Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying earlier today, the coalition requires a firm but fair system to ensure that those in receipt of income support who can work have a responsibility to look for work and contribute back to the society that supports them. In addition to this they need to recognise that welfare is a temporary safety net and not a lifestyle choice—a hand up, not a handout.

On the other hand, in 2008 the Rudd Labor government watered down mutual obligation, introducing their no show, no pay compliance model, which saw job seekers docked a day's welfare payment for failing to attend interviews. The department and the minister were writing to providers asking them to be more lenient on those who breached the rules. Since then, the coalition has advocated for more stringent and appropriate compliance mechanisms as Labor's no show, no pay compliance model has been a failure. It is clear that there was neither a real financial disincentive for job seekers to comply with their activity test requirements, nor an enforced administration of this scheme.

This current Labor government has also failed job seekers by increasing the amount of time a job seeker spends out of work and unengaged in activities like Work for the Dole. This further increases their separation from the workforce as they are not engaging in job-like activities and are unable to get into a routine. Let me remind members of this House that, as was the case with border protection, the Howard government had a proven formula for Work for the Dole. New figures reveal the coalition's Work for the Dole program is being killed off under this federal Labor government, with 3,000 participants slashed from the scheme in the last eight months of 2010. Since 2007, when the Labor government started withering away Work for the Dole, they have increased long-term unemployment under their passive welfare model, where people are required to be unemployed for 12 months or more before this Labor government will fund a work experience activity. Evidence also suggests that the longer someone is out of the workforce it becomes less likely that they will work again. Now the Gillard Labor government are looking at slowly bringing back past Liberal government policies. The coalition has strongly advocated that Work for the Dole should become mandatory for people under 50 who have been receiving unemployment benefits for more than six months.

The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Job Seeker Compliance) Bill has a number of key points which should be noted. Firstly, it seeks to introduce tougher compliance measures for job seekers who have activity test requirements. Secondly, it will suspend income support payments for job seekers who fail to attend an appointment or activity like Work for the Dole without a reasonable excuse given in advance. When the job seeker does attend a rescheduled appointment their payment will be reinstated with back pay. Where the job seeker fails to attend the rescheduled meeting and fails to provide an adequate excuse then payment will be suspended until they do attend an appointment. No back pay will be payable for this period. Thirdly, reasonable excuse provisions will also be tightened, so that even if a job seeker has a reasonable excuse for not attending an appointment or activity on the day it will not be accepted if they could have given advance notice that they could not attend and failed to do so.

I note that there have been some concerns received on this bill from various community groups outside my electorate. These include that this legislation is too punitive and that it fails to clarify the circumstances in which job seekers will not be required to give prior notice of their absence. The coalition is satisfied that the wording of the legislation is such that if a job seeker does have a valid reason for missing an appointment and was not in a position to advise the provider beforehand then their payment will be immediately reinstated. Like the coalition, the people of my electorate are supportive of Work for the Dole and mutual obligation. In Solomon, as in many other electorates around the nation, there are a range of community projects where unemployed people can contribute back to the society that supports them.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the support of the coalition for this bill. I hope that these reforms will do as intended and that all job seekers will benefit from moving from welfare to work. My only concern is to ensure that the administration of these reforms is carefully implemented so as to not to bring an additional burden to the already stretched Centrelink staff.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I join with others in rising to support the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Job Seeker Compliance) Bill, because it is quite frankly what it takes to do something positive in affecting people peoples lives through employment. The Gillard government certainly takes employment participation seriously, because we know the positive impact that having a job has on somebody's life. We know also that there are deleterious effects on the lives of people who do not have the opportunity to work. Whilst we wish to do everything we can to encourage people to take up the challenge of getting a job, at the same time we are a government of compassion and I think we do reflect that long-held Australian principle of lending a helping hand to people in need, particularly when people in various circumstances are doing it tough. Getting that balance right—I suppose therein is the conundrum. What we have before us in this bill is an honest attempt to ensure that that balance is right. Through the amendments in the legislation, it has achieved the right balance in supporting those who are doing it tough in our community and in encouraging workforce participation by providing an incentive for those people to go the extra mile in gaining a job.

Over the past few days we have heard a lot from the Prime Minister and Treasurer about the importance of jobs. The issue of jobs was front and centre of the budget that was introduced yesterday Nevertheless, our unemployment rate is the envy of the world and is something Australians should be proud of, something I think we have all collectively worked very hard to achieve and something that we should continue to improve to ensure that we continue to enjoy the fruits of our economic prosperity.

I think Wayne Swan got it right when he said there is not an Australian to waste. We have all got a role to play in this, and one of the things we can try to do is ensure that we have full workplace participation. Yesterday's budget was all about maximising Australia's employment potential to continue our growth. It included essential training programs and incentives for a wide sector of the community, from young apprentices to people on disability support. In my electorate alone, these programs will have an enormous impact. I do know that, for instance, Hoxton Industries provides employment opportunities for over 100 people with disabilities. It has been operating in my electorate since 1969 and is doing a fantastic job. I try to visit them on a reasonably regular basis and Nicole Bruce, the general manager, and all those involved in the supervisory team of Hoxton Industries do a great job in providing opportunity for people with disabilities. It is good to say that last night they were recognised by being awarded $1.1 million to continue their great work in south-west Sydney.

I have often said in this place that people are not necessarily having the best of days, and I admit I have one or two of those. But go and visit this place and here are people who have been dealt a pretty hard hand in life. It always impresses me that what they want to do is to turn up for work. They want to feel that they are wanted. They want to feel that their services are appreciated. They want to feel that they have a sense of worth. I do not mind admitting that when you are feeling a bit down you go there and, I tell you what, Mr Deputy Speaker, it does lift your spirits to see these people who really want to come to work and want to engage in talking to you about everything else, including the football. But they genuinely enjoy the opportunity of going to work because it actually fulfils something in their lives. I am very proud to be part of a government that can recognise that and proud of the $1.1 million that has just been delivered to Hoxton Industries, amongst many others. I have got to say that when I go to various functions with the local Chamber of Commerce, whether it be in Liverpool or Cabramatta or elsewhere, as I have indicated to many employers, if you are not going to jeopardise your bottom line, if you are not going to cut short your return to your shareholders, if you can actually direct work to places such as Hoxton Industries that provide opportunities for people with disabilities, that is a very good thing to do for your community. As I say, I am very proud of what they achieve and I will continue to work as closely as I can to support their interests because I know that they do a fantastic job for all of us.

