Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Regional Development and Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Social Security Legislation Amendment Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill 2014 seeks to amend the Social Security Administration Act 1999 in two stages with the first set of amendments coming into effect from 1 January 2015 and the second set of amendments coming into effect from 1 July 2015. Under current job seeker compliance provisions contained within the act, the secretary may determine that job seekers in receipt of a participation payment—that is, Newstart and, for some people, youth allowance, parenting payment or special benefit—may incur a payment suspension for certain participation failures such as the failure to attend an appointment with the payment being reinstated when the job seeker notifies the secretary of their intention to comply with a reconnection requirement. In practice, this would be a requirement to attend an appointment with their job service provider.

The government is seeking to make amendments which would mean that from 1 January 2015 a payment suspension for a participation failure would not be reinstated until the job seeker had actually attended an appointment with their employment provider rather than just notifying the secretary of their intention to do so. The suspension could end earlier where the person subsequently provided a reasonable excuse for not attending the first appointment or where the job seeker could not be given an opportunity to attend another appointment promptly—according to the bill, typically within one to two days.

The government is also seeking amendments which would mean that from 1 July 2015, if the job seeker did not have a reasonable excuse for missing the first appointment or did not give notice of a reasonable excuse when it was reasonable for them to do so, the job seeker would not be back paid for the period of their noncompliance. Currently, once the period of suspension ends the person receives back pay for that period regardless of whether or not their excuse was reasonable for missing an appointment in the first place.

Let me be clear at the outset that Labor has and does support the concept of mutual obligation—that is, that job seekers have an obligation to actively seek work and that the government has an obligation to support them and provide them with the resources to assist them into the labour force. Indeed, as the assistant minister quoted Labor in his second reading speech:

All Australians on income support should have the opportunity of work—but with the opportunity comes responsibility.

It was, as the assistant minister pointed out in his second reading speech, Labor that moved to encourage job seekers to attend their appointments with their employment service provider because we believe that this increases the likelihood of them gaining work. Labor is not opposed to measures designed to assist people into work. On the contrary, we introduce policy and reforms which were very effective at doing just that.

Labor recognises the need for government policy which assists people to find work. But the key word here is 'assist'. We need to assist job seekers to obtain employment by supporting them, understanding their individual circumstances, understanding any barriers they may have to employment, their talents and their strengths. Government must also play a role in job creation and ensure that the conditions are right for the labour market to expand.

However, Labor does not and will not support punitive measures which put at risk vulnerable people. We will draw a line when and where we believe the current government goes too far. We did this when the post this government Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill 2014, which sought changes that could have seen the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people left without income and without options for up to eight weeks for each penalty.

Labor is also opposing the government's proposal for job seekers who are under the age of 30 and on Newstart going without any payment for six months of each year that they are unemployed—that is, no money at all for six months that they are unemployed. Labor has been clear: we will not support measures that impact on vulnerable people or that will make people vulnerable. It is totally unreasonable to expect people to survive with no money at all for six months, let alone also being required to meet activity tests such as the government's original proposal for job seekers to apply for 40 jobs per month. We were pleased to see the government recently backed down on the 40 jobs per month in the current request for tender for job services. But this Newstart under-30 measure will leave more than 120,000 young Australians without income support for six months of each and every year that they are unemployed. The government has admitted this and it knows that this will have adverse outcomes. It is at odds with the government's own McClure welfare interim report, a report that said:

The system of sanctions should be progressive, with timely, lighter measures first.

Denying people with no income for the first six months of their unemployment is not a lighter measure first.

We saw the government resort to punitive measures again when it sought to tighten the definition of a 'reasonable excuse'. Social Security (Reasonable Excuse-Participation Payment Obligations) (Employment) Determination 2014 (No. 1) sought to change what matters the secretary must take into account when determining whether a job seeker has a reasonable excuse for participation failures.

This measure attempts to strip away protections for people with mental illness, people who do not have a safe place to live, people with literacy and language issues, people requiring treatment for illnesses, people with drug or alcohol dependency, and people who are victims of domestic violence and/or sexual assault. These people are our most vulnerable job seekers, and this government wanted to disadvantage them further. It is no wonder that Labor finds it hard to trust this government when it comes to supporting people into jobs and not applying harsh, punitive measures.

Through this bill, the government is seeking to treat non-attendance failures in the same way as other failures for the purposes of 'reasonable excuse', under section 42UA of the act introduced by Labor, meaning that an excuse for a non-attendance failure will not be reasonable unless the person gave prior notice of the failure to attend, or unless the secretary is satisfied that it was not reasonable to expect the person to give advance notice. Indeed, with this bill, it appears that, in determining reasonable excuse, the Social Security (Reasonable Excuse—Participation Payment Obligations) (Employment) Determination 2014 (No. 1), enacted by Labor whilst we were in government, will remain the legislative instrument used to decide whether or not an excuse is reasonable, due to the fact that the government's tightened version was defeated in the Senate by a disallowance in August.

So Labor is pleased that we moved this disallowance in the Senate. It makes us just that little bit more comfortable, knowing that if these changes are implemented we will ensure that vulnerable people are still protected. But there are no guarantees that if Labor agrees to the passage of this bill the government will not try again to change the determination of reasonable excuse. Labor is somewhat assured by the assistant minister's second reading speech, where he said:

The bill will not impact those whose failure to attend is beyond their control, for instance, where they were taken ill or had an unexpected caring commitment and gave prior notice.

And it will not impact the majority of job seekers who attend their appointments or those who let their provider know in advance if they genuinely cannot attend.

And further that:

… employment providers will remain able to exercise discretion in when they report a failure to the Department of Human Services.

So, whilst Labor is agreeing in principle to the no-show, no-pay appointments contained in this bill, we do have some concerns regarding the practical implementation of this measure. We know that the government has form when it comes to trying to go too far in penalising job seekers, as I have outlined. We want to make sure that they do not with this measure.

The bill's explanatory memorandum states:

In practice job seekers would generally have the opportunity to attend a reconnection appointment with their employment provider within a short period of time and thereby have their payment reinstated quickly. Typically this would occur within one to two days of them contacting their provider as prompted through payment suspension. Employment providers will also be able to offer telephone appointments for job seekers in these circumstances. If the job seeker could not be given an opportunity to attend such an appointment promptly it is intended that their payment would otherwise be reinstated.

Our concern in relation to this measure centres on: 'typically, this would occur within one to two days of them contacting their provider as prompted through payment suspension'. We are concerned about how, in practice, job seekers will be notified of their payment suspension, and we are concerned that this is done within a timely manner so that the job seeker has the ability to make contact as quickly as possible.

I have been informed anecdotally by job seekers and providers that some job seekers are currently unaware of breaches of penalty until they try to access their bank accounts on the usual payment day and find no funds. That is when they make contact. So, my question to the minister would be: how will job seekers be notified when they have missed an appointment under this measure, and how quickly? If job seekers are immediately suspended upon missing an appointment, and are not notified until some days later, or until they go to get funds, it is foreseeable that some job seekers may go some time with their payment suspended and not be able to get back-pay. It may be much longer than two days before they know. Therefore, notice of a payment suspension needs to be provided as soon as the suspension is implemented, to give job seekers the opportunity to contact their employment service provider for a reconnection interview as soon as possible.

So Labor supports the in-principle no-show, no-pay measures; we will not support job seekers going extended periods without any income support because they were not aware that they had breached their obligations. This potential for extended periods of payment suspension could account for the large amount of savings the government is anticipating as a result of the changes contained in this bill. We seek assurances that job seekers will be notified immediately and sufficiently of any suspension and that they will have the opportunity for a reconnection interview within two days or else they will be reinstated with their payment immediately.

Labor is also concerned that the bill seeks to remove the right to a review of a decision to suspend payments. We are concerned that this sets a dangerous precedent in which people are denied their right to natural justice. We are also concerned that it will be used to stop job seekers requesting a review of a decision not to back pay where they had a reasonable excuse for missing their appointment and that their reasonable excuse had not been taken into account. Labor does not and will not agree to the removal of a job seeker's right to seek a review of decisions which have a financial impact on their lives. Whenever a government seeks to financially penalise people for noncompliance, it is only right and fair that those government decision-making processes are subject to review.

This is particularly the case where job seekers could be going without payment for some time, as I just outlined.

As the payment of back pay from 1 July 2015 is contingent upon job seekers being determined to have had a reasonable excuse, it is paramount that the decision is subject to review. Otherwise, an anomaly could present where a job seeker who had a reasonable excuse was determined not to have such an excuse and therefore not entitled to back pay. The job seeker would then be prevented from seeking a review of the original decision in order to receive the back pay to which they would otherwise have been entitled. Therefore, Labor does have an issue with this removal of a right of appeal when people are having their payments reduced, because we believe the government should be focused on positive measures to get people into work and not on financial penalties which disproportionately affect vulnerable people.

Currently, job seekers at the age of 55 or over on Newstart or on special benefit are taken to have satisfied an activity test where they are engaged in at least 30 hours per fortnight of approved voluntary work, paid work or a combination of both, unless the secretary considers that they should not be exempt from an activity test due to the employment opportunities available to that person. There are also currently similar provisions regarding parenting payment recipients at the age of 55 and over, which would mean that they cannot be made subject to requirement to undertake suitable work if they are engaged in at least 30 hours per fortnight of voluntary or paid work, or a combination of both, unless the secretary considers that they should not be exempt from the requirement to do suitable paid work due to the opportunities for employment available to the person.

The government is seeking to amend the act so that the above concessions would not apply to a class of persons specified in a new disallowable instrument. So the government is saying that job seekers over the age of 55 and up to 59 will have the same mutual obligations as 54-year-olds. We have nothing against the concept of treating job seekers the same but we do have serious concerns with this measure, given the recent reports regarding age discrimination in the labour force. Labor is concerned that older Australians, who would be required to meet these activity tests and attend appointments may find the task more difficult, given that the discrimination they are subjected to is real and can impact on their wellbeing.

Following on from the release of the exposure draft for Purchasing Arrangements for Employment Services 2015-2020, stakeholders have been increasingly concerned at the prospect of their supporting role becoming one of a disciplinary decision maker. The exposure draft stated on page 41:

The Employment Provider will also determine whether the Job Seeker had a reasonable excuse for non-attendance at their initial appointment in accordance with legislation and guidelines.

I note from the minister's press release on the request for tender going public that the government has now backed down on this, which I am very pleased to hear and that I am sure that employment service providers will appreciate. However, we are still concerned that in schedule 2 of this bill the government is seeking to extend the secretary's powers of delegation under social security law to include regulations and other legislative instruments.

We are concerned that attempts to delegate government decisions to providers and away from government departments sets another dangerous precedent. We do not trust that the government will not again attempt to delegate its decision-making responsibilities onto nongovernment organisations into the future. There is no evidence or valid reasons provided by the government to show that there is any need to delegate decision-making responsibilities away from government departments, or that doing so is a good idea. The department and the government do not detail what specific disallowable instruments it is seeking to delegate or why. Job seekers who are affected by this bill are receiving some type of government payment from the Department of Human Services. It is proper, then, that decisions relating to whether or not a person receives such a payment also continue to rest with the department and not with a nongovernment organisation.

Labor believes the government needs to refocus its attention away from increasing penalties and making it harder for job seekers to looking at its role in creating jobs. When in government, Labor moved to improve the accessibility of training and employment services; we announced changes to Job Services Australia; we introduced a system of flexibility to better match individual job seekers with jobs available; and we prioritised resources for those job seekers who were most in need.

Indeed, we helped more than 1.6 million people secure jobs across the employment services portfolio when we were in government. We supported the economy during the global financial crisis, saving an estimated 200,000 jobs. We did not simply revert to punitive measures which fail to address the fundamental problem—a lack of jobs. There are currently 800,000 job seekers in Australia on Job Services Australia's books and only 147,200 vacancies in this country at the present. Clearly, there are not enough jobs to go around. So what is the solution?

Work for the Dole will only work for a certain cohort of job seekers. And we know that the government will not be able to place all the job seekers it will require to participate in their Work for the Dole expanded program, with an estimated 150,000 job seekers being required to participate in Work for the Dole in its first year. Rather than create jobs, which the government promised they would do, we are seeing more companies sending their businesses offshore. The government still has no plans for job creation; even members of the government acknowledge this, with the member for Eden-Monaro saying that the government 'desperately needs a jobs plan'. And it does.

