the Dole participants, and they were committed to the work that they were doing. Why? Because there were not jobs available for them. Their stories—they had been to 200 job interviews; they had submitted resumes over and over again, sometimes not even getting the reply, 'We have received your resume.' They said: 'Lisa, it is simple—there just aren't enough jobs for me. They just don't exist. I don't qualify for training anymore. I'm struggling to get out there and to talk to people in retail. There is a bit of a slowdown in retail. That has been my experience, and I just can't get a start.

Younger workers—youth unemployment in my area is up to 18.2 per cent. That is not because young people do not want work—they do. There is not the entry-level jobs available today for them. This is where the government could be really proactive and look at the space of temporary work visas, and the number of people who are in this country at the moment as overseas workers. There are 1.2 million temporary workers in this country, whether they be on 457, 467 or 417 visas, or international students. The government could help free up a lot of jobs that exist here in this country right now by cracking down and getting tough on the temporary workers and on what is going on in the temporary work visa space.

One of the reasons why local people are struggling to compete in this market is that there are temporary workers here who are being exploited. How can a young person from my electorate in Bendigo compete with someone who is here on a 457 visa, or a 417 visa, and getting paid $5 an hour less? How is this happening? At KR Castlemaine in my electorate—the 'big baco' where they produce a lot of 'dons' and KR Castlemaine, which you all buy in the supermarket—there is a collective agreement in place. That collective agreement has been undercut because the company has outsourced to a third party and employed 417 visas, and taken away jobs from local young people. At the moment, that is completely above board. There is clearly a weakness in the Fair Work Act, and there is clearly no will from this government to tackle that. Those young people who have lost their jobs at that place are now looking for work. They are people who are going to be subject to the rules that are before us today. They are quite willing to keep working at the bacon factory. They are quite willing to keep working there. They are keen to keep working there. But they have lost their jobs to people who are here on 417 visas—the backpacker visas. They have lost their jobs. They have been undercut.

This is where the government can do more to help create jobs—secure jobs, in our community. The youth unemployment rate is almost equal to the number of temporary backpackers that we have in this country. There is a problem with the temporary work visa space. Then we go to skilled workers—the 457 visas and all the scandals that we are hearing, almost on a weekly basis, of workers being underpaid in the 457 visa space. Some companies and employers are not even attempting to take on a graduate.

We have a very high rate of engineers coming out of university who cannot get a job within the first 12 months and the first two years. They might still be working in retail or they are looking for work; yet, time and time again, we are seeing those jobs go to people who are here on 457 visas. I challenge business and this government to come up with a plan that will see pathways from education into skilled professions. At the moment there is a gap. There is a gap in the graduate entry-level space, and this government is doing little to help encourage university students make that next step. Employers and government need to work together to ensure that we rebuild entry-level programs.

This bill does talk about job seekers. It does try to take the tough-stick approach to people who are looking for work. As I have said, some of these measures Labor will support, but others we will not because they go after vulnerable job seekers. This government needs to show compassion and understanding when it comes to people who are looking for work. I have mentioned that most people who are looking for work just need a job, and this government needs to do more to create jobs.

For the other group of people who are missing appointments and not getting there on time—quite often there is something more complex going on in their lives. These are people who might come from intergenerational unemployment, and there are pockets of this disadvantage that exist everywhere. In my electorate, we have parts where there is third generation unemployment. This measure, by cutting their payment off, is not going to fix what is going on in their homes. They need support, education for their children and social workers to go into their homes to help rebuild their confidence. The more sticks and slap-downs that you give them do not empower them to step up and take control and go to that job interview.

What we need to do is to be supporting these people to step up from the grassroots, support organisations like our councillors and support our welfare organisations to encourage them to re-engage and get involved in their community. It is more complex than just cutting them off, sending them a text message and saying, 'Go back to your interview.'

That is why some of the organisations in our electorate are engaging with the Work for the Dole program or other programs to strongly encourage that grassroots movement and to rebuild people's confidence. If only this government could get out there on the ground and start talking to people about the importance of creating jobs. You can do all the reform that you want in this place around vulnerable job seekers, making sure that we have got the rules tough enough and making sure people turn up to appointments, but, if you talk to anybody who is working in this space, what they want be able to offer job seekers is options—options in jobs that are available.

One of the previous speakers said that, if somebody refuses to take a job, they should be kicked off payments for that, or words to that effect. In regional areas, sometimes people turn down jobs because they do not have available child care or they cannot afford the car to get to the job on time. We do not always have decent public transport to help people get from A to B. Not every job is suitable to every person, so there needs to be compassion, understanding and flexibility. I strongly urge the government to rethink its approach to job seekers and to do more to help create genuine job opportunities, because without creating genuine job opportunities we are not going to be able to move people genuinely from social security, welfare and job seeker payments into jobs. Jobs are critical and this government needs to come up with a plan that will create good secure jobs that people can count on.

See this speech in context