But on the other side of the coin we need to ensure that our welfare system is also encouraging those that can work to do so. We need to provide, I suppose it is fair to say, a carrot and stick approach which reflects how seriously this government takes the issue of workforce participation. Clearly on any reading of this amendment it does just that. As part of the Modernising Australia's Welfare System policy, announced in August 2010, the government gave a commitment to introduce tougher rules for job seekers from July 2011. These measures will apply to all job seekers on participation benefits, including parents, though it will not impact on family payments, which is an important element of the amendment.

The crux of this amendment is that it imposes financial penalties on job seekers who fail to comply with appointments, or mandated activities such as training, without a reasonable excuse. Once the job seeker re-engages, payments will be restored. I think that is probably a fair balance. If a job seeker is successful in obtaining a job and does not report to work, we know what happens then. They do not get paid and more than likely they get sacked. There is an aspect to this of making sure that this also builds upon the co-responsibilities that apply in respect of welfare payments. In our society we do look after people who find themselves in hard times, we do look after people who fall through the cracks, and we help them remediate their position, help them to get back. But it does require a measure of self-help in all that as well. So if somebody does not turn up for their appointments, does not undertake training they have been required to do, the Commonwealth will not continue with their payments until such time as they re-engage. On behalf of those we represent, we are responsible for administering the public purse, so that is a fair thing. It delivers on the government's election commitment to introduce tougher rules for job seekers. There is a need for a tightening of the system, and this government has shown that it is up to the task. The Disney report released in September 2010 says just that. It sought the tightening up of the regime around participation payments to encourage people to engage in a level of self-help with a view to obtaining a job.

This amendment will also simplify the system for job seekers so that they can focus on their most important task, and that has got to be finding a job. It is going to be a situation where people will want to participate. They will need to attend the interviews which have been arranged for them by their job search agency and they will need to undertake the training that has been mandated to help them become employable. I know this is stating the obvious, but this is trying to help people help themselves.

I am proud to represent the electorate of Fowler in the south-west of Sydney and I know this will be of benefit to people in my electorate. I am not terribly proud of the fact that we have one of the highest youth unemployment rates in the country. We need to ensure that young people between the ages of 15 and 24 are engaged in either education or employment, because we all know what the answer is if they are left on long-term unemployment; the answer is that they stay on it. This is trying to provide the incentive not to fall into that trap, because of what it means for them and for our communities in this country.

We know that, by and large, people are keen to work. They are keen to work hard. They are keen to have their labours appreciated. They want to participate in the workforce and they are keen for the opportunities that are being provided for them under these programs. We have just got to make sure that there is a certain amount of disciplined balance that goes into achieving that. Unfortunately, there are also some people who have been left behind. Clearly, they were left behind under the administration of the Howard government, who failed to invest in skills and apprenticeship training when they had the opportunity to do so. The Howard government were very good at using the stick, there is no question about that, and taking payments away from people who did not comply. They did it. But what they failed to do was invest in skills development and training support needs for the unemployed. They failed to invest in having people job ready. They failed to do all that before we got hit with a mining boom. Most of our tradesmen, including my sons, went to make significant dollars working up in your neck of the woods, Mr Deputy Speaker—at Emerald and other places up there.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So Howard caused the mining boom now!

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sure the member for Gippsland had a very similar experience, actually. What the Howard government failed to do was invest in the training of young people to participate in that growth in jobs. Filling those vacancies that occurred in Sydney, Melbourne and everywhere else was very much the responsibility of a government that sat back, sat on its hands and failed to invest in training and skills development over the period when it had the opportunity to do so.

We know that the issue of employment participation is more complex than just punishing the long-term unemployed. It is about skilling and reskilling people and providing them with a suitable incentive, as I said from the start, so that they can actually go the extra mile and get the job. There is a certain amount of hunger associated with that and, to some extent, we need to encourage people to have the drive to actually go and do that. We need to break that chain, particularly in long-term unemployment. We cannot be a modern society, a compassionate society, and tolerate long-term generational unemployment. That is not compassion; that is not something that you would expect from a modern society that cares about people and the future of the country.

This is particularly the case as we address the issue of long-term unemployment. This is an important amendment. It is an amendment that will send a message to all those seeking work that we as a government take their search for work very seriously. This amendment will demonstrate that the Gillard government's commitment to workforce participation to ensure the continued growth of the country is certainly addressed. It is certainly an amendment that deserves the support of both sides of this chamber because it goes not only to looking after the interest of individuals, not only to looking after generational aspects of having a job and what that means to your children into the future; it sets the example that shows you can achieve in this country through education and participation in the workforce.

I commend this amendment bill to the House and I, for one, am very keen to advocate in support of the amendments throughout my electorate because I know this is where we will see considerable benefits over the years to come as there is greater participation in the Australian workforce and the breaking of the scourge of long-term unemployment.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in relation to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2011. In doing so I will raise several issues of concern to my community, some of which I believe have broader national implications. But I cannot resist commenting at least a little on the member for Fowler's contribution. He is a member who I find to be very thoughtful in his comments, as a general rule, and I agree with a lot of what he said, particularly about the need to keep young people engaged. I take great exception to his assertions that the Howard government did nothing in relation to skills and training, but that is a debate for another day.

It is worth noting that the Rudd government actually watered down the mutual obligation in 2008, introducing their 'no show no pay' compliance model, which saw job seekers docked a day's welfare for failing to attend interviews. It is all very well to have a soft heart in this place, but there is no excuse for a government having a soft head. I am afraid it was a soft-headed response by the Rudd government. The high rate of missed appointments is a clear indication of the failure of Labor's compliance regime, which I do not believe provided sufficient disincentive for many people. In March 2011 there were 179,000 people classed as long-term unemployed in Australia, and in the past 12 months leading up to that period approximately two million people missed job interviews. I think that is a fair reflection that there was nothing to ensure the compliance of those people who were meant to attend activities with the providers.

I have spoken in the past about the need to reform our welfare system, particularly as it relates to young people in receipt of unemployment benefits. I do get the chance to speak to many young people in my community, as I am sure many other members do, particularly in our secondary schools, and I always encourage them to aim high to achieve their full potential and to never sell themselves short. Just because they come from a regional community, there is no reason to sell themselves short and think that some things are beyond them in their future career prospects. I also tell them that they really should treat unemployment as being a situation of last resort for them, in terms of receiving unemployment benefits. There is no-one that I ever speak to in secondary school that regards being long-term unemployed as a career goal, so I think there is something that goes wrong from those mid-secondary school years to when the young people are actually seeking work. That is where we need to make sure that, as a government, we have a firm hand but a supporting system. That is a critical issue for us: to help young people in those very difficult transitional years as they move out of secondary school and into the workforce.