It is clear that the government's first budget has been bad for the economy and it has been hurting business and consumer confidence. The government has made massive cuts to industry investment, to innovation, to science and research, and to education and training that it will have a lasting impact. The government really does need to turn its attention to job creation, because if they believe, like Labor, that everyone deserves the opportunity of work and the dignity that goes with work, then they need to do more.

The fact is that there will always be some people who do the wrong thing. But it is also a fact that the people who do the wrong thing make up a very small percentage, and they are immensely outnumbered by the vast majority of people who do the right thing. The problem with continually attempting to target a small minority of wrongdoers with blanket legislation is that you also penalise and cause grief for the people who are trying their best to do the right thing.

It is clear that the government needs certain measures contained within this bill to become law for its Request for Tender for Employment Services 2015-2020 Purchasing Arrangements. The government's record in employment services for this term of government so far can only be described as a debacle. The government only introduced this bill on Thursday, 25 September 2014. By its own deadline the request for tender was due in late September. The government was not able to meet its own deadline for this with the request for tender for employment services worth more than $5 billion announced on 7 October.

It could not keep its own deadline in relation to the appointment of the Work for the Dole coordinators in time for the commencement of mandatory Work for the Dole on 1 July this year in the expanded sites. The Work for the Dole coordinators were appointed on 19 August this year—more than six weeks late. The government has known for over 12 months that the new contracts need to commence on 1 July 2015 and the steps that need to be taken before that commencement, including the tender process. The request for tender still has sections in it. It closes in mid-November with (subject to legislation) because it has not been able to organise itself and get it together.

In conclusion, Labor does support the 'no show, no pay' provisions in this bill provided that the government is able to give the assurances that we have requested, namely in relation to job seekers being immediately notified of any breach. Labor has concerns about including the 55- to 59 year-olds in an activity test without further analysis. Labor will not support job seekers having no right of appeal to decisions that impact on their payments. Labor will not support the extending of delegations for the secretary to include regulations.

Given all of the above, it is my intention to move amendments that I hope the government will consider supporting. Labor has also moved to have this bill referred to a committee in the Senate for further examination of the issues that I have outlined and any further unintended consequences. The amendments I will move will have the effect of opposing the government's attempts to remove review rights in respect of the payment suspension decisions; opposing the government's attempts to remove the concessions on activity tests currently applying to job seekers aged 55 and over; and opposing the government's attempts to extend the secretary's powers of delegation to delegation of powers under regulations or other instruments. Thank you.

Karen McNamara (Dobell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand in this parliament representing the 10,000 job seekers from Dobell on the Central Coast. The majority of job seekers are genuine in their attempt to secure employment. They do the right thing. They understand that obtaining employment will lead to a more prosperous future and fulfilled life, a life with choice and opportunity. Unfortunately, there are some members of our community who appear uncommitted to finding employment, with many failing to fulfil their mutual obligation whilst receiving income support. This government encourages job seekers to be active in seeking long-term employment. This government also understands that job seekers should have access to a reasonable safety net when not engaged in employment in order to assist them in their genuine search for work. This said, looking for a job should be a full-time job.

This government is committed to building a more robust, efficient and effective employment services system, which assists more job seekers to obtain and secure employment. We are also committed to protecting the integrity of our income support system to ensure that it is affordable and sustainable in the long term. To achieve these outcomes, we require a strong job seeker framework which ensures compliance and includes appropriate incentives and sanctions for those presently receiving income support. This is necessary if we are to facilitate and encourage widespread change in job seeker behaviour, to promote a more efficient employment services system and to enhance the integrity of our social security system.

The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill 2014 strengthens the incentives for job seekers to honour their scheduled appointments with employment service providers and ensures penalties are applied where a job seeker fails to meet their obligation without reasonable excuse. The measures contained within this bill build upon our commitment to reinforce mutual obligation for job seekers who receive income support in addition to reducing red tape for employment service providers. As part of their mutual obligation, a job seeker is required to attend monthly scheduled appointments with their employment service provider to discuss their job search progress and available options in regard to obtaining employment. This enhances and assists opportunity for people to move from welfare to work. Currently job seekers are required to attend one appointment per month. This bill seeks to ensure that job seekers fulfil their obligation whilst in receipt of income support.

From 1 January 2015, if a job seeker fails to attend a scheduled appointment with their employment service provider without a reasonable excuse, their income support payment will be suspended until they actually attend a rescheduled appointment. Only when they attend the rescheduled appointment will the suspension on their income support be lifted with back pay provided for the period of non-compliance. This improves the present arrangement where back pay is paid for simply just rescheduling an appointment and not necessarily attending it.

From 1 July 2015, this bill will further strengthen compliance arrangements by ensuring that if a job seek has income support suspended as a result of failing to meet their obligation, they will not be entitled to back pay for the period the payment was suspended due to non-compliance. By allowing the immediate application of penalties and removing loopholes by which job seekers can fail to attend appointments with employment service providers without consequence, we are making the application of compliance measures more effective and efficient. These changes are necessary to ensure that those receiving income support are fulfilling their obligation and requirements to earn, learn or participate in Work for the Dole.

In 2013-14, 12.75 million appointments were scheduled for job seekers and 4.47 million of these appointments were missed, representing a non-attendance rate of 35 per cent. Alarmingly, 2.7 million of these appointments were missed without the provision of a legitimate reason. In 2013-14, 280,000 people—that is, more than one in five job seekers—who receive activity tested payments had a participation failure against their name for missing a scheduled appointment. This simply is unacceptable and undermines the integrity of our income support system and social responsibilities. Furthermore, the failure of job seekers to meet these requirements is a significant waste of taxpayers' money and the resources of employment service providers. It is estimated that changes within this bill will result in $106 million of savings by removing the need to back pay job seekers who fail to uphold their mutual obligation requirements. I would like to emphasise that these changes will not impact—I repeat: will not impact—upon those who fail to attend a scheduled appointment due to circumstances beyond their control—for example, someone who has taken ill or has an urgent carer's obligation. Provided prior notice is given, and their appointment is rescheduled, no penalties will be imposed.

The previous speaker mentioned safeguards for vulnerable job seekers. Current safeguards for vulnerable job seekers will not be affected by this bill. Additional safeguards are in place for vulnerable job seekers. Vulnerable job seekers are identified on the IT systems used by employment providers and Centrelink by a vulnerability indicator which ensures that providers and Centrelink staff are aware that the job seeker's personal circumstances may impact on their capacity to meet their requirements. Data indicates that job seekers with vulnerability indicators do have a poorer attendance rate than the general job seeker population—that is 62 per cent, compared to 65 per cent—and are more likely to be reported for noncompliance. Forty-two per cent had at least one report in 2013-14, compared to 32 per cent of the general population. However, they are no more likely than any other job seeker to incur participation failures for nonattendance at appointments. This shows that the safeguards are working.

This government believes that job seekers need to be proactive in meeting their obligations. This includes informing their provider beforehand when they are unable to attend a scheduled meeting and providing a legitimate reason for failure to attend. If they fail to provide legitimate advice or a reason they should be held accountable for not meeting their obligations. These changes are about job seekers doing the right thing. We want to see these job seekers take responsibility for their actions and participate as conscientious members of society. This government is implementing a suite of measures designed to assist job seekers and diversify employment opportunities. We owe this much to the 10,000 men and women on the Central Coast—3,900 of whom are aged below 24—who are presently searching for work.

This government is ensuring that all Australians on income support have the opportunity to find and secure employment. Under this government's reinvigorated Work for the Dole program, job seekers are provided opportunities to develop the skills and experience needed to move from welfare to work and contribute back to their community. Earlier this year, I welcomed the Assistant Minister for Employment, the Hon. Luke Hartsuyker MP, to Dobell to officially launch the government's new Work for the Dole program. Since my election as the member for Dobell I have strongly advocated the need for the reintroduction of an effective Work for the Dole program. Job seekers benefit from Work for the Dole activities by developing on-the-job skills, demonstrating abilities to potential employers, obtaining references from work experience employers, participating in training, staying connected to the workforce and, importantly for some, developing a strong work ethic. Importantly, programs such as Work for the Dole provide the long-term unemployed the opportunity to enhance their confidence and self-esteem while developing skills to enable them to enter into employment.

In addition to Work for the Dole, another incentive introduced by this government for long-term young unemployed Australians is the job commitment bonus. This bonus will provide a payment of $2,500 to eligible young Australians aged 18 to 30 who have been on Newstart allowance or youth allowance as job seekers for 12 months or more if they find and keep a job, and remain completely off welfare, for a continuous period of 12 months. Eligible young people will receive a further payment of $4,000 if they remain in a job and off welfare for a continuous 24-month period. As of March 2014, there were 5,425 recipients of Newstart allowance and 1,014 recipients of youth allowance (other) in the Dobell electorate. The job commitment bonus will provide approximately 2,000 eligible recipients in Dobell with a real incentive to obtain long-term paid employment. I am proud to be part of a government that is committed to ensuring positive outcomes for our youth on the Central Coast.

Finding a local job can be a challenge. Information released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicates that as of August 2014, approximately 148,000 people on the Central Coast were engaged in some form of employment. Currently we see 26 per cent of our workforce—that is, approximately 38,000 people—commute out of the region for employment every working day. While this government continues to build a stronger economy that can support more local jobs, it remains true that not every region has the capacity to host the appropriate amounts of employment opportunities for job seekers; therefore, when required, job seekers will be supported and encouraged to look beyond their local area to find work. This government has introduced a Relocation Assistance to Take Up a Job program, which provides practical and financial assistance to job seekers who require assistance to relocate in order to take up ongoing and sustainable employment. Eligible job seekers may be entitled to be reimbursed up to $3,000 if relocating to a capital city or $6,000 if relocating to a regional area; and an additional $3,000 if relocating with dependent children. Relocation assistance is flexible and can be used for a range of relocation costs. Relocation assistance may also be paid up-front to job seekers displaying financial hardship. This government is providing practical and feasible solutions to help Australians find work and build better lives.

This government also wants to see senior Australians have access to employment opportunities. This bill also introduces amendments so that job seekers who are aged 55 or older, who have a full-time mutual obligation requirement, will no longer meet this requirement simply by undertaking part-time voluntary or paid work. The aim of this amendment is to ensure job seekers aged 55 to 59 who are currently engaged with Job Services Australia are encouraged to continue looking for full-time work. We have an ageing population and the ratio of working-age people to people aged over 65 years will fall from the current five to one to three to one by 2050. In order for us to increase mature-age workforce participation, we need to actively engage with employers and work with them to develop opportunities for mature Australians. This government's Restart program offers a wage subsidy of up to $10,000 for employers willing to hire job seekers aged 50 or older. Under the scheme, eligible employers would receive $3,000 if they hire a full-time, mature-age job seeker who has been unemployed and on income support for six months, and employ that person for at least six months. Once the job seeker has been working for the same employer for 12 months, the employer receives another payment of $3,000. The employer will then receive a further $2,000 once the job seeker has been with them for 18 months, and another $2,000 at 24 months. This amounts to $10,000 over two years. Restart will benefit as many as 32,000 mature-age job seekers every year and assist them in finding ongoing employment. This government acknowledges that Australians aged 50 or over have a great deal to contribute to their community and country and that they are often overlooked in the labour market. It is also difficult for mature workers to find work after losing a job. This is despite qualities such as reliability, experience, initiative, skills, stability, insight, leadership and a lifelong work ethic. The Restart program will benefit not only the economy but also mature Australians as they continue to enjoy the benefits of working.

This government is committed to assisting and supporting people to obtain long-term employment. We do this because we are conscious of the benefits of work not only to an individual but to their families and the broader community. Australians are known worldwide for their generosity. We are always willing and ready to put our hands in our pockets and help those in need. This government strongly believes in a hand-up not a hand-out. We are always there to give a hand-up. What we need to ensure is that we do not fall into the trap of giving unsustainable hand-outs without receiving anything in return.

