Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (3):

(3)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (lines 28 to 31), omit paragraph 42C(4)(a), substitute:

             (a)    the person satisfies the Secretary that the person has a reasonable excuse for the failure; or

This amendment deals with ‘reasonable excuse’. We did touch on this issue in the second reading debate, but I have some specific issues about reasonable excuse that I would like to raise here. This amendment allows the secretary to consider whether a person has a reasonable excuse for all elements of a no show, no pay failure. The bill, as written, excludes the secretary from considering a reasonable excuse where a person has committed misconduct. There is a concern that actions that are construed as misconduct may indeed be because, for example, a person is suffering from a mental illness—and I will go into that in a little more detail in a minute. Also, a person is possibly not acknowledging their illness or there are other reasons that would otherwise be considered a reasonable excuse. We see no reason why misconduct should be excluded in this way.

We believe that this amendment is also addressing the issue of consistency. We need a much more consistent approach across the different penalty provisions. We explained earlier that there are a variety of provisions and that they are complex. We believe that it will make it easier for job seekers, employment service providers and Centrelink if reasonableness applies to other judgments as well.

This was raised on a number of occasions in the submissions to the Senate inquiry. It was also raised by Ms Gill, who appeared before the inquiry. She very clearly highlighted the issues and expressed concern particularly around what is considered misconduct for people who are suffering from mental illness. She used the example of a person actually forgetting that they have a commitment or an appointment. She pointed out that the person may in fact not acknowledge that they have a mental illness. They may think they have forgotten the commitment but in fact they never took on board the fact that they had a commitment in the first place. That could be construed as misconduct rather than a reasonable excuse.

We are seeking to expand the definition. Obviously, there will be times where there is quite clearly misconduct, but there is always grey in these issues. Sometimes what may appear to be blatant misconduct may in fact not be. When you look into it, there may be a quite reasonable explanation for what would otherwise seem to be misconduct. We believe that that approach would put another element of fairness into what has turned into a very punitive and harsh regime. This just puts a little bit more fairness into this legislation. It will ensure that in circumstances where somebody is suffering from mental illness—and I am only using that as an example; there could be other examples—that will be considered. The point is that we do not necessarily know and we do not necessarily have all the bases covered. This provides, in a case where what could be considered misconduct occurs, an ability to look a little bit below that and to see that in the circumstances what happened was in fact reasonable.