I am concerned that for some young people who may go off the rails, for whatever reasons, the option of receiving unemployment benefits has become too easy. I support an overhaul of the unemployment benefits system, with a view to making sure that people who can work are actually working. That is not intended as some sort of punishment to these people in any way whatsoever. I believe we do these young people a huge disservice if we allow them to remain on unemployment benefits without ensuring that there are some very stringent obligations on them to make a contribution to our community.

Programs like Work for the Dole and Green Corps have been successful in many parts of Gippsland in providing opportunities for young unemployed people to develop a work ethic, to develop new skills and to make a meaningful contribution to our community. They should not be seen as any form of punishment. I would advocate that we find a new name for the Work for the Dole program, something that is far more positive and encourages people to feel that they are actually making a contribution to the community rather than it being some sort of punitive measure.

There are, however, concerns with the program and concerns with the compliance regime. I have had the opportunity to speak to coordinators from different agencies who are involved in these types of work activity programs and work based training programs. They have met with me and described the problems that they are having in making sure that long-term unemployed people are meeting their obligations. In a typical case, a training allowance may be provided for someone to work in some sort of Green Corps type program, and they will be given clothes and suitable equipment to participate in that program. Sometimes there is some financial incentive involved. The problem starts if they turn up on the first day but on subsequent days they simply do not turn up and participate at all in the activity they are meant to be participating in. The problem continues when the agencies submit to Centrelink a participation report and Centrelink does not actually breach the people involved; there are no sanctions applied to them.

I can understand the situation from the side of the Centrelink staff faced with a disgruntled client, someone who is making all sorts of claims as to why they could not reasonably attend that activity or work training program. It is probably easier in many cases for the Centrelink staff to simply wave it through and allow the person to not be breached. But it goes to the core of what we are talking about here today in terms of the compliance measures.

There are people out there right now who are taking the Australian taxpayers for a ride. This type of rorting of the system has to stop. We need to set higher standards of workforce participation. In that sense, I do support the new compliance legislation before the House this evening. In her second reading speech, the Minister for Employment Participation said:

As soon as Centrelink is advised that a job seeker has missed an appointment with their employment services provider, or if the provider believes that the job seeker has become disengaged from an activity they are supposed to be participating in, Centrelink will suspend the job seeker’s payment.

That is a positive step. I know there are a range of issues to do with what are reasonable excuses and ensuring that the most vulnerable people are not adversely impacted unnecessarily by this new approach from the government, but I certainly support the general thrust of the new compliance regime.

I would like to note a submission from Mission Australia to the inquiry into this legislation. Mission Australia supported the proposed amendments, saying that they 'are critical to ensure the compliance regime is not too lenient and has a more immediate effect,' the point being that, unless there is a direct and obvious effect on the job seeker at the time of the actual breach, the impact of such sanctions is likely to be diminished.

The Mission Australia submission also highlights the high number of participation reports that are being overturned by Centrelink. That is something I referred to earlier. The majority of participation reports are overturned on 'reasonable excuse' grounds. Around 20 per cent of the reasonable excuses upheld by Centrelink were on the grounds of a medical reason where specific evidence was not provided. That goes again to the core of the issue: we really must be expecting some level of credibility to the excuses being put forward, and these reasonable excuses must be legitimate if we are to ensure that people are meeting their obligations.

I would like to stress that, in the comments I am making tonight, I am not seeking to typecast people on unemployment benefits simply as dole bludgers just because they are not in full-time employment or gainfully employed in the community. For many people, it is a source of great embarrassment. There is financial, social and emotional difficulty associated for those who are genuinely unemployed. But we do have to provide additional motivation for those people in our community who simply refuse to comply with their obligations. I believe that a new form of mutual obligation is necessary. I understand the government has made some announcements in the budget. For my liking, they simply do not go far enough. I believe that, if you are fit and able to work, then after a period of between three and six months of being unemployed we really need to make sure that you are actually doing some sort of community based project where you will have the opportunity to make a meaningful contribution to the community in which you live.

There is an unlimited amount of work that could be done in our community through a range of community projects like Work for the Dole or Green Corps. Look at any coastal community. There are a number of things that you could be doing, such as foreshore reparation works, rubbish removal, improving community halls and sporting facilities and even helping older people to remain in their homes longer. There are a whole range of tasks that are available and out there in the community. People could learn new skills and participate in these tasks, even after they have only been in receipt of unemployment benefits for a comparatively short time.

I believe that even in that short period of time, three to six months, there is a real impact on the morale of the person involved. They can get into poor habits in terms of their work ethic and end up being disconnected from the community in which they live. So I do not think we are doing anyone any favours by just handing out unemployment benefits without some reasonable expectation that the recipients will then make a contribution to the society that has provided them.

There are also sections of my community where we are now faced with the entrenched welfare dependency problem of second and third generation welfare recipients. If you have never seen someone get out of bed and go to work, if you have never experienced the discipline of providing for your own family, if you have never felt the pride and growth in self-esteem which comes from making a contribution to the community and if you have never seen anyone in your immediate family doing that either, it is very difficult for you to break out of the welfare cycle. I believe that we need to do more in this place—and in that regard I welcome this new compliance regime—to encourage that work ethic, particularly amongst the families in my community which have had such a reliance on welfare over a long period of time.

Passive welfare really does destroy lives and I do not think we need to look any further than the Indigenous community in Gippsland. Too many people in that community have been receiving benefits for many years without any expectation whatsoever of doing some work in return. I think we really need to understand that the issues facing Aboriginal families in Australia do not reside purely in the Northern Territory or other remote areas. The passive welfare system that has developed over many years—most of it well-intentioned, but unfortunately poorly directed—has destroyed families in my community. Gippsland right now has many young people growing up in quite hopeless environments. I believe that paid employment is the way out of poverty for these people and that the decency of a job leads to a wide range of very positive outcomes.

The issues I am talking about that are facing the Indigenous people in my community are centred around health, education and jobs. It is a vicious circle if any one of these boxes is not ticked. We need to ensure that, at a very early age, our Aboriginal children are being well looked after. Healthy kids who are well looked after at home go on to do well at school, they go on to enjoy their education and they go on to lead successful lives. It is easy to say that; it is very hard to provide that in every local community.