The measures within this bill are not unreasonable. We are asking those individuals looking for work and receiving income support to fulfil their mutual obligations. We are asking them not only to honour the Australian taxpayer and the role of employment agencies but to help themselves by increasing their chances of finding work. This legislation is not about penalising those genuinely requiring a helping hand during difficult times. It is about making sure the right thing is done by those receiving income support and them doing the right thing for themselves, their families, their self-esteem, their community and the Australian taxpayer. I commend this bill to the House.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As has already been stated, Labor agrees with the no-show no-pay principle for appointments contained in the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill 2014. However, we do have some concerns regarding a number of measures contained within the legislation.

Yesterday Melbourne experienced a wild thunder-and-lightning storm. It delayed planes from Melbourne. On-the-ground commuters faced chaos on the roads and the public transport system. Radio talkback was full of people calling in to say it had taken them an hour to travel five kilometres or that it had taken 2½ hours to get to work. There was one story of a four-hour commute. People in Melbourne were sitting in these cars waiting at bus stops and train stations. Some of them were people from Lalor—outer metro workers trying to get to their place of employment.

There would also have been job seekers from Lalor sitting in these cars and waiting on platforms—job seekers who would have been late for their appointments through no fault of their own, job seekers who currently would be able to make an explanation and hopefully be able to reschedule their appointments. I listened with interest to the member for Dobell when she talked about the fact that there would be no penalty as long as prior notice is given, and I wondered how someone sitting at a train station or at a bus stop or even in a car on the highway is going to give prior notice for not meeting an appointment. The legislators in this place always need to bear in mind personal circumstances, circumstances that do not necessarily occur to those of us here in Canberra who do not face the same problems in getting to work that those back in our electorates do.

This legislation means that next year those job seekers might have their payments suspended. A day like yesterday could mean automatic suspension of payments. Hopefully common sense would prevail and these payments would be reinstated, but even a short period with no payment means limited money to catch the train or drive the car to the rescheduled appointment. It is reassuring to hear that the provisions that already exist within the system will be maintained despite this legislation—but we will wait and see how that pans out on the ground.

Labor does believe that job seekers need to be assisted to find work. I believe that most job seekers want that opportunity. They want to work. They value not only the income but the pride in employment. Labor agrees there must be measures in place that require mutual obligation in receiving a support payment while seeking work. In government we drove policy and reforms to do just that.

Being a former teacher and school principal, and someone who spent a lot of years working at the senior end of secondary school, I have heard a lot of reluctance—

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Were you working or were you a teacher?

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will ignore that comment from the member for Herbert and continue.

Mr Robert interjecting—

Because your wife is a teacher does not make the comment any more forgivable—by either her or me.

Over many years I have heard of students' reluctance to register for Centrelink. These might be school leavers who are reluctant to register for Centrelink—often out of pride—and who have to be told that they need to register as a job seeker. But the message from governments and the community over time is that standing in a queue at Centrelink means that, somehow, you are a dole bludger, notwithstanding that we have a system that means you need to register as a job seeker to get support to find a job. Sometimes they are reluctant because they fear the punitive measures that might occur because they have registered. This can come from family history and family knowledge.

I have had frustrated former students outline the efforts they have undertaken to find employment. As a mother of three adult sons, I have lived some of those frustrations with my children. I have seen their logbooks of job applications written—and it is not just school leavers but university graduates. Recently in my electorate I met with two recent university graduates looking for entry level work. Both were looking for entry level work in the finance sector. These men—both refugees to this country who had gone on and completed degrees—could sit there and show me their work history. Prior to entering education they had done menial manual labour, consistently worked and had found their way to university. They had a situation where they were applying for jobs and being told that they were overqualified—obviously, they had a degree and they did not want them to drive a forklift anymore. They were applying for entry level jobs and being told that they were underqualified because they did not have experience. We all know the story. We know how the job market works. What we have to bear in mind when we legislate is those people and the impact it can have when you are seeking jobs, not getting the interviews you want, not getting the positions you want—not even for menial jobs that three years previously you were successful in gaining. We have to remember the impact that can have on the individual over time.

Have I also known young people who disengage from the workforce with no sense of purpose? Of course I have. But it is not like the old days where they could collect payment with no obligation. Those days are long gone. I have equally sat with people over 50 in my electorate office when they have come in with those same logs that they are presenting to Centrelink and those same frustrations. What worries me about this piece of legislation is that there is not built into it protections for vulnerable job seekers. And I mean vulnerable job seekers: those people suffering from mental illness that could in fact have been brought on by this process—if you are out there looking for a job every day for 12 months it is going to impact on your mental health; those people who are drug affected; those people who might be homeless—and in my electorate of Lalor couch surfing for young people is a serious problem; those people who have limited English; those people who may in fact be finding it difficult to find work because the barrier to them fighting work is prejudice. I hear that from various support services locally, where job seekers come back time and time again to people and say, whether it be true or not, that they feel that they are not being successful in getting a position because of their English, because they come from somewhere else. It happens.

I hear from those supporting people with mental illness. I hear from those supporting the homeless. These services have expressed deep concern for their clients, our most vulnerable job seekers, and their capacity to cope if the government seeks to disadvantage them further. So I have issues with this piece of legislation is. I want to see some provisions in there that guarantee me that those people will not be further hurt by this legislation. Of course, the Centrelink figures back up those concerns. There were over 13,000 no show, no pay penalties to job seekers with known vulnerability indicators in 2013. We know that. And we know that in the current system there were things in place that would ensure that they had recourse if they missed an appointment.

What concerns me most is that we get up and we make fine speeches about the impact of mental illness in this chamber and the chamber upstairs and we wax lyrical about the debilitating impact of depression. We point out the compounding effects of community stigma and a lack of understanding and then we fail in our legislation to ensure that we do not live what we say. This is an opportunity, I think, to fix that.

It really is important. In my electorate of Lalor, unemployment in Melbourne's west, of which we are a part, is at 8.1 per cent. For youth in Melbourne's west the unemployment levels are at 13 per cent. So it is okay for us to say that we have mutual obligation; it is okay to say that there should be no show, no pay. But if the jobs are not there then we risk punishing people who have been in that system, who are suffering from lack of work, suffering from a lack of opportunity, and we risk putting them into a cycle where we know full well standing in this place that the members do not stack up but we will put in punitive measures anyway.

The Werribee Centrelink is the busiest in Victoria. I suppose that goes to our youth unemployment. We have job support agencies just about on every corner around my electorate office. We have an enormous number of young people. Unemployment is hard. Seeking employment is hard. The longer it takes to get that job the harder that gets. This has been made harder by the attitude of this government in its attitude to creating jobs—that all we have to do is somehow cut spending and jobs will magically be created. I do not believe they will be.

On top of that the government's current policies are driving up the cost of living for families and they will be having an impact in my electorate. The $7 GP co-payment is estimated to have, if it comes into being, an $11 million impact on our local economy. Families tightening their belts are not going to spend the way they did. Families are not going to do that carport, they are not going to build that pergola. It is clear what happens in this cycle: people lose jobs. Our unemployment queues will certainly not get shorter with a contracting local economy. It will all lead to reduced employment opportunities.

I am concerned mostly about the elements in this piece of legislation where job seekers are made to comply with measures that do not actually lead to an outcome, where they then get disheartened. They will disconnect. They will stop looking for support. This and other changes to Newstart eligibility and plans to leave under 30s with no support will all work seamlessly to disengage our young people. Aside from the human costs in terms of mental illness—and that will take us to the health budget, and that is a whole other story—this will mean, I believe, when children start to disengage, young people stop attending, stop applying, stop going to Centrelink to register as a job seeker, that the data for our unemployment will be obfuscated. Then no-one will know what is happening out there.

These measures are about savings. The budget indicates that. It calculates what they think the savings will be. My conclusion is the government expects to breach a large number of job seekers to achieve this savings. That is my reading of the situation. I will be happy if someone can demonstrate to me that that is not true. I find really disheartening the thought that we could have a government that was consciously planning to save money because people were going to breach this, knowing full well what the implications of those breaches would be long term for those individuals and for the system. I find that really alarming. So we expect to breach them.

I want to finish on another important point: whether or not the JSA should be handed the responsibility of dealing with this compliance issue given that they do not currently have the skills and given that, if it is the government that wants this done, it is Centrelink and the department, not JSAs, that young people and their families should hold responsible. For me that is a solid argument.

The fact is that the legislation on this has been late, that the work for the dole coordinators have been late, that in Werribee there is no sign of the Werribee rehabilitation project that we were promised. What is the government's penalty? Where is the compliance here? Do we need a JSA to come into the chamber to hold those of us here to account when we are late and do not show up for a very important appointment?

Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I follow the member for Lalor and say it is a good thing the JSA penalties were not in place for the last government, because they would have been all over them from daycare centres to trade training centres to GP superclinics. Imagine the penalties they would have been paying in those situations.

First and foremost, if we had two per cent unemployment, we would not be having this conversation. The fact is that we have rising unemployment and rising challenges in this area. In my own city of Townsville we have unemployment of 9.7 per cent, some of the highest in the state. We have an economy in transition. In my city of Townsville we have a manufacturing sector which has copped the brunt of high costs of energy transmission from Gladstone all the way through to Townsville. That has affected the unemployment market.

When you get an unemployment market, the thing to remember first and foremost is it is not just the 9.7 per cent. That is just the overall total. When you start talking about unemployment, it is the youth, the elderly, the disabled and the new migrants who cop it the worst. Whilst we have an unemployment rate in Townsville of 9.7 per cent, I guarantee that our youth unemployment is quite high, our over-50s unemployment is quite high and it is only that space in the middle there.

The member for Lalor is 100 per cent correct when she says that people are turning up trying to get jobs as forklift drivers who have bachelor's degrees and not getting a job and there are people turning up as forklift drivers trying to get jobs in other things and being underqualified. So we have a real challenge. What I would like to say is that we are trying to reinforce the mutual obligation which was started in the last government. I think it should have been, and we supported it in the last government.

I am an auctioneer by trade. When the market is tough, you do not do less. I worked as a manager for a national firm. I worked for a couple of firms in this space. I worked in the finance game for a finance company. When the market is tough, you do not get your budget lowered because it is a tough market. We have journalists in this place. You do not see the boss of Channel Seven saying: 'Ah, it's a slow news day. Don't worry about it; we won't do the news.' That is when you have to earn your money. A tough market is when you have to get out there and you have to deliver the goods. You have to do more. In an auctioning game, when cars are not selling, you must find the market. You must think of different things. You have to spend more hours. You have to visit more people. You have to do more cold calls and all that sort of stuff to get your sales through because, if you do not get your sales through, you do not make a profit. If you do not make a profit, your people do not get paid. If they do not get paid, you go broke and they lose their jobs. That is the simple transaction that we go through here. It does not matter where you are; that is the consequence of not working harder in a tough market.

So that is the thing that we must do and that is the thing that we are asking people to do in the unemployment market. We are asking them for their job whilst they are unemployed to be to get a job. It has to be hard to work to get that space, because it is hard at the moment. No-one in this place is denying that it is hard, but when it is hard is when you have to put in more. If there were millions of jobs out there, we would not be having this discussion. There are not millions of jobs out there. We have to find the ways to apply things, stimulate the economy and still drive down debt. It is a very delicate thing to balance. But we must ask the people who are receiving the unemployment benefits and those things around that place to put in. The sense of mutual obligation must go through. If you put in, we will put in.

I hear a lot about the rights of the unemployed. I understand all that, but I would also like to speak about the rights of the people who actually earn the money that pays the tax that pay for the unemployment. Those are people we have to look out for as well. What we are finding in this place after the last six years of government, I am sorry to say, is that a lot of friends of mine who are self-starters and small business people were actively looking for jobs for wages because it was just too hard and just too hard to employ people. So we have to look at the whole thing around why people are not getting employed. We have to try to work in that space.

With this bill we are offering inducements and assistance for people to shift where there is work. I had a phone call from a gentleman who said he was up the government because he had to shift to Melbourne for a job. His family was still in Townsville. I did not know what the problem was. I said: 'I shifted to Townsville for a job. I've been here 20 years.' I shifted to Townsville for a job because that is where the job was. If it were not for the jobs, most Australian migrants would not have come to Australia in the first place. So I do not have a problem with shifting or asking people to shift to where work is. I think that is a natural consequence. Millions of people do it every year. We do it all the time.

