Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

The Senate is considering the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2011. I will give some quick facts to contextualise that with which we are dealing. Job seeker income support for 2011-12 is estimated to cost taxpayers $7.2 billion, whilst the disability support pension is expected to cost a further $13.4 billion. Unemployment in Australia is currently at the seasonally adjusted rate of 4.9 per cent—that was as at March 2011, and I do not think the figure has changed. In the last 12 months, approximately two million job interviews, activities or provider appointments were missed by job seekers with no valid excuse given. They are the facts with which I seek to contextualise the debate we are having in relation to this job seeker compliance amendment bill. The Rudd government, reminiscent of its border protection policy, sought to water down the mutual obligation scheme that the Howard government had set in place. They did so in 2008. Labor at that time introduced their so-called 'no show no pay' compliance model. However, the high rate of missed appoint­ments is a clear indication of the failure of Labor's compliance regime, which did not provide sufficient disincentive for many. This bill seeks to redress Labor's own amendments and introduces a tougher compliance regime for job seekers who have activity test requirements.

The bill proposes to suspend income support payments for job seekers who fail to attend an appointment or an activity like Work for the Dole without a reasonable excuse given in advance. When a job seeker does attend a rescheduled appointment that payment will be reinstated with back pay. If a job seeker fails to attend the rescheduled meeting and fails to provide an adequate excuse then payment will be suspended until they do attend an appointment and no back pay will be payable for this period. Reasonable excuse provisions will also be tightened so that, even if a job seeker has a reasonable excuse on the day for not attending an appointment or activity, it will not be accepted if they could have given advance notice that they could not attend but did not do so.

It is critical that job seekers are encouraged to actively seek employment in order to break the cycle of welfare dependency. The coalition maintains that those in receipt of unemployment benefits must recognise that they have a subsequent responsibility to look for work and contribute back to the society that supports them. The coalition requires a firm but fair system to ensure that those in receipt of income support who can work recognise that welfare is a temporary safety net and not a hammock or a lifestyle choice.

I simply make this observation in concluding that this is very reminiscent of Labor's border protection policies. The Howard government had a good regime in place; Labor could not recognise how good it was, so they busily set about dismantling it. Then they were confronted with the consequences of that and as a result they are now seeking to rush through changes to tighten up the scheme. The coalition welcomes the bill and acknowledges that the bill is needed but we do say the chances are that, if Labor had not meddled in the first place in 2008, we would not be here with these further amendments. The coalition will be supporting the bill.