On the flip side, there are children who witness violence or abuse, who are neglected in some way or who are not properly checked by doctors or nurses at an early age and develop health problems. These children are starting behind the eight ball when it comes to the education sector, so naturally they do not get the opportunity to develop the skills required for them to go on into the workforce.

It is an enormous challenge for us to break that cycle of welfare dependency in our Aboriginal community and we need to keep working very hard with the service providers to make sure that we have individual families taking responsibility and helping these children achieve their full potential. We can run all the programs we want—and governments from both sides of politics have tried many programs—but, at the grassroots level, the people themselves have to want to make some changes.

There is some terrific work being done in my community, particularly in Morwell, Sale, Bairnsdale, Lake Tyers and Lakes Entrance, where there are elders in the community who are doing a power of work. But in many cases I fear they are swimming against the tide. I have had the opportunity in recent times to participate in an activity at Lake Tyers Mission, where there has been a fishing competition. It was designed to get young kids together with their families to participate in a good, friendly, healthy outdoor activity without any alcohol and without any pressure whatsoever being placed on the community. It was a great event and it helped to bring everyone together to start thinking about what we can do to provide a more functional community throughout Gippsland. Many of the primary schools and sporting clubs in my electorate are working overtime to engage with the local Aboriginal community as much as possible. We need to break down those barriers, to provide opportunities and to make sure the Aboriginal community is involved in everything that we do in Gippsland.

The government, to its credit, has funded a major new childcare and kindergarten facility in Bairnsdale which should assist, I believe, in getting young children ready for school—to help send them on their way and make the most positive step possible. At the moment we have too many young Aboriginal kids who are starting their prep school already behind. They are already a year or two behind their counterparts in the classroom. Unfortunately they get disenchanted and too many of them drop out of the school system as young as 10 or 12 years old. As I said, we are making some improvements and many people are committed to the cause.

I accept that there are no easy answers. If there were easy answers, these situations would have been fixed many years ago. But I want to bring these issues to the attention of the House and to make the point that the urban or regional Indigenous experience in Australia is, in many ways, as perilous as that of the more remote communities that we hear so much about and which attract a lot of the media attention. I think we need to do a lot better to make sure that our Aboriginal communities are engaged in community life. In particular, I believe there is an opportunity for us to work much more closely with our sporting clubs. People from those communities often excel at sporting activities and that provides a bridge for them to get more involved in mainstream activities. I believe very strongly in local solutions to local problems. I think the opportunities are there for us to work in this place for the betterment of all people in our community, particularly those Aboriginal members of our community who are falling so far behind in Gippsland at the moment.

Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to follow the member for Gippsland, who has made a very thoughtful contribution today. He has obviously thought long and hard about the effects of unemployment in his community. It is not often that I get up following the member for Gippsland and say that I agree with most of the sentiments he has expressed, but I do today. He has outlined well the issues about the importance of personal responsibility in looking for jobs, but he has also emphasised the need for opportunities for people to get the proper education and have access to jobs—particularly in relation to Indigenous Australians. The important issues of Aboriginal health and life expectancy need to be looked after.

The approach on employment that the member for Gippsland has outlined is the approach the Australian Labor Party has adopted. I look forward to the member for Gippsland actually supporting the budget that the Treasurer brought down last night, because if ever there were a budget focused on jobs, health and education, it was the one last night. That is clearly the flip side to implementing welfare system measures relating to obligations and personal responsibility, which this bill is about. So I am looking forward to seeing the member for Gippsland coming across to this side and supporting the budget in a wholehearted way, because I know he is very genuine person who expresses his views in this place in a very forthright manner, as he has today. Clearly he is supporting the Swan budget of last night.

The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2011, which I am speaking in support of today, will allow for immediate suspension of a job seeker's income support payment if the job seeker fails to attend an appointment with their employment service provider or attend an activity under certain circumstances and allows the penalty amount for a reconnection failure—applied when a job seeker fails to attend are a scheduled appointment—to be deducted from the job seeker's next payment. It tightens the reasonable excuse provisions to require job seekers to give prior notice if they are unable to attend an appointment or activity on a particular day. Both the current compliance framework and the new arrangements take into account the individual circumstances of job seekers in rural and regional areas—which both the member for Gippsland and I are—and of course this is very important. Allowances are made for transport or communication difficulties which may impact on job seeker's ability to meet their participation requirements or where it may not be possible to arrange a new appointment with an employment service provider in the next two business days.

The bill will introduce suspension of payment for job seekers following an initial failure to attend an appointment or, in some circumstances, an activity such as training. If the job seeker then agrees to re-engage as required, payment will be restored with full back-payment. It is a measure which has the stick there but does not have the punitive nature of penalising the job seeker in the long term. Its aim is to have them reconnected with the system so that they can get the assistance they need. If the job seeker then fails to re-engage, payment will again be suspended pending agreement to re-engage, but if they do not have a reasonable excuse they will lose payment for each day from their second missed appointment until they do attend a rescheduled appointment. This penalty will be deducted from their very next payment, rather than from their second next payment as is required under the current legislation.

Reasonable excuse provisions will also be tightened so that, even if a job seeker has a reasonable excuse for not attending an appointment or activity on the day, it will not be accepted if they could have given advance notice of their inability to attend but failed to do so. This is important in relation to the type of behaviour one would expect if a job seeker were in employment. We should not be setting lower standards for a job seeker than we would expect from an employee. This starts to match up those obligations.

Job seekers with vulnerability indicators on their Centrelink record—such as those who are homeless or who have a mental illness—will not have their payment immediately suspended following the first non-attendance, although they will continue to be subject to the other arrangements I have already outlined.

This bill delivers on the government's election commitment to introduce tighter rules for job seekers. Available data supports the need for some tightening of the system. After some improvement immediately following the introduction of the current compliance framework in July 2009, attendance rates at provider appointments fell during 2009-10.

Suspension of payment provides a strong immediate incentive for job seekers who miss appointments to re-engage quickly. When a job seeker's payment is suspended following a missed appointment, they get all their money back once they do what is required of them. This is an effective way of encouraging compliance without taking the punitive approach of immediately applying a penalty that the job seeker cannot get back.

The Disney report into job seeker compliance, released in September 2010, recommended that the government consider introducing payment suspensions if the attendance rate at provider appointments did not significantly improve within 12 months or so. Although the tougher rules measure was announced before the report was released, recent appointment attendance data suggests that this pre-emptive approach is justified.