We have a social security budget from which we pay out about $145 billion a year. Social security payments make up nearly 35 per cent of the overall spend. It is a massive amount of money. For the member for Lalor to sit there and say that we are trying to disqualify or discredit people so that we can save money—imagine what that figure would be up against $145 billion per year. It is laughable that we would be in this space. I do take her point about looking after those people who are unable to comply. I take her point about the storms in Melbourne yesterday and people not being able to turn up to appointments. In Townsville, talking about unemployment, anyone living in the Upper Ross who does not have their own car has to catch the bus from the Upper Ross to get to the Willows and to get the other bus to get into the city. If you miss that bus, or if it is early or late—because we have an infrequent public transport system in Townsville—you miss your appointment. So when services like Centrelink and job service providers are trying to organise these appointments it is important that they do recognise where these people are coming from. In a place like Townsville, even if you live near the major bus routes you can have trouble. When I had two daughters going to university, the bus would stop just down the road from us, in front of the Cathedral School, and take them straight to the university. They knew the bus did not come on time all the time, so they got down there at least 20 minutes early to make sure they got the bus to university. But quite often, at least twice a week, the bus did not turn up, so they would have to ring either my wife or me to go and pick them up and take them to university. That sort of thing happens with the unemployed, and people need to be cognisant of how they are going to get to job interviews. It is pointless asking someone from the Upper Ross to get into the city by 8 o'clock in the morning for a job interview if they are catching public transport, because they will never get there. That has to be factored into the system.

I would also like to speak about new migrants. The member for Lalor intimated that a little bit of racial prejudice might be a reason why new migrants do not get jobs. That may be a part of it. My wife is Italian, and we all know what that heritage means. They are great people. When the Italians, the Greeks, the Poles and all those sorts of people came to Australia after the Second World War, you would have a non-English-speaking forklift driver, you would have a non-English-speaking bloke on the broom in the shed, you would have them as machine operators at GMH and Ford, because you could have those sorts of guys there. It did not matter; you just showed them how to do the job and everything went through. The problem we have now is that whilst those jobs are fewer and fewer, with our workplace health and safety requirements they cannot pass the basic English to get that job. With the generation that went through before, the first generation, whether they were an architect, a brain surgeon or a labourer from another country, they would get in and do whatever they could and make sure that their kids went to school, got a great education and they became the doctors, the lawyers, the carpenters and the builders in our society. What we are seeing now is a section of society which is being vilified by other people—especially Africans, in my community, because, firstly, they look different. They are being vilified because we do not see them going to work—not like the Italians did, not like the Greeks did. We do not see them going to work, because they do not have good enough English and because we will not hire people in those situations and we will not put them on, because business cannot afford the risk. That is the issue when it comes to all things migration.

I have a magnificent city in Townsville. I come from a fantastic part of the world. I use the line: Townsville is the place where God goes for holidays. It is a great part of the world, and we are a great multicultural population; we are a great multicultural city. But we do have that section of society who will not rent houses to people of African origin. We will not give them a job—firstly, because they do not speak English and we have that great deal of difficulty. When it comes to those sorts of groups, what I have said is that they get them together as a group and they hunt as a pack. When it comes to houses, when it comes to jobs, they have to use their English-speaking people to get them into these situations. I think that we as a government must work harder with these people to try to make sure that we get them through.

People who are intellectually disabled or are dealing with mental illness will always be looked after. The first rule of government is to look after people who cannot look after themselves, and that is why social security is there—specifically for these people. So when we get into this space I do say that we are spending $145 billion a year on social security and we do have to be cognisant. That is a massive amount of money. So when we are asking people to make decisions about whether they are going to go to work and that sort of thing, we ask that they do respect the taxpayer and that they respect the fact that someone out there is paying the tax. Someone has to put the cash in before we can take the cash out. Those are things that we have to do in a city like Townsville where we have a real issue when it comes to youth disengagement and lack of education. We have real issues in that space and we have got to work on those. But that is not what this bill is about. This bill is about trying to get people to understand that their work, whilst they are collecting unemployment benefits, is to search for a job. If we can get them into things like Work for the Dole, if we can get to them into programs where there is some sort of manual labour or some sort of job, then they turn up every day and do something.

The only way to guarantee a result is to do nothing. That is the only way to guarantee a result. When you are cold calling as a businessman, an auctioneer, a finance company representative or a sales representative, the only way to guarantee that you do not make the sale is to not knock on the door of that business. That is the only way, because most of the time they are going to say no. But one of them is going to say yes, and that is how you get paid. And the tougher the market is, the fewer people who are out there actually doing it, the more it makes sense that you must be in there and you must be driving it hard.

I have never been unemployed. I was unemployed for a week between jobs, and I would never wish it on anybody. I think it must be soul destroying. The statistics show that if you are on there for 12 months you are on there for two years, and it is awfully hard to come off. But are we more likely to get a good result by saying to people, 'Just go home and collect the dole' or by asking people to work hard in a tough market? Are we likely to get a good result by telling people that their job is to get up and have a go? That is what we have to do.

I support this bill. By and large, I understand that even though the member for Lalor bashed us around a bit on her way through it is pretty much bipartisan that we have these things. This sort of mutual obligation has been around for a fair while. I do support this bill. I do support the fact that we have to make sure that we scrimp and save every taxpayer dollar, because if we do not respect the taxpayer dollar how can we expect those people who receive it to respect the taxpayer dollar? I support this bill. I support what the government is trying to achieve with this and I hope that we get it through. I thank the House.

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

I will start by responding to a couple of the comments made by the previous speaker on this bill, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill 2014. One of the comments—it was one of his last comments—was: 'We just want people to get up every morning and have a go.' The truth is that the vast majority of job seekers are getting up and having a go. They are turning up to job interviews. They are turning up to their Job Network providers. This bill is not about getting up and having a go. This bill is about penalising people who get up and have a go. This bill comes from a government that says, 'Even if you get up and have a go every single day but are under the age of 30 we are not going to pay you a cent in Centrelink support. We're not going to respect our obligations under mutual obligation and ensure that you have the financial means to get up and have a go and get to that job every day.' These are empty words from the government, trying to pretend that it is the friend of the Australian people, trying to pretend that it is the friend of job seekers. It says that it just wants people to get up and have a go. This bill does not speak to that. This bill is all about saving money. This bill is all about penalising and demonising people who are trying to find a job.

Shortly after I was elected, a young man came into my new office in Bendigo. He was angry and frustrated. All I could do was ask him to sit down and tell me his story. Until recently he had been working as a contractor working for a labour hire firm in a packing facility in Bendigo. He was on a good rate of pay but it was insecure work, so the moment that the hours dropped off he was told, 'There are no more hours for you. I'm sorry, we have to let you go.' There was nothing he could do about it, because he was employed as agency staff, as a contractor. When he came to see me he had been unemployed for about nine weeks. He did not qualify for any support assistance, because he had not been made redundant and he was actively looking for work. He walked past MatchWorks in Pall Mall in Bendigo and saw advertised a job that he thought would be perfect for him. He rocked into MatchWorks and said, 'How do I get the details of that job in the window?' They said, 'Sorry, you can't. That's reserved for people who are long-term unemployed.' He said, 'Why have it in the window, then?' They said, 'That way you come in and we can talk about you coming onto our books and us helping you look for work.' He goes: 'Okay, how do I do that?' They said, 'You've got to have a Centrelink number.' He did not have that number so he walked around to Centrelink and said, 'I need to get a number. I need to register with you so I can go and register with a Job Network.' The frustration was on this young man's face as he told me how he went to Centrelink and was handed forms and told, 'Fill in these forms, come in for an assessment interview and we'll take it from there.' The job was in the window but he could not apply for it because of the hoops he had to jump through. That to me speaks of a system in crisis. This young man wants to work yet has to jump these hurdles. This government is going to exacerbate that problem with the measures in this bill.

We have not seen from this government a focus on providing opportunities and creating jobs. The government's head is in the sand on this one. In my electorate of Bendigo youth unemployment is spiking. It is now at 30 per cent. The young man who came into my office those many months ago is still looking for work because he is in competition with 30 per cent of the young people in my electorate, those who are looking for work. He did what was expected. He completed grade 12. He did not go to TAFE, because he had a young family and could not afford the fees. He did not enrol at university, because he had to earn an income to pay the mortgage. There are no job opportunities available to him in Bendigo, partly because work is not being created and partly because youth unemployment is so high. We simply do not have available the jobs for many of the job seekers we have today.

I am strongly opposed to the changes in this bill that fail to provide appropriate protections for vulnerable job seekers, particularly those relating to the right to review. This bill seeks to remove the right to review a decision which suspends payments. This sets a dangerous precedent for people and denies them their right to natural justice. What kind of government, what kind of Liberal are you, if you start to deny people their right to natural justice? One person's decision would be the beginning and ending of it. We heard the previous speaker say, 'There has to be flexibility in case there is a storm or people cannot get there on public transport.' Not in this bill there isn't. That kind of flexibility is going to be knocked out as a result of this bill.

There are many reasons why jobseekers miss appointments, and their individual circumstances need to be taken into consideration. In regional areas, it has been outlined, there is a lack of public transport. Buses get cancelled or there is no bus. Another problem that we in regional Australia have is the post. Quite a few pensioners around Australia received a letter from the Prime Minister two weeks ago. In Bendigo they received it last week. The post is very slow in regional Australia. Mail from Bendigo takes about a week to get to Melbourne. Mail from Canberra takes even longer to get to Bendigo. If you are notifying people by letter they might get the letter on the day or the day after they need to turn up for an interview.

The other problem we have is that sometimes people are told by text message that they will have their payment cut. To have their payment restored they have to ring Centrelink and wait in queues. Job cuts in call centres and smart centres as a result of this government's budget mean that people are having to wait up to 70 minutes. They may have registered for the call back service, which means they may not have to incur the very large phone bill, but they have to be there waiting to take the call.

Who will they punish when it comes to these changes that they are introducing? They will penalise and punish the most vulnerable and disadvantaged job seekers. These people are typically overrepresented in having penalties for noncompliance. These are not like the young man who rocked up at my door and said, 'I just want a job; I'll take any job, but nobody will help me find a job.' These are the people where there is something else going on in their lives that is impacting on their ability to look for work.

Last year, over 13,000 small daily 'no show, no pay' penalty rates were imposed on job seekers known as having vulnerable indicators. This included over 4,000 who have psychiatric problems or mental health issues and just under 2,500 with 'homeless' flagged on their file. How do you know to turn up at a meeting at Centrelink if you do not have a home address for your mail to be sent to? What happens if you are one of the young people who are couch-surfing because you cannot get into the rental market and you are trying to provide a fixed address to Centrelink? These people need our compassion and support. These people do not need to be demonised by this government. What we need in our approach to job seekers—particularly those who are most vulnerable—is a compassionate understanding, respect and support. But this government has simply thrown those ideas out the window.

Another problem with this bill is that the government seeks to transfer the responsibility of determining whether a job seeker has a reasonable excuse from DHS employees to the JSA provider staff. Let's just call this change what it really is—another example of the government's attitude to privatising the functions of government. There is a broader problem with this proposal. There are certain jobs within our Public Service that should stay within our Public Service. Fines at a state government level should stay with the Public Service. If you are being penalised by a body as a result of a state law or a federal law, it should be those public servants who enforce that. If this is the legislation that will be set up and if these penalties that will be imposed are a result of this parliament, they should be enforced by the people employed by this government—by the public servants. They should not be outsourced. This government should not be outsourcing its responsibilities with it comes to breaches of Centrelink.

JSA providers are not impressed by this reform, and they have also expressed their concern. They believe that the ability to make these decisions could have a negative impact on their relationship with the very people they are trying to assist in finding work. How can you say to someone, 'Sorry, you didn't turn up to this interview, so we're docking your pay; but we want to have a good relationship to try to get you a job'? It just does not work. It does not work to create that conflict. And the providers themselves have voiced their concern about this particular issue.

Throughout this bill the government seeks to impose harsher measures on job seekers,. This is in addition to the six-month waiting periods for young people before becoming eligible for Newstart and mandatory Work for the Dole schemes. It is an entire generation of young people. There are very few entry level jobs today. These people are actively out there looking for work. Thirty per cent of young people in my electorate are not sitting at home playing the Xbox and eating Cheezels—as the member for Herbert would like us to think. Thirty per cent of young people in my electorate are actively looking for work, but we have not created the job opportunities for them. Creating job opportunities is the role of government; it is the role of business; it is the role of industry; and it is the role of community—working together to create these jobs. Yet, rather than focusing on job creation policy for young people, all we have seen from this government are further attacks and demonising. To suggest that young people are sitting at home playing the Xbox and eating Cheezels is a disgrace and demonstrates how out of touch this government is with the young people in their electorates.

I would like to finish by sharing Kate's story. Kate is a young job seeker in my electorate. She lives in Kyneton. This is her experience of being unemployed, navigating Centrelink and navigating the Job Network system. She said:

People don't like it when you are unemployed. They think you are lazy and wasting their taxpayer dollars.

It is not hard to understand why Kate thinks that, when you have the member for Herbert going on TV and saying exactly that and saying that in his contribution. Kate said:

In the year that I have been unemployed, I have applied for one hundred and seventy jobs. Less than ten bothered to reply. They were all 'unsuccessful applicant' emails that were sent out in bulk.

Again, that goes to the problem in our community of actually having good, secure jobs that people can apply for, that people can count on.

Kate told of her experience with a Job Network provider. She said that, when she first went to meet with them 'they just assume that you have a mental illness or a disability.' She was given a list of jobs to apply for. After she applied for them, she found out that she needed to be an individual with a disability. So her Job Network provider struggled to find a job that was suitable. Kate gave another example of the Job Network provider not recommending a suitable job. She said:

When I received notification that they had put my name down for a position injecting hormones into chicken necks before their eventual slaughter, I was somewhat surprised considering that I hold a BA in Professional Writing/Philosophy, a Masters in Screenwriting for Film, my TAE Cert IV to teach at TAFE or Uni and had worked in a managerial role for a decade.

She said, 'That was not what shocked me; it was the fact that I have been a vegetarian for 15 years.' She said when she was informed that the job she had been matched to did not match her CV that she was told by the job network provider, 'You just need to learn how to grab the chicken by the feet. The rest is pretty simple.' That does not create confidence in our system. Kate is one of many in Australia who are struggling to find a job, yet we have seen from this government a lack of understanding about the few jobs that are available. Instead we have seen not a jobs plan but measures that will make it harder and harder for people like Kate.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to speak on this important piece of legislation, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill 2014. I think the member for Bendigo eloquently sums up what is wrong with the modern Labor Party. The modern Labor Party is not about the worker any more but about the nonworker, the leaner and not the lift up because they have assiduously opposed for a decade policies that support principles of mutual obligation and the endeavour to get young people and unemployed people back to work. That is what this bill is about, primarily—getting people back to work. Why would anyone be opposed to that? We know that many people miss appointments each year without a satisfactory response.

The member for Bendigo talks about people with legitimate mental health concerns. She talks about people who are homeless. These are not the people we are targeting in this legislation. These are not the people upon whom we are looking to enforce a tougher regime. These issues are being tackled by governments and by charities. They are being dealt with by our whole society and of course these people deserve our sympathy and passion. What we are addressing is the bulk of the rest of them, the 4.5 million missed appointments every year without a satisfactory response—that is, 35 per cent, a good third. It is not unfair, in my view, to ask people who are not doing anything else, who are able-bodied, who do not have mental health concerns, who are not severely disadvantaged to the point that they cannot leave their home or pick up the phone, or look on the internet, or visit a workplace to get a job.

These are the realities of life and that is what the modern Labor Party misses. They also missed the other end of the equation which is that they think a government has to produce of jobs plan. Governments do not create jobs except in the public sector. The government's role is to enable the economy and society to produce more jobs. You will not hear the member for Bendigo talking about Kyneton, which I am familiar with and which is a great local town and a great regional community, and she will not be talking about alleviating the harsh and inflexible weekend penalty rates. Alleviating penalty rates could enable businesses to open longer and to employ many more young people. If she talked to a small business, which I doubt the member for Bendigo has done in a very long time, she would find that they need more flexible system especially on weekends, public holidays and at other times to employ more young people. They would add young people to their business. This is not a big business issue; this is a small business issue. You have no real plan for the Labor Party to allow the economy, which is the only sector which creates the job, to do their job—that is, to employ more people.

So we have a double nexus of failure from the Labor Party and we find them in the their ongoing problem and malaise—that they do not recognise the fundamental principle of this debate which is that welfare is not good for you. Welfare is not something we want people to be on. While they talk about how much of a right it is for every Australian to get welfare, it is not something that develops a good person, it is not something which people in this situation want to be on; it is something they want to get off and something we want to get them off. It is something the Labor Party ought to want to get them off. Yet they continually talk about the right to be on welfare, saying that people need to be on welfare.

People do not need to be on welfare when we run a productive society that can create as many jobs possible. At the moment we are not enabling our society to do that. That is why the government is so fixated on an economic action strategy that will allow the economy to produce more jobs and get more people off welfare. Getting people off welfare is good for them. We have intergenerational welfare problems in Australia now and those intergenerational welfare concerns produce ongoing serious effects, particularly for people who are stuck in the intergenerational welfare nexus. So to ask people to strengthen the job seeker compliance framework and say, 'You must turn up when you say you're going to turn up,' that is a principle of getting a job. That is a principle of being a person who is willing to get a job. To say, 'I slept in', which is one of the excuses that are given—

Ms Hall interjecting—

The member for Shortland scoffs, but these are all on the public record. These are all available. If the member for Shortland bothered to read these things, she would find out that the excuses people give are available on the public record. 'I slept in' or 'I forgot' are not legitimate excuses. As the member for Bendigo says, these are not people with a mental illness or people who are homeless. These are people saying, 'I forgot to turn up for my job appointment.' If the member for Shortland did her homework she would see that sleeping in, forgetting, could not be bothered are excuses published each quarter as part of the report on job seeker compliance. They are not good enough. I do not believe the vast majority of Australians would find those excuses good enough when the vast majority of Australians are working to pay for people to be on welfare. They expect that those people will get a job, though they will get training and retraining if they have too. The member for Bendigo raises the example of Kate who has a masters in philosophy and all those other degree she has learnt from universities and is unable to find a job. This government will offer her education at the taxpayers' expense to retrain in an area where she could get a job. And if she is unable to do the work which has been found for her, there will be other avenues.

The member for Bendigo really should stop adopting a negative approach and telling her constituent that it is good to stay on welfare or to be on welfare and help her to get off welfare by offering her the opportunities which exist in this great country from retraining, for education and for opportunity. There are more opportunities for young people in this country than in any other country in the world today. There are more of them right now, regardless of which side is in government. Young people should be given that message and told to get off welfare and to go out to find those opportunities because they are real, they exist and they are within the grasp of every single Australian.

If you are not able to grasp them, if you have a legitimate mental health concern, as the member for Bendigo raises, or you are homeless, there are other avenues and services of government in our society that are there to provide for you. That is not what this bill is talking about. It is disingenuous of members opposite to suggest that this will adversely affect people in these categories. They are not the target of this legislation.

We know that there is a significant ongoing problem with non-attendance rates at appointments. This has been the source of much consternation for government over many years. If the members opposite really wanted to understand this issue, I would simply point them to statements by previous spokespeople on this issue, including the minister at the time in the previous government, the current member for Adelaide, who said: 'I believe that attendance at appointments can and must improve. That is why we made an election commitment to strengthen the compliance system.' Why would the current opposition oppose strengthening the current compliance legislation when it was their position in government? They understood this. Kate Ellis, the member for Adelaide, understood this. So why are they opposing it now? Is it simply because they have fallen into the trap of opposition of opposing everything for opposition's sake? It is not punitive to say to people that they should be seeking to get jobs and that they must attend their appointments unless they have a legitimate excuse. Nobody here is questioning that there are legitimate reasons or legitimate excuses for people not to turn up. The operative word is 'legitimate'.

We have to create a system as well that supports what both sides of parliament have been saying over many years, which is that we have to strengthen the compliance framework. That means that we have to amend in this legislation the provision that allows people to drop in an unacceptable excuse and then have the money immediately go into their account. In amending this legislation, the government is ensuring that if you do not have satisfactory attendance you will have your payments suspended, and this is the real incentive. I suspect, if members opposite thought deeply about this, they would understand that it will lead to a decrease in these pathetic excuses. And they are pathetic—'I slept in,' 'I forgot,' or 'I simply couldn't be bothered.' I do not think we will be seeing many of those when people's payments have been suspended and they have difficulty obtaining that money. I think people will get the message and those people who are doing the wrong thing will start doing the right thing. The right thing is to meet their side of the bargain, and that is to go and look for a job, to do it appropriately and to do everything they can to get employment and get back on their feet.

I do not think people ought to be picky about it. You take what jobs are available. Many of us here in this place have worked in small shops and jobs that we did not think we would be in for our whole lives. There are plenty of people who have been very successful in life who started in jobs that were very low paid, difficult, unpleasant or not the jobs they wanted to do. There is nothing wrong with that. That is how you start out. That is the signal we have to send. Unfortunately, the modern Labor Party sends the signal to everybody that your first job should be your last job, that you should be highly paid when you are 18 and in your first job and that it should be your job for life. That is just not the case. You take the work you can get. You learn the skills you need. It will not be a super high-paid job that you should be doing forever and ever. It is the culture of the victim that the modern Labor Party creates, saying that, 'Everything is against you, the system is against you, life is against you and you cannot succeed, so we are just going to agitate for less work and more pay.' That is the modern union-Labor nexus—less work for more pay—which is strangling our enterprise and initiative in this country.

This bill is going to significantly reduce the cost of red tape for employment providers. That is a theme of this government as well. I am a big fan of this because we have to reduce the time spent administering this whole ridiculous excuse system and improve the ability of these people to spend the time that they need to be spending on getting these young people and other people who are unemployed jobs.

We are investing $5.1 billion over three years in the new employment services system from 2015. This is a very significant investment. It is very important that we update, by amendment, the framework that goes along with this investment. That is such a significant investment that if the Labor Party is suggesting we do not need to update the compliance job seeker framework, contrary to what they thought when they were in government, they really need to come forward and say why and not put forward a whole sob-story and blame story about how the world is against everybody, because it is not the case in a country like Australia. It never has been, and it is not going to be under any government. There are plenty of accessible opportunities for all people who are unemployed in Australia to seek education or retraining or to go and get the job that they have been looking for.

I would encourage those people who are doing the wrong thing to go out and do the right thing. That is what the member for Herbert was saying. There are people who assiduously do the wrong thing and game the system, which we have not talked about here. It may not be similar to the proportion of people who are homeless or have legitimate mental health issues. It may not be the bulk of people who are unemployed. But there are people who are unemployed who are deliberately doing the wrong thing by not showing up for an appointment or who have lost hope or have, for no reason, given up. It is not a good signal for the government to send to say, 'That's okay.' It is not a good signal to say, 'Society is to blame.' We really need to look these people in the eye and say, 'You do need to go and turn up to appointments and to go and get a job.'

I would encourage the Labor Party to drop this rhetoric of railing against society, our system and our fairness when we are a very fair and equal society and we offer many, many ways for someone to get themselves out of a difficult situation in this country. I can tell you from dealing with businesses, small and large, that there are so many people who employ people in this country who are willing to give young people and unemployed people a go. They exist. They are real. They are there. But they are looking for that spark of desire. They are looking for those people who want to get that job. They are looking for someone to have a bit of self-belief. That is what we have to give people who are unemployed—a bit of self-belief.

The first thing we can do is be honest with them and say, 'You can't provide a pathetic excuse to government on why you're not going to your appointments.' Sleeping in or 'I forgot'—these sorts of things have to stop. They are real excuses; they are not something this government has made up. They are in the reporting; they happen every year; and they are unacceptable. This amendment to strengthen the job seeker compliance framework ought to have the support of both sides of parliament. It did have the support of ministers in the previous government. This is a simple update to ensure that we are doing everything we can to get people out of the welfare system and into work.