Just today the House Standing Committee on Education and Employment tabled its advisory report on this bill. The committee's chair, the member for Kingston, has said in the report that the importance of fostering and enhancing employment participation cannot be overstated. The member for Kingston also said:

The benefits of employment stretch far beyond the receipt of a pay packet. Employment participation brings not only economic security, but also dignity, purpose, and direction. A central element of fostering employment participation is encouraging job seekers to communicate and interact with employment service providers through attendance at appointments. The bill seeks to encourage job seekers to do this.

Specifically, the committee recommended that a plain English redrafting of the changes proposed by the bill be produced to combat the existing complexity of the social security system and ensure that job seekers fully understand their obligations under the proposed changes.

The committee also recommended that the word 'special' be removed from the proposed reasonable excuse provision in the bill in order to eliminate an unnecessary layer of complexity and ensure equitable and clear implementation of the measures proposed by the bill. Other areas of interest highlighted by the committee include the development of consistent guidance and training material for front-line staff; the provision of comprehensive training to front-line staff; the collection of data on why job seekers miss appointments without a reasonable excuse and the undertaking of a review of the impact of the measures proposed by the bill; the provision of additional training and guidance to front-line staff in relation to vulnerable job seekers; and, the monitoring of possible increased workloads for front-line staff.

The amendments in this bill will enhance the current job seeker compliance framework by providing additional incentives for job seekers to engage with their employment services providers and to participate fully in activities designed to improve their employment prospects. Immediate suspension of payment, either with full back payment on compliance or with resumption of payment upon compliance, is consistent with the government's broad approach to job seeker compliance, which focuses on early intervention and the use of immediate corrective action to keep job seekers on the right path. The amendments should simplify the system for job seekers in that the consequences of not attending appointments and activities will be clearer and more immediate. These amendments are not intended to increase penalty numbers per se. The principle that no job seeker should actually lose payment without warning or a second chance to comply will remain in place.

Employment services providers will still have the discretion not to initiate compliance action in most circumstances and will still be able to use the contact request arrangements when they want Centrelink to contact a job seeker for them without taking compliance action.

I was very pleased to hear in last night's budget that the Wyong local government area which takes up most of my electorate on the New South Wales Central Coast has been chosen for extra help in getting young parents and families skilled up and educated so they can enter the workforce. This is the other side of getting people into jobs which the member for Gippsland highlighted in relation to saying that there needs to be opportunities for jobs and there needs to be education. The Wyong local government area has been chosen from just 10 areas around Australia to receive a $304 million boost in the budget for this help. The comprehensive package recognises the skills and employment disadvantages of the area and has been specifically designed to help boost job rate numbers in Wyong shire.

Again, I go back to the contribution of the member for Gippsland when he said that the best solutions in relation to jobs are local. The announcement last night in the budget in relation to these 10 areas—the 10 worst-hit areas in relation to employment—was that local solutions were going to be developed with this money. We are looking forward to these local solutions in the Wyong shire. I am sure, as I mentioned earlier, that when the appropriation documents and all the measures of the budget come into this House we will welcome the member for Gippsland over to this side to vote in support of those documents, given the statements that he made in his contribution to this debate.

The comprehensive package that was announced last night recognises the skills and employment disadvantage of the area that I represent and it is designed to boost jobs in that area. This is great news for my area, which has long been disadvantaged with low education and skill levels and has previously missed out on the sort of help needed to get us on par with many other regions in Australia in relation to employment.

We know that many teenage parents leave school early without year 12 qualifications and end up as long-term welfare recipients, with negative consequences for them, their children and their families. The new package announced in the budget will help teenage parents in Wyong get a better job so that they can provide for their children as they grow older. From 1 January 2012, teenage parents in the Wyong LGA who have not finished year 12 or equivalent and are receiving the government's parenting payment will need to meet an individually crafted participation plan.

But this is not just about toughening up the rules for job seekers; they will also be given support to help them meet their extra responsibilities and milestones. In Wyong, support for teenage parents will include access to quality child care while they are studying or training, with close to 100 per cent of their childcare costs covered. They will also receive support from Youth Connections services to help them enrol in and attend school, TAFE or other training. And teens will also be supported with their parenting responsibilities through play groups, parenting education classes, early learning programs and mentoring.

This package supports young parents to engage their children in early education, and development opportunities to gain skills and education for themselves. It enables teenage parents to position themselves to enter the labour market once their youngest child is aged six, when participation requirements mean they need to commence at least part-time work. The measures support families who are at risk of disadvantage by ensuring they will have access to the services they need to fulfil their goals. The measures achieve this in a way that recognises the autonomy of parents and their responsibility to provide for their children. The $304 million package provides for several initiatives across the 10 places and of course includes the Wyong LGA.

The budget last night and this legislation here today are both part of a government strategy that looks at making sure that individuals take responsibility for their own actions in terms of participating. The changes to this bill that we are talking about today but also the measures that were announced in the budget last night look at making sure they have the absolutely essential opportunities, support, mentoring and ability to gain skills that mean they will be able to go into gainful employment. This bill also places an emphasis on responsibility for attendance.

Getting Australians into the workforce is a matter of personal dignity for those who are out of work at the moment. It is an opportunity for them and their families to be provided for and an opportunity for this country. With 4.9 per cent unemployment at the moment and a tightening labour market, we need increased participation rates. So everyone wins in making sure we get people out of the dole queues and into employment. That is why the measures that this government has introduced both in this bill and also, most importantly, through the budget last night are ones that anyone in this place who is interested in getting people back into employment should be supporting. So I look forward to the support of both sides for this bill but, as importantly, I look forward to the support of everyone in this parliament for the measures announced last night by the Treasurer to make sure that we help Australians get back into the workforce and get jobs in which they can truly participate in this economy. I commend this bill to the House.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2011. The greatest piece of welfare any government or any person can give to another is in fact a job. It is a plain truth, because we know that with a job comes a whole raft of other things like self-respect, better education for your children and more likely better health outcomes. A job is the most important thing to improve the standard of living of any Australian or, indeed, anyone in the world.

I am privileged to be the Deputy Chair of the House Standing Committee on Education and Employment. We were responsible for the review that was done on this legislation and the recommendations that came back to the House. We thought it was reasonably cut and dried in that we had flagged on this side of the House that we were in general in support of the government's legislation. But in the end the review process was quite beneficial to the legislation in general and certainly in drawing up the guidelines of the legislation. I believe there may even be a small amendment moved at the completion of this debate to one of the terms. But in particular it gave an opportunity for the industry to air some of their concerns and ongoing issues with the way the job seeker arrangements are dealt with, and it gave us an opportunity to express the view that the language should be very clear and that people should understand what is going on here. One of the recommendations was that things should be in plain English because often the people dealing with it at this end of the field are not well educated and they need to easily understand what is going on.