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

Listening to the contribution from the member for Mitchell shows how out of touch he is. As he stood in this House, he gave a scenario of reasons that people are unemployed. Listening to his contribution you would believe the only reason that a person is unemployed is that they failed to comply with the requirements of Centrelink—or they're lazy or they can't get out of bed or they just forgot about it. I say to the member for Mitchell that I have worked with people who are unemployed for many years and I know how desperate they are to try and find employment. A person does not choose to languish on welfare; a person tries to get a job. In my area there is a very high rate of youth unemployment and there is very little assistance available for them, particularly since this Abbott government cut so many of the programs—like Youth Connection—that helped young people move from school to work. There is a need to have a compliance regime, and we on this side of parliament do not walk away from that in any shape or form. But the reason a person is unemployed is a lot more complicated than not complying by not turning up for appointments.

There needs to be more jobs. This government has absolutely no plan for jobs. A plan for jobs is not cutting wages and working conditions. I have worked in small business, I have owned a small business and I know that there are many challenges for small businesses, but I know that small businesses cannot take all the young people and all the older people who are unemployed. If you look at the difficulties associated with older people wanting to enter the workforce, you would know there are so many barriers to stop people gaining employment. It is not that they do not turn up for jobs and it is not that they will not attend appointments; it is rather the simple fact that the jobs do not exist.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're not helping, Jill.

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

If the member on the other side of this House occasionally listened to what other people were saying, he might learn something. He is one of the rudest members in this parliament. I have noticed him having a go at people all the time. I encourage him to listen occasionally to the shadow minister, who could teach him a thing or two. You have been here five minutes and all you can do is shout abuse across the chamber. As I was saying, this government has absolutely no plan for jobs. What has happened to jobs since they have been in power? The car industry has been decimated—sorry, we don't have a car industry. Submarines are going to be built overseas and shipbuilding, an industry that is very important in my area, is about to become non-existent.

Mr Sukkar interjecting—

Please, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think I can ask for him to be silent.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Shortland should ignore the interjections. The member for Deakin, the member for Shortland does have the call.

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

I would be very pleased for the member opposite to listen and learn.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not learning anything from you, Jill.

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

I have had a number of constituents come to see me who over the years have been breached by Centrelink. The most common reason that a person comes to see me when they have been breached is that they were called into work on that day. That was not considered an acceptable excuse. I had one person that it happened to three times, and she was in a lot of trouble. She was faced with the situation of 'Do I go to work or do I go to an appointment?'

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

You can ring up.

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

I see the minister shaking his head. They did ring up and were told that their reason was not acceptable. The one side of the equation is that you need to have compliance and the other side of it is that you need to have in place programs to help people.

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

You are making it up.

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

The minister said that I am making it up. No, I am not. I have also had people come to see me who have had to rush a sick child to hospital. One person even had their husband have a heart attack and she was breached. On another occasion a constituent came to see me after being involved in a car accident and they were breached. It took a lot of work for my staff to get those Centrelink benefits re-instated. Those on the other side of this House do not understand what the real world is about.

This legislation is set to cause enormous hardship. The government is seeking to make amendments which would mean that from 1 January 2015 a payment suspension for a participant—a participant is a person who failed to attend an appointment—would not be re-instated until after the person had attended an appointment with their employment provider. As I said, many of the people that have been breached are people who actually work. The provision could mean that they have to wait quite a considerable time before they can attend an appointment.

This is legislation that from one perspective is designed to encourage people to comply with the requirements that are in place so that they can receive Newstart or whatever other benefit it might be, but from another perspective shows a total lack of understanding of people, a total lack of understanding of the job market and a very simplistic and narrow approach to looking at why people do not attend appointments. It is looking at extending compliance requirements to job seekers who are 55 and over. Currently it is a lesser requirement. I mentioned a moment ago the barriers that people who are older face when trying to obtain a job. The government would be much better putting in place a series of programs that would actually help people get the skills that they need to enter the workforce and support them. And if there are people who really need extra assistance, people who may have a mental health problem, which seemed to be an issue that the member for Mitchell raised on a number of occasions, then they should be supported. If a person is constantly sleeping in or missing an appointment for some reason, maybe there is something else going on.

Those on the other side of this parliament are just interested in cutting costs because this is seen as a budget saving measure. It outlines a total of $161.1 million in savings over four years. I would argue very strongly that the $161.1 million should be put into programs that will help people get skills, programs that will help them move from being unemployed to work. I would argue that money would be best spent on programs like Youth Connections, which did a fantastic job in my area. I worked so closely with them.

In my office, I have an employment group. A number of providers come in. We look at and analyse the areas where there are going to be shortages in jobs and then the employment providers look at how they can help people train in those areas and then link them into those industries. Within my area, occupations that will be in demand are in aged care, because Shortland is an older electorate, and disability. But to do that you need to spend about $161.1 million to help develop the skills. You need to put in place a job plan so that you know the direction that you are going in. And a job plan is not about cutting wages, it is not about cutting conditions; a job plan is about making sure there is a proper analysis of the economy, that you look at the areas where there is going to be job growth. You do not to stand up and speak platitudes and say there is no such thing as unemployment, that people are unemployed because they do not want a job. That is not true. My staff spend quite a bit of time helping people prepare resumes. We look at linking them with contacts in the local community. I know it is not what those members on the other side of this parliament would do, but we recognise that there is a very tight job market at the moment and it is getting tighter.

Since the Abbott government was elected, the number of jobs that have been available in my electorate and throughout Australia has shrunk. You only have to look at the figures to see that that is the case. We have had an increase in the level of unemployment; the number of people looking for jobs has decreased—that is, the participation rate, people seeking employment. That is because people know that the jobs are not there and the assistance is not there. The assistance is not there because this government really thinks, 'We'll bring in Work for the Dole; we'll tighten up the compliance mechanism'—the opposition support strong compliance mechanisms, but we also support fair compliance mechanisms. We do not support mechanisms that are going to create hardship and we definitely do not support removing the right of people to appeal decisions that have been made. That is unfair: it is taking away people's natural justice and it means that that people can be ridden over roughshod. It has been one of the tenants of this social security system for many, many years—that is, people have the right to appeal decisions that have been made.

This bill was introduced on Thursday, 25 September and it had its own deadline. The government was trying to get it through because it had request for tenders that were due in September. It did not make it; it has failed to actually meet its own deadlines.

This government needs to take a step back. The minister at the table, the member for Cowper—I have been on an employment committee with him in the past—needs to take a step back. He really needs to look at the issues. The area that he represents has got one of the highest levels of unemployment in this country—real unemployment. I have family who live in that area; I know there are a number of Indigenous people who live in his area who cannot find jobs. Businesses open and they absolutely ignore those young people who are unemployed and who are looking for work. It is a retirement area. He should be sitting down and setting up an employment group in his own electorate similar to the one I have. He should be getting out there and looking at running job expos, looking at doing things that will lead to a better outcome for the unemployed people in his electorate.

Once again, I do not support transferring the decision to breach people to the job agencies. Those on the other side stand condemned for their total lack of understanding of issues surrounding unemployment and how to actually facilitate people re-entering the workforce. (Time expired)

Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill is designed to ensure that jobseekers in receipt of income support meet their mutual obligations requirements. Central to this is the requirement for jobseekers to attend scheduled appointments with their employment provider. This bill is another example of how the government is focussed on delivering outcomes—not just processes or press releases. I came to this place to deliver outcomes, not just optics, and this bill is a fantastic example of how we are seeking to do this.

I am a bit disappointed that the member for Shortland has left the House, because I thought we could have had a chat here about what really drives employment in an economy. I went back to my old economics textbooks from my bachelor and masters degrees to have a look at what drives jobs growth. I have heard a lot about this idea of a jobs plan, so I looked under 'J' in the indexes and there was nothing there. Then I looked under 'P' and there was nothing there either. But then I looked in the text and there was a story about jobs plans, so I was delighted to find that jobs plans were there. The textbooks said that the Soviet Union had jobs plans. It turns out, though, that they had a hell a lot of unemployment—the Soviet jobs plans did not work.

I am absolutely confident that a jobs plan coming from those opposite will have no impact on unemployment and employment in this country. I then thought I would do justice to this issue and I would take a look at what really does drive employment. What I discovered in my textbooks was a very simple story—there is the demand side and the supply side. Let us talk about them. The demand side is all about creating jobs, and we hear about this from the opposition but they do not really understand what it involves. It turns out there are three factors in creating demand and jobs in the economy. Firstly, there is government consumption—there is no doubt about it, that is the one they are best at. The trouble is that they have spent all the money so there is no more room for government consumption. Secondly, we move to private sector consumption—we can try and up that but under their term of government we saw private debt levels escalate to record levels in this country, higher than almost any other Western country in the world—I think the Irish are ahead of us—and it is clear now that the consumer is not going to be there creating jobs for us and we are seeing that it is a tough time in retail. Thirdly, there is investment, and of course what they miss is that we had a mining investment boom of $120 billion a year, which under their government was threatened. It was threatened by a mining tax and it was threatened by red tape at every level. As we got into government we saw mining investment on the verge of collapse. Fortunately, our Minister for Industry and our Minister for the Environment have been working hard to turn this around, and they have made billions and billions of dollars worth of approvals to get these jobs going in the 12 months we have been in government. Already we are starting to see the fruits of their very hard work.

But there is another side to investment, which is infrastructure investment. We are undertaking the biggest infrastructure investment program in this country's history—the Snowy Mountains scheme many, many times over. We are motivating the states to get on with the job of building roads and building railways, and that is exactly what they are doing. We understand the demand side of the economy does not need a jobs plan, it just needs good, hard-headed economics—something those on the other side of the House have no comprehension of. The textbooks then told me there was another side to this—the supply side. The supply side is all about getting potential employees into a position where they are seeking jobs, where they want jobs and where they are skilled for jobs. Part of that is about our industrial relations system, but that is not the focus of this legislation. The other part of it is the job search system. That is exactly what we are focused on here.

I thought I would research the job search system a little more and see what the experts—not the member for Shortland—had to say about job search systems. Specifically I want to talk about the work of British economist Stephen Nickell. Stephen Nickell has been researching in this area since the late 1970s and has co-authored a text and a number of papers on this issue of job search systems. The primary focus of that work is creating a framework for the purpose of understanding unemployment and how job search systems impact on unemployment. I was lucky enough to be taught by him in my time at Oxford as a graduate economics student. Nickell highlights four important features of an employment system that drive unemployment—benefit levels, the duration of the benefit, the extent of the benefit system's coverage and the strictness of enforcement. Specifically, Nickell points out that the strictness of the enforcement of an unemployment benefit system is of absolutely crucial importance to influencing unemployment. Stephen Nickell is from the left—he is not from my side of politics. But he understood, as a good, hard-headed economist, that the unemployment benefit system and job search are absolutely crucial in influencing unemployment. This is particularly so for countries with a relatively generous level of benefit, which includes Australia.

Nickell spent a lot of time looking at active labour market policies—measures which provide active assistance to the unemployed to improve their chances of obtaining work. Once again, he found that well-directed active labour market policies are effective tools in reducing unemployment and in particular well-directed job search assistance tends to have consistently positive outcomes. He points out that those policies are only needed in countries with high unemployment benefits because additional pressure on the unemployed is not required if benefits are very low relative to potential earnings in work. It is a good thing that we have a generous benefits system, but the quid pro quo of having a generous benefits system—and these are the words of Stephen Nickell, not Angus Taylor—is that you need additional pressure on the unemployed to ensure that they get into jobs. So we have here strong and rigorous research and support for the proposition that strictly enforced unemployment benefits and well-directed job search assistance improve employment outcomes and reduce unemployment. That is from one of the gurus of labour market economics and one of the most respected labour economists the world has ever seen.

The government are committed to building a strong and prosperous economy, promoting workforce participation and helping job seekers to find jobs. We are also focused on ensuring that job seekers remain in employment over the long term. We are investing $5.1 billion in employment services to better meet the needs of job seekers, employers and employment providers. Our objective is to promote strong workforce participation by people of working age and, importantly, to help more job seekers move from welfare to work, because there is no better welfare than a job. To do this we will be providing stronger incentives for employment providers to deliver high-quality services, we will be making the expectations we have of job seekers very clear in terms of active participation and we will be reducing the level of regulation, complexity and red tape for employment providers—and they have been wrapped in red tape in recent years by the former government.

This refocus of employment service arrangements will complement measures announced in the recent budget, including changes for job seekers aged 18 to 30 and the restart wage subsidy to support mature age employment. It will also build on other government programs, including the job commitment bonus for young Australians and relocation assistance to take up a job.

As has previously been the case, we expect that there will be a mix of employment providers. That will include for-profit and not-for-profit organisations involved in delivering these services across Australia. We are simply interested in organisations that are going to deliver outcomes and we are simply interested in making sure we pay them for delivering outcomes not optics.

There are a range of other changes that we are making in concert with this. The training will be more targeted. Job seekers will not undertake training for training's sake. We will be simplifying and extending the mutual obligation framework to ensure that job seekers remain actively engaged while looking for work. This is not a box-ticking exercise. It has to be far more fundamental than that.

We will also be placing job seekers into one of three service streams based on their risk of becoming long-term unemployed and any serious non-job related issues. This is incredibly important because it is going to ensure that funding and rewards are directed to the employment service providers who are able to find jobs for those in the most critical situations. We should not be paying employment service providers the full tote, the full amount, for someone who can find a job for themselves. We should be paying them to find a job for someone who is struggling to find a job.

These changes—and there are a range of them, as I have outlined—and investment in employment services are all about helping job seekers find a job and keep that job. Part of the payment we make to the employment service provider will not be for finding the job in the first place; it will be for making sure that that person stays in a job. That is not something that those opposite decided to do, but it is something we know really counts. They have to keep their job, not just get it in the first place.

If we are to maximise the value of this investment, it is vital that our job seeker compliance framework encourages people to take responsibility for their actions and encourages people to be active and engaged in the job search process. As I said earlier, Australia's welfare system is based on the principle of mutual obligation—that is, people in receipt of taxpayer funded income support, such as Newstart, are required to undertake certain activities in return for their income support. This includes attending appointments with their employment provider for help with job search and to monitor progress in finding and keeping a job.

Currently, if a job seeker fails to attend an appointment, their income support payment is suspended or put on hold and once the job seeker agrees to attend a rescheduled appointment the suspension is lifted and they receive full back-payment. It is not as though there is a lot of incentive there to turn up in the first place. Good people and motivated people will always turn up—we know that. We have to provide an incentive. As I said earlier, great research from people like Stephen Nickell tells us that that is the case.

The system as it currently stands does not provide sufficient incentive for people to do the right thing the first time. Of the 12 million compulsory appointments in 2013-14, almost 4.5 million were not attended by job seekers. This is an absolutely astounding non-attendance rate of 35 per cent. We have heard from previous speakers all the reasons given by some of those people for that. There are legitimate reasons in some cases but certainly in other cases there are not.

Under this bill from 1 January 2015 a job seeker's payment will be suspended following a failure to attend an appointment. If the job seeker does not give a reasonable excuse for missing their first appointment or does not give reasonable notice of the excuse when it was reasonable for them to do so, they will not receive back-payment once that appointment is rescheduled. It is important to recognise that this bill will not affect the majority of job seekers who do the right thing. If a job seeker has a reasonable excuse for their failure to attend an appointment then the suspension and the loss of income support does not apply. Existing safeguards and protections for vulnerable job seekers remain in place.

I am constantly focused on bringing new job opportunities into my electorate of Hume. We are lucky to have relatively low unemployment. I recognise that much employment comes from fast-growing small- to medium-sized businesses. The investments they make for the future are also the source of new jobs, whether it is new quarries, abattoirs, breweries, poultry businesses, aircraft manufacturers or education service providers. I spend time with these people to make sure they are creating jobs. The flip side is we need to have people who are actively searching for work with the appropriate level of support. That is exactly what this legislation is intended to achieve. I commend this bill to the House.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It may come as a shock to members of the government, but the current rate of Newstart, the unemployment benefit, is not exactly generous. I don't know if any of them know actually what it is or have spent any time on unemployment benefits while they look for a job, but it is hardly a king's ransom. At the moment, people who are looking for work who are on unemployment benefits are living below the poverty line. When you have $250 to $260 a week to live on and you have to make everything come out of that small amount of money, you have no choice but to give up on some essentials. I invite anyone from the government benches to try for a week to live on the equivalent of Newstart. What you will find is that the only way you can get to the end of that week is either by being further in debt or by skipping out on some of life's necessities.

That is something that the Greens have been saying for some time, but it is not just the Greens who have been saying that. Someone who sits very close to us on the ideological spectrum, the Business Council of Australia, has also said that the level of support given to people in this country who have the misfortune of being out of work is now so low that in fact it is becoming a poverty trap. What do they mean by that? They mean that when you have got $250 to $260 a week to live on, you do not have the money to buy yourself those new clothes to get ready for the job interview. You do not have the money to put yourself through a course to train up to increase the chances of getting a better job. You do not have the money to get that haircut to make yourself look nice, which might put you higher up the queue. You perhaps do not even have the money to get transport to get around to look for the number of jobs and apply for the number of job interviews that you might like, or to fund someone to go and look after the kids while you look for a job.

In fact, at the moment you spent almost all of your time just surviving and working out how you are going to eke out about $500 over a fortnight and to spread it so that you get to the end of it without you or someone close to you having to go hungry. Many of the people who are getting this kind of income at the moment find themselves in country towns where youth unemployment can have a two in front of it. It can be in the 20-something per cent. Or you could find yourself in city areas where youth unemployment can be in the order of 14 per cent, where you desperately want a job, but the jobs just are not there.

When you have people who are in that situation, who are being forced to live below the poverty line and who all the evidence says we are now treating in a way that is actually pushing them further away from jobs, what do you do? One option would be to do what the Greens, the Business Council of Australia and others are calling for which is to say, 'Let's lift the level of unemployment benefit so that it is no longer a barrier to people getting a job, so that they stop spending all their time just working out how to survive and how to meet the requirements that the system imposes on them'—which does not necessarily help them get a job, but is just about making them take time out of their day to do that. You could say, 'Let's change the system so we help people find a job.' Or you could do what this government is doing.

What this government is saying is, 'Instead of giving someone who is in trouble a hand up, we are going to push them down.' What it is saying is, 'If you find yourself in the unfortunate situation of being out of a job, you are going to find yourself below the poverty line'—something that can happen to anyone through no fault of their own if their employer goes under or they get made redundant. Not only is the government going to force you to live below the poverty line, it is saying, 'If you miss an appointment for certain reasons, we are going to take away even that small amount of money that you have got.'

Let us go through—because none of the other speakers from the government side have spoken about this because they would have no idea of the reality facing people who are struggling to find work or are struggling to engage with the system—some of the reasons that someone might miss an appointment in the brave new world under this Liberal government. One of the reasons might be that the Liberal government has taken away their dole for six months. What do you do if you are a young person who has no money, zero, because this government has said, 'We are going to take away your dole for six months'? How do you get to your appointments? How do you do it?

I welcome any interjections from anyone from the government bench and any advice that they might have for a young person who has got absolutely zero dollars, who is trying to pay the rent, who is looking for work and who now might miss their appointment because they do not have the money to pay for the bus ticket or the tram ticket or the train ticket to get there. What are they going to do? What do you do if the reason that you miss your appointment is that you are homeless? You are homeless and that might have been through no fault of your own, but you find yourself on the streets or living rough or couch-surfing, as many people in this situation do because they have not got the money for a stable house.

What do you do if the letter does not get to you or your mobile has been cut off and you do not get the text message and you miss your appointment? What do you do if you are in that situation? What happens is that you find out about it when you go to the bank to get out that last $20 and you find it is not there. Then what do you do? Then the problems compound. The problems compound because now you have got no money at all, assuming you were getting some in the first place. Now you have got no money at all and that might mean that you get kicked out of the place you were staying at. It might mean you do not have money for food that night. It might mean you do not have the extra money to pay to go and see the doctor, especially if you have to pay a GP co-payment as well. And that is how the problems compound. That is why, if you are this government and you take the approach to remove the carrot and beat them hard with a stick, this is an ill-thought-through measure that has the prospect of not encouraging people to look harder for work but actually has the prospect of just making them completely disengage with the system.

People who find themselves on the margins of society might not have the greatest literacy, might be struggling to find permanent accommodation and might have some mental health issues that have not even been diagnosed. All of a sudden they start getting their payments cut off and what they are actually quite possibly going to do is just disengage from the system completely. They are not going to look for work harder but they are at the risk of disengaging.

Every time the proposal of putting penalties on people comes up, whether under the previous Labor government or now under this government, when you drill down into the evidence, what you find is that punishing people in this way will not make them more likely to get into work. No-one apart from the most ideologically driven person would say that that is going to work. What you also find is the reasons that on the surface appear unreasonable for people not turning up often have complex explanations. It is the people who are falling through the cracks who will get hit the hardest, not the ones who are thumbing their nose at the system, not the ones who say, 'I do not want to look for work'. Not only that but this bill is going to hit older workers hard as well because it is going to change how their activity tests are defined and change what counts for them as being in work so they are going to bear the brunt of it as well.

It is a part of the government's war on the young, the old, the sick and the poor. It stems from a proposition that there are all these people out there who are somehow bludging off the system. I have not met that many people who are on the dole, struggling to get by on $260 a week, who would not love a job. Pretty much everyone I have met who is on unemployment benefits wants to find work. If they cannot, it is usually through no fault of their own.

When people get into work it not only helps with their dignity, it not only helps to control their lives but it has an added benefit for the government as well because the government does not have to pay welfare payments. Instead, it starts getting tax receipts. When you do that, you help people and you help the budget. But when you do what this government is going to do, you are just pushing more people further and further away.

It is notable that instead of talking about any real-world engagement with unemployed people or service providers, the previous speaker got up and read out an economics textbook and said, 'I read this in my year 12 textbook, and that is all I need to know how things work in the real world.' It does not work like that. If this government spent a little bit of time talking to the people who need help instead of taking an axe to them, we might have a more inclusive society and it might help with getting people into work. What is the answer? The answer is not this bill. This bill has to be stopped and we will be voting against it here and in the Senate.

The next step has to be to lift Newstart by $50 a week at a minimum. Let's start lifting people out of poverty—we can afford to do it if we want to—and help them find jobs. Everyone from us to the Business Council of Australia knows that if you stop making people just have to survive, if you stop making people live so far below the poverty line that it is a barrier to them finding work, it is going to help them into jobs.

Let's also have a realistic outlook about where jobs are going to come from in this country. We saw the previous speaker pillory having a jobs plan. I do not know if he talked to his industry minister about that before he gave that speech, but we saw the minister talking about the plan for the country that is going to grow the economy. It picks a good area like medical technology as a potential growth area but still this governments cannot tear its gaze away from its dig-it-up chop-it-down mentality.

Out of the five priority areas, we have got the forward-looking minister and government saying, 'I reckon fossil fuels are going to be very big in the 21st century; let's make those two out of our five priority areas. Let's ignore tourism, let's ignore all the jobs in Queensland that are dependent on the Great Barrier Reef, let's ignore the healthcare sector where we have had some of our strongest jobs growth and let's focus on the areas that did us sort of okay in the 20th century so perhaps they will do just as well in the 21st century.'

If we really want to create jobs for people including young people, first of all, you do not kick them off the dole and force them to do anything they have to just to make ends meet by taking away their income. Secondly, you ask, 'How are we going to stand Australia in good stead in the 21st century?' That means investing in education so that we as a country have something to sell the rest of the world in 15 years' time that is not just coal or uranium. We are never going to be able to compete with China or India on wages but will be able to compete with our brains. That means investing more in education instead of making people pay the equivalent of a second mortgage for their first degree. And it means having a forward-looking industry and jobs plan so that people have a job to go into as the rest of the world moves to a clean-energy future. That is not going to come from this government and, increasingly, all around the country people are realising that. And that is one of the reasons that we will be strongly opposing this bill.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to talk on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill 2014. The coalition of course believes that hardworking Australians who through no fault of their own fall on hard times are entitled to be supported through those hard times until they can get back on their feet. All fair-minded Australians will accept that if you are the recipient of such help then there is an obligation upon you—a mutual obligation, if you like—to do all you can to help get back on your feet as soon as possible. It is effectively a social compact.

This bill will ensure that more job seekers in receipt of income support meet their mutual obligation requirements to attend scheduled appointments with their employment provider. I acknowledge that many people who receive unemployment benefits receive them despite their best intentions, and their preference would be gainful employment where their talent, abilities and hard work are rewarded. Most people on government benefits do not want to be in the situation that necessitates them being on benefits. Sadly there is also a large number that do not respect this social compact and seek to take advantage of the social safety net.