Another interesting thing for the committee was the quite wide support through the industry, if not the welfare lobby organisations, for this move to tighten up these obligations. We recommended there be a comprehensive training package and the department be required to collect data on the reasons why people are no-shows for interviews and appointments so that we can better understand what it is that drives them and perhaps find better ways to get them to participate. In the end, you cannot give people a job if they are not prepared to participate or are not interested in participating in the process.

One of the other recommendations was after a full year of operation, the data be analysed and the department have another look at how the regime is operating. There was also a recommendation concerning vulnerable job seekers. Initially I was a little concerned about this insofar as it sounded like a watering down of the process, but when we consider what a vulnerable job seeker is this recommendation has merit. They may not have a home or may have a mental disability, so I think the recommendation is well founded. We must be very careful not to alienate those who are unable to help themselves in this process. It is very much pointed at getting those who are able to help themselves and better themselves involved in the process and making sure they make the most of their opportunities.

There are some confusing messages here. While we support the government's legislation, there have been quite a few times when this government has sent mixed messages to the electorate and to the people at large. I remind the House that the Rudd government watered down the terms of mutual obligation in 2008, and how the government must sometimes wish that they had left well enough alone with some legislation. If we turn our minds to the current interceptions of people trying to come to Australia in boats, perhaps the government may reflect that some of the settings that were on the clock when they took over the job 3½ years ago were in fact good models. They may well look back on mutual obligation in the same way.

In a very closely related field, I am reminded that the government also relaxed the regime surrounding the Work for the Dole program at about the same time, in 2008. Previously, if someone had been on the dole for six months they may have been required to attend a Work for the Dole program. That was changed to 12 months. That may not seem all that much of a change, on the face of it, but I have talked to a number of people who have coordinated Work for the Dole groups, and the program has been gutted as a result of that change. Because there was that six-month break, they ran out of customers. The work crews were abandoned and those who were running the work crews moved off to find new employment. It is just not that easy to line some of these things up again in a hurry. The Labor Party has long been uncomfortable with Work for the Dole provisions, but it has been a very popular program—and not only popular; it has been instrumental in engaging those people who were choosing to be unengaged in the process. While that does not strictly relate to this part of the legislation, it is certainly a related issue because we are talking once again about trying to get people engaged in a process.

We can put this in the context of a bucket of measures where the government have shown inconsistency. I will not go into any detail on any of them, but I simply list them. I mentioned the asylum seekers. The government were going to adopt the save the Murray report, but of course then they did not adopt it. They were to have a CPRS, but then they were not to have a CPRS. They were never to have a carbon tax, and now they are to have a carbon tax. They were going to have a green car, but of course now we are not going to have a green car. We were going to have cash for clunkers and now we are not. In my electorate we were to have an MRI machine and now we are not. The government were going to introduce a dental scheme, and now we find in yesterday's budget that it has been deferred. We were definitely going to have a mining tax and now we definitely may be going to have a mining tax, if the government can ever work out the detail. And we were always to have surplus budgets, but of course we have not seen one of those yet, either.

I just bring these inconsistencies to this part of the debate. This is why people in the electorate, the Australian public, are becoming confused with the message. I am very happy that the government has seen the light on the issue of re-engaging those who may not wish in the first instance to seek a job, to get them back on board. That is why I am happy to support the legislation, but the government should take great care before it mucks around with things that are working okay.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to speak in support of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2011. This is certainly an important bill and it fits in very well with the budget announcements made by the Treasurer last night. It is important because it seeks to enhance the current job seeker compliance framework. The bill has come about as part of the Modernising Australia's Welfare System program that the government announced on 11 August 2010. The government made a commitment at that time to introduce tougher rules for job seekers from 1 July 2011. Well, here we are, once again fulfilling a commitment that we have made to ensure that we do introduce tougher rules for job seekers and to deliver those rules from the 1 July 2011 commencement date.

We have heard a fair bit from those on the other side, including the member for Grey, about changes that the government made back in 2008 in relation to re-engaging workers. That those on the other side have failed to mention on each and every occasion that they have spoken on this bill and on the changes made in 2008—and we know they do not like to talk about this issue—is the fact that there was a global financial crisis occurring at that time. Consequently, because of the risks of job losses occurring at that time, there were changes made in relation to programs dealing with the unemployed to provide greater flexibility during those very difficult times for our economy. We are fortunate now, in 2011, to be in a position where unemployment is down to 4.9 per cent. We have a skills shortage and we have people in our society right now, in our local communities, who can re-engage with the workforce. Our job now as a government is to look at how we can set in place a framework that provides incentives to get those people to re-engage. That is what this bill seeks to do.

Yes, it does put in place punitive measures if people seek to ignore their responsibilities in relation to trying to re-engage where they are capable of doing so. This bill aims to get job seekers to participate fully in activities designed to improve employment prospects. The mechanism that it seeks to use is to say that when a person does not attend an interview or an appointment then they will have their entitlements suspended. That only occurs if the individual does not notify that they cannot make the appointment. So it is not a case of simply being unavailable to attend an appointment; it is only in circumstances where they fail to give any reasonable excuse for not attending or fail to make any contact. There is a safety mechanism there that, if they reschedule and they attend that next appointment, they will get the money reimbursed. However, if they reschedule and once again fail to attend, there can be a suspension of their payments and a reconnection failure.

So there is a punitive mechanism to say that you will have to sacrifice some of your entitlements if you do not seek to re-engage and you are capable of re-engaging. The government have said that we recognise the benefits and the dignity that come with work. We want to ensure that those who are currently not engaged in the workforce make all reasonable efforts to re-engage and that they understand the responsibility that comes with making appointments and attending those appointments whenever possible. Like any worker with a job, if you are unable to attend then you must make contact. If you have a job and you cannot go to work that day, it is unacceptable to just not turn up. You must make contact. Those who are not in the workforce must recognise that they have an equal responsibility if they cannot make an appointment. It is important, however, that we point out that there is still discretion with the employment service providers in relation to whether they issue a participation report. It is important that they use their discretion in relation to vulnerable job seekers and that they use every opportunity and mechanism to help re-engage those workers in the workforce. We must ensure that those vulnerable job seekers are considered in relation to this bill.

I will also make mention of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment, of which the member for Grey is the deputy chair and the member for Kingston is the chair. I am also a member of that House standing committee. Some very important evidence came from the inquiry into this bill. The evidence that was gathered and the comments of the committee have been detailed in our report, which was tabled this morning in this House. But what is important to note in the report of the committee are some of the mechanisms that the committee has recommended underpin this bill. They relate to ensuring consistency in guidelines across Centrelink and the employment service providers, and training on the system to ensure that it is implemented correctly and fairly.

It is important that we make sure that there is support for Centrelink staff in relation to workloads arising from this mechanism. We should also make sure that there is proper guidance for the Centrelink staff on how to implement this legislation. Those comments, of course, should apply in regard to all programs that employment service providers and Centrelink implement. We should ensure there is consistent guidance. We should ensure that there is comprehensive training provided so that the legislation is implemented in the way it was intended, that it is being implemented fairly and that discretion is being used in an appropriate way.

We note in relation to that discretion that we should be making sure that Centrelink staff and employment service providers are adequately trained and aware of the possibility that job seekers have undisclosed vulnerabilities. This is a very difficult area. A job seeker may not necessarily identify that they are vulnerable, whether because of a health condition, family circumstances or other circumstances. We need to better train our Centrelink staff to raise their awareness of those undisclosed vulnerabilities, to train them to assist those people and to manage the situation and those people's needs appropriately.

There are two other recommendations I want to make mention of. Firstly, the committee recommended that the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and the Department of Human Services collect and publish data in relation to why job seekers without reasonable excuses miss appointments. It is accurate—and those members who have spoken who have read this report or who are committee members have already drawn this House's attention to the fact—that there is very little data that is collected and published and in some areas there is basically no data on reasons for missed appointments. This data is important for us to ensure that the programs we put in place are adequate. To get the outcomes that we seek we need to be able to collect and publish that data and be tracking that data and looking at the outcomes.

The other recommendation, which is recommendation 1 in the report, is that a brief, plain English explanation of the proposed changes and the obligations that will stem from them be produced and made available to all job seekers as soon as practicable. You might say, 'Well, it's just obvious that we would do that.' But the reality is that we need to make sure, if we are going to have these changes come about from 1 July this year, that job seekers who are going to be bound by these new job seeker compliance laws are very clear as to what they mean and what the obligations are on the individual job seeker so that they can ensure that they are complying with these requirements.

I have talked generally about the bill, what it seeks to achieve and the recommendations of the committee. Before I finish may I say, and I have mentioned briefly already, that I believe this amendment to the social security legislation dealing with job seeker compliance goes hand in hand with the commitments that the Labor federal government made in the budget last night in relation to jobs, employment, re-engaging workers, skills and incentives to employment. Looking at the incentives to employment that were announced in the budget, we are providing incentives to provide training and work experience for those very long term unemployed. I know that there are over 1,300 long-term unemployed people in the electorate of Petrie—people who have been without work for two years or more. The funding that was announced in the budget by the federal government last night will assist those people to get local employment services support through training and work experience and by providing a wage subsidy to encourage employers to engage those long-term unemployed people. That works hand in hand with the job seeker compliance and trying to get the unemployed re-engaging with the workforce.

Of course, that was not the only announcement in relation to supporting jobs and trying to increase skills in our workforce. We announced improved incentives in the tax system and we announced restructuring of income support for single parents to promote and support participation by providing, from 1 January 2013, single parents on Newstart allowance with up to an extra $3,900 per year through a more generous income test, at the same time that grandfathering will be phased out for parenting payment recipients when their child turns 12 to more closely align eligibility with other recipients. Importantly, the government will also provide up to $103 million to support single parents through training, career advice and other services. This is another way of re-engaging people with the workforce.

We are implementing new initiatives to introduce participation requirements for people with disabilities. I know there are people with disabilities in my electorate who want to re-engage in the workforce. We need to provide them with the assistance to do so. We need to provide support and encouragement to employers to hire those people. We have new programs. We are extending the government's 'earn or learn' requirements to those aged 21. This is part of the broader changes to the youth allowance which will delay eligibility for Newstart allowance by one year and reward young workers with a more generous income test. Again ,we are trying to encourage those young people who have left school to get into the workforce or to take on further education.

I have already announced the initiatives in relation to the very long term unemployed, and we will have a new approach to disadvantaged locations. I think that these initiatives announced in the budget by a federal Labor government—and it would only be a federal Labor government that would implement such initiatives to ensure that workers re-engage—complement what we are now debating in this House in relation to job seeker compliance and will help people in our communities to ensure that they can have the dignity of work.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2011. In doing so, I would like to put on record my strong support for all initiatives that help people move from welfare to work. In my previous life before entering parliament, I worked with job seekers, both those that were in receipt of disability support pension and those that were disadvantaged and long-term unemployed, so I know that there are a number of issues that impact on their ability to move from welfare to work. I am pleased that this legislation was referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment and I support the recommendations of the committee.

It is imperative that legislation and information that is given to job seekers be in plain English. It is important that the people who are involved in implementing this legislation develop and follow consistent guidelines and that there is training material that accompanies the bill. It is also important that Centrelink and employment services staff are provided with comprehensive training, as is the committee's recommendation. It is also important that employment providers be given clear and comprehensive guidelines in relation to this legislation. It is interesting that the committee recommends that the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and the Department of Human Services collect and publish data on the reasons why job seekers miss appointments without reasonable excuses. The committee also recommends that the department undertake a review of the impact of these proposed changes and that employment service providers be advised to utilise all re-engagement mechanisms available to them in relation to vulnerable job seekers.

The committee recommends that additional training and resources be provided to Centrelink staff. That is probably a very good point for me to come in on. Since this bill was introduced into the parliament I have spent quite a bit of time liaising with officers who work in the Centrelink offices in my electorate. They have expressed some concern to me about this legislation and the impact it will have on their workload and on a certain subset of job seekers. I am sure that those issues that have been raised by Centrelink staff, people who work each and every day with the long-term unemployed and people who are failing to attend appointments, will be looked at during the review.

I should also put on the record that I have been speaking with a number of job service providers within my electorate. We are working on a very innovative program in a very disadvantaged area of my electorate, probably the most disadvantaged area in the whole of Australia, on a number of issues that are preventing people from returning to work. The majority of the population in that area are on some sort of Centrelink payment. We are working together to try to develop an innovative approach with job seeker providers across state and federal and even local government lines to see whether we can come up with an approach that will help people.