And I also make the point that the sector most impacted by these actions is not the government, but the members of the public who pay their taxes and willingly accept their obligation to pay for that social safety net. The proportion who abuse their benefits cause a lack of confidence in the system and undermine the social compact between the community and the disadvantaged.

One of the activities that job seekers are asked to do is attend scheduled appointments with their employment provider to discuss job options and to review progress in finding work. These appointments could hardly be regarded as onerous and are designed to maximise the chances of a person moving from welfare to work. Most job seekers are required to attend an appointment with their employment provider only once a month.

Appointments are generally of short duration and take into account the job seeker's capacity to attend at certain times. This is done both formally—in person or in writing, including time, date and place—and informally via SMS, phone or email. Job seekers are also informed in advance that a failure to attend an appointment without giving sufficient prior notice may result in suspension of their payment or the imposition of a penalty. If a job seeker contacts their provider ahead of the scheduled appointment to let them know they are unable to attend due to a good reason, then no suspension of payment or penalty is applied. And if it is subsequently found that a job seeker has a reasonable excuse for the failure to attend and the failure to notify ahead of time, then no suspension of payment or penalty is applied either.

I was appalled to learn that in the 2013-14 financial year 12,750,000 compulsory appointments with employment providers were scheduled; and, of these, 4.47 million were not attended by job seekers. That is a non-attendance rate of 35 per cent. So, instead of helping people with their job search, front-line staff are forced to spend their limited time chasing job seekers, rescheduling appointments and submitting reports to the Department of Human Services. This is clearly a waste of their time and the nation's resources. All of this extra effort on the part of employment providers could be avoided if more job seekers did the right thing in the first place—by either attending the scheduled appointment or picking up the phone to reschedule ahead of time. Neither of which, as I have said, are overly onerous obligations.

In 2012-13, over 238,000 job seekers had at least one participation failure applied by the Department of Human Services for missing a regular appointment or a reconnection appointment with their employment provider. In 2013-14, this figure—staggering as it was—had grown to almost 280,000 job seekers. That is more than one in five of all job seekers who received an activity tested payment at some time during the year.

The Department of Human Services only applies these participation failures after a series of checks and balances—such as whether the person should have been required to attend the appointment, whether they had a reasonable excuse or if the notification of the appointment had been sent to the wrong address. So it is clear that there are 280,000 cases each year where both the person's employment provider and the Department of Human Services agree that there were no extenuating circumstances that explain the job seeker's failure to attend. Keeping the current rules in place which allow this number of people to fail to attend is simply unfair on those taxpayers who get up every day to go to work and pay their taxes—taxes which help to fund income support payments and our employment services system. It is also particularly unfair to those on income support who meet their mutual obligations, who attend the appointments and comply with their other reporting obligations. Workers are expected to keep commitments—like appointments—in return for their wages, and the same sort of standards should be expected of job seekers in receipt of taxpayer funded income support.

It is time to make further changes to drive improved attendance rates and reduce the red-tape burden and financial strain on employment providers and our social security system. This bill will achieve this by introducing stronger incentives so that more job seekers do the right thing first time around. Currently, a job seeker who has their income support payment suspended because they failed to attend an appointment can get that suspension lifted simply by indicating that they will attend another appointment. Given the sheer number of regular and reconnection appointments that are missed each year, it is clear that the current arrangements are not providing a sufficient incentive for job seekers to do the right thing. Under this bill, from 1 January 2015 job seekers who have had their payment suspended for missing an appointment with their provider without giving the requisite prior notice of a valid reason will typically only have their suspension lifted when they actually attend another appointment.—an eminently sensible position. This will provide a stronger incentive for job seekers to attend their appointments and remain engaged with their employment provider.

From 1 July 2015 the bill will further strengthen compliance arrangements by providing that if a job seeker has had their income support payment suspended for failing to attend a regular appointment with their in employment provider and it is subsequently determined that they did not have a reasonable excuse for that failure to attend then they will not be back paid for the period of noncompliance. That is what is suspected of people in the workplace if they cannot make it to work; so it is only fair and reasonable that a similar standard is applied to those people in receipt of taxpayer funded benefits.

Of course, this bill will not change the rules with regard to reasonable excuses. The bill will not impact on those whose failure to attend is beyond their control, for instance: where they were taken ill or had an unexpected caring commitment and gave prior notice. And it will not impact on the majority of job seekers, who attend their appointments, or those who let their provider know in advance that they genuinely cannot attend.

As is the case now, job seekers with a reasonable excuse will not have the suspension or penalty applied if they have given the requisite prior notice. In addition, employment providers will remain able to exercise discretion as to when they report a failure to the Department of Human Services. The bill will not remove any of the current safeguards in the system that are designed to ensure that the vulnerable job seekers do not incur penalties inappropriately. The bill will also make changes to the provisions that allow job seekers who are 55 years or older and who have full-time mutual obligation requirements to meet that requirement by undertaking part-time, voluntary or paid work.

The bill builds on the changes made in 2011 by introducing new incentives to drive more widespread changes in job seeker behaviour. The government is determined to reduce the number of missed appointments each year so as to reduce the red-tape burden and costs on employment providers. The coalition does not consider it acceptable that job seekers miss so many appointments every year, and I welcome these changes. They are ultimately part of a suite of changes which will see more and more Australians enjoying the dignity that comes with transitioning from welfare to work. I commend the bill to the House.

Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me pleasure to rise this evening to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill 2014.

In essence, this bill makes amendments that will provide stronger incentives for job seekers to attend scheduled appointments with their employment service providers and ensure that penalties are applied when a job seeker does not attend their appointment and does not have a reasonable excuse. It is pretty simple stuff and I think what most reasonable Australians would understand to be what comes with the mutual obligation that is around those people actively engaged in seeking paid employment and the contract that they have with the taxpayers of Australia, who fund them whilst they are doing so.

These changes aim to significantly reduce the number of appointments that are currently being missed. These measures fit with the government's commitment to reinvigorate mutual obligation for job seekers who get income support while reducing red tape for employment service providers, who do a wonderful job.

The amendments will be introduced in two stages. From 1 January 2015 if a job seeker misses a scheduled appointment with their employment service provider without a reasonable excuse—and we will hear about some of those excuses in a minute—their income support payment will be suspended until they actually attend a rescheduled appointment. It is different to what the situation is at the moment. Once they attend that appointment the suspension will be lifted and the person will receive their income support, with back pay, for the period of noncompliance. The difference is that at the moment the suspension is lifted when the person only indicates an intention to attend a rescheduled appointment. And when you look at the noncompliance rate, the changes we are proposing here are reasonable—that somebody actually turns up and attends the appointment that was scheduled. It is a very reasonable position that we are advocating here.

That is not to say that the previous government did not make some changes in this area. I fully expect that the Labor Party will indeed support the amendments we are making to this bill because they did, when in government, make efforts towards improving the compliance rate. That is acknowledged; the minister at the time, the member for Adelaide, made a number of comments in this area and acknowledged that she believed attendance at appointments can and must improve. This is why we made an election commitment to strengthen the compliance system. Indeed, she went on to say that all Australians on income support should have the opportunity to work, but with the opportunity comes responsibility. With this bill we are finally going to expect that people meet those responsibilities. So the changes we are proposing here in this debate are about strengthening and enhancing the initiatives that were put forward by the previous government.

The second stage will be from July next year—1 July 2015. The bill will further strengthen compliance arrangements by providing that if a job seeker has had their payment suspended in the circumstances that I have described above then they will not be back paid for the period that the payment is suspended due to noncompliance. In the initial stage, from January next year, if an appointment is missed, reschedule the appointment and actually turn up and the back pay will be paid. However, from July next year, if an appointment is missed without a reasonable excuse, the back pay that would have been due—and will be paid from 1 January—will not be paid. It is not so unreasonable. I relate the circumstances to myself being an employee with a boss in place, what would be the situation? If I did not turn up to work and I had not communicated with my boss, would it be reasonable for me to still ask him to pay me? I do not think so. I think most reasonable Australians would acknowledge that that is not the case. There does not seem to be any reason why somebody who is in paid employment and effectively has a contract and an understanding in place, be it written or otherwise, with their employer does not have reasonable obligation, in the same way that job seekers who are being paid benefits similarly have a contract in place—a mutual obligation, with the taxpayers of Australia.

The bill will also make changes to the existing provisions that allow job seekers who are 55 years old or older to meet their mutual obligation requirements just by undertaking part-time voluntary work or paid work. The bill will introduce a provision that will allow groups of job seekers, for example, 55- to 59-year-olds who would currently be in Job Services Australia, to be precluded from these provisions.

This is about changing behaviour. This is about the notion that benefits come with a mutual obligation to the taxpayers of Australia. In terms of those people who really do desire to have a job, and there are plenty out there, the majority of people who are seeking employment do the right thing. They do the right thing because they turn up to their interviews with their job service providers. They do the right thing because they want to get a job. As the member for Barker quite rightly said, the dignity that comes with having paid employment and being able to stand on your own two feet is something that we should all aspire to.

I was thinking of a story that I was told by Rod Hill from Hill Sheet Metal recently in Brighton, in the southern part of my electorate. He employs about nine or 10 people and has a number of apprentices within the business, some do not have the same qualifications. He was telling me the other day that he put on a young fellow who walked in the door. He had just left school, he had no particular qualifications and he took it upon himself to knock on the door and ask whether or not there was any work. To Rod's absolute credit, he has given him three days a week and essentially he is on a trial. I just know that if this young fellow does the right thing, he will have a really good job for as long as he wants it. Most likely, he will be offered an apprenticeship if he shows a little initiative. That is the sort of attitude we want to see with all our job seekers, be they young, middle age or older. We want to see that enthusiasm and that commitment to getting into the workforce.

The bill addresses a number of weaknesses in the current compliance arrangements not previously addressed relating to job seeker non-attendance at provider appointments. The numbers around compliance are quite stark—and I know a lot of Australians would be staggered to see the numbers and understand them. The current attendance rates by job seekers at compulsory appointments with their employment service providers are unacceptably low. In the past financial year, in fact only 65 per cent, albeit the majority, of appointments booked were actually attended by job seekers. Four and a half million appointments with job service providers were missed. Most Australians would be staggered to learn this. These figures are completely unacceptable. The amendments that we are making within this bill are designed to improve that rate of compliance.

These changes will allow immediate application of penalties and will remove loopholes by which job seekers can fail to attend appointments with their employment service providers without immediate penalty. It is quite interesting to read some of the excuses—and they are published for public consumption and information each year. We have probably heard them all before. Some of us might not have done our homework at school and used some of them. 'I forgot.' 'I slept in.' 'I just could not be bothered.' Frankly, the excuses are unacceptable and were rightly rejected by job service providers and rightly rejected by Centrelink. They are not excuses that would be reasonable and accepted by a boss with somebody in paid employment—they would not get paid and neither should job seekers who are getting paid by the taxpayers of Australia in this situation.

The bill will not remove any of the current safeguards in the system that are designed to ensure that vulnerable job seekers do not incur penalties inappropriately. The bill will not impact on those job seekers whose failure to attend required appointments is beyond their control or those who attend their appointments, or let their provider know in advance if they genuinely cannot do so. Pick up a telephone and ring your job service provider if you are unable to meet a scheduled appointment. That is quite reasonable in anybody's language. Indeed, most do the right thing. The changes that are being proposed will not impact on those people or vulnerable job seekers.

This is part of a range of packages that the government has put in place in respect of encouraging young people to get on with their lives. Most young people do find a job, but this government is absolutely committed to encouraging those who are unable or choose not to get into immediate employment and is committed to supporting them to do further tertiary study, whether it be through the Trade Support Loans with a loan of up to $20,000. If you complete an apprenticeship, 20 per cent of that loan will be written off. Once you are earning over $50,000, only then will you have to start repaying that. Or it might be through higher education, the topic of the day—higher education reforms. These truly are reforms. The expansion of the reforms to sub-bachelor and diploma and the non-university sector will be a boom for young people to go onto further study that will support them in their efforts to find employment.

Debate interrupted.