I do have a little concern that perhaps some people will have their payments suspended for a variety of reasons. People can have their payments cancelled because of circumstances beyond their control. We all know that getting payments reinstated can be a rather cumbersome process. I am sure that the Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare will be looking at this issue very carefully in the review. I think changes such as this that are designed to increase people's participation in work are vitally important because if people do not go along to their appointments with Job Network providers then they will find it very difficult to move from welfare to work. We just have to be very mindful that, with legislation such as this, we are not actually going to put in place barriers that will achieve a perverse outcome, the opposite outcome to the one we are seeking to achieve. For some people it will facilitate their meeting those appointments, but others may be faced with the situation where they get a call to go to work late in the day and they have to decide, 'Do I turn down paid work because I can't contact the Centrelink office before I go to work or during that time, or do I go to work and then miss the appointment and have to go through the process of having Centrelink payments reinstated?' which they would have to go through because it is a valid excuse.

Maybe there will need to be some finetuning of this legislation further down the track. I support initiatives that will assist people to move from welfare to work. It is vitally important. We have a skills shortage. I welcome a number of the initiatives in the budget that are designed to assist the long-term unemployed to move from welfare to work. I think the wage subsidy schemes that are included in the budget will assist the long-term unemployed and will redress some of the disadvantage they have when they are competing for jobs within the workforce. I have worked with job subsidy schemes in the past and I know they work. I know that people can be employed under a job subsidy scheme and then end up in a long-term job. Nothing gives a person more dignity than being able to work. But I do think that we have to monitor this legislation very closely to ensure that the people whom we are seeking to assist by encouraging them to attend appointments are not disadvantaged. I have every confidence that the minister will ensure that the department does this and that the legislation will work to benefit those people who are unemployed rather than disadvantage them.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation and Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all members who have contributed to this debate. Our government has both reformed employment services and invested to improve their effectiveness. In reinforcing those improvements, we introduced a new compliance system from 1 July 2009. Last night, in the 2011 budget, we provided for spending over the forward estimates towards employment services of some $8.5 billion. This includes a range of new initiatives to provide greater support for the very long term unemployed, for job seekers with a disability and for those who have become disengaged. We know that with this increased support, with the opportunities that this support provides, so too comes responsibility. This bill delivers on the government's election commitment to modernising Australia's welfare system and introducing tougher measures to ensure that more unemployed people are getting back into work. We have a growing economy and a strong labour market. While millions of jobs have been lost in other advanced economies, employment in Australia has increased by around 750,000 jobs since 2007, driving unemployment below five per cent. At just 4.9 per cent, Australia's unemployment rate is lower than that of almost any of the other major advanced economies. It is at this time, with lower unemployment and employers searching for new workers to come on board, that we must embrace the greater opportunities to connect job seekers with this employment market. It is crucial that we do all that we can to ensure that unemployment payment recipients are participating to the full extent of their abilities. In order to do that, we need them to be actively engaged with the employment services and support that our government provides.

This bill is not about punishing job seekers who have a valid reason for missing appointments or participation in activities. The government are aware of the challenges that job seekers face and we are aware that most job seekers are genuine in their attempts to find work. However, income support does come with responsibility. A strengthening of the compliance system is warranted so that more job seekers are actively engaged in work experience activities, such as training and work for the dole, so that they are getting the skills and experience they need to find a sustainable job into the future.

Throughout this debate, whilst many opposition members have repeated their party-line talking points about nonattendance being a symptom of a broken system under this government, the reality that everybody should take note of is that under the Howard government the appointment attendance rate in 2006-07 was 54 per cent. In 2009-10, under this government's compliance system, it was 58 per cent. I say this so that we have the full facts on the table, but we know that neither of these figures is good enough. We need to work to make sure that everybody is engaging in the supports that are available to them.

The new arrangements seek to improve job seekers' attendance at employment services provider and related appointments. Suspension of payment provides a strong and immediate incentive for job seekers who miss appointments to re-engage quickly. When a job seeker's payment is suspended following a missed appointment, they get all of their money back once they do what is required of them: attend their appointment. This is an effective way of encouraging compliance without taking the punitive approach of immediately applying a penalty that the job seeker cannot get back. The principle that no job seeker should actually lose payment without a warning or a second chance to comply will remain in place. The current range of legislative and administrative protections for vulnerable job seekers will remain in place, with the additional provision that they will not be subject to suspension of payment in the first instance.

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment has scrutinised this bill, as recommended by this parliament, and only this morning tabled its report. I thank the members of the committee for their work and assure them that the government will give serious consideration to all of their recommendations. Indeed, at first reading, I can give in-principle support to all the recommendations.

On the specifics of this bill, the committee makes one specific recommendation regarding this legislation—that is, that we remove the word 'special' from the proposed subsection 42UA, where it is used to describe a situation in which a job seeker would not be expected to give prior notice of their inability to attend an appointment. Following discussions with the opposition and given that the details of circumstances that will be excepted will in fact be explained in guidelines to Centrelink, the government has no objection to this recommendation.

The government has noted a number of committee recommendations around additional measures in relation to this matter. In fact, participation and compliance arrangements are important to ensuring that job seekers engage with education, training and work experience opportunities and, by working with their providers, move off income support and into paid employment.

We know that the current framework is working. In 2010, 82 per cent of job seekers satisfied their requirements, with no participation reports submitted. A further nine per cent received only one participation report. However, a small number of job seekers—in fact, just two per cent—were the subject of over one-third of participation reports for failing to meet their obligations.

As I mentioned earlier, the budget introduced by the Treasurer last night included funding for a range of new employment initiatives, including some $49.8 million for job seeker compliance and participation related measures to improve and streamline the system, to provide targeted assistance to those job seekers who are most at risk of noncompliance and disengagement and to improve our communication of these measures. The measures announced in the budget follow consideration of the recommendations of the Independent Review of the Job Seeker Compliance Framework—the Disney review. They build on the job seeker compliance bill currently before the parliament, which provides for immediate suspension of payment for nonattendance at provider appointments or activities. These budget measures and this bill are consistent with the government's approach to job seeker compliance, which focuses on early intervention and the use of immediate corrective action to keep job seekers on the right path. They will benefit job seekers, especially those who are vulnerable or disengaged. The measures will also help providers by reducing complexity and increasing transparency.

All Australians on income support should have the opportunity of work, but with this opportunity, of course, comes responsibilities. With this bill we are going to firmly expect that people meet those responsibilities. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.