Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Social Security (Reasonable Excuse - Participation Payment Obligations) (Employment) Determination 2014 (No. 1), made under subsection 42U(1) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, be disallowed.

This is a disallowance of the Social Security (Reasonable Excuse—Participation Payment Obligations) (Employment) Determination 2014 (No. 1). The opposition is opposed to the social security reasonable excuse legislation that was tabled in the Senate. We have a number of concerns with this issue relating to the discretion acknowledged to exist in determining whether circumstances directly prevent a job seeker from complying with requirements. This concept of 'directly prevent' is a new concept by the government. It is a concept that is really about trying to ensure that an ordinary recipient of Newstart, an ordinary recipient of a payment, is not entitled to have a decent excuse; they are not entitled to actually argue the position before a set of penal provisions are implemented against them.

A number of factors that the secretary of the department was required to take into account have been removed. Previously, the secretary of the department had to take into account a whole range of issues when a person had a reasonable excuse. When the secretary had to deal with this issue, they had to deal with whether the person had access to safe, secure and adequate housing or was using emergency accommodation or a refuge. I would have thought that would have been a reasonable excuse in terms of a person coming into DHS and arguing their position as to why they could not comply with the legislated obligation.

The next one was the literacy and language skills of the person. I know that Senator Edwards made a pretty botched-up attempt to copy a Scottish accent, but there are many, many Australians out there who do have literacy and language skills that are not sufficient for them to put their arguments on their own, and from time to time they do need support and help when in that position.

Also, the secretary was required to take into account any illness, impairment or condition of the person that requires treatment, including an illness that is episodic or unpredictable in nature. How many of our poorest Australians or how many of our fellow Australians who are unemployed who are amongst the lowest socioeconomic group in society have illnesses that is a result of their poor economic circumstances or an impairment or condition that requires treatment? Some of them may have been living on the street. Some of them may have addictions. Some of them may have problems that I do not think the coalition could even contemplate some of our fellow Australians having to deal with in their struggle and battle with daily life.

The secretary was also required to take into account any cognitive or neurological impairment of that person, or any psychiatric or psychological impairment or mental illness of the person. I know from talking to DHS workers that one of the key issues facing many Australians who are on Newstart or who are receiving some payment from government is that they have a psychiatric problem, a psychological impairment or a mental illness. Getting that individual to be able to turn up and actually comply with the obligations on a black and white basis of 'If you don't turn up and you don't comply then you are under a penal provision that means you get absolutely no income' is an attack on people who may have a psychological impairment or a mental illness. Similarly, many Australians unfortunately, have a drug or alcohol dependency.

No-one is saying that these are excuses that can go on forever or that you should not take steps to try and ensure that you comply with your obligations. There has been a flexible position in the past, where DHS personnel look at the specific circumstances of an individual and apply some compassion, some common sense and some reason to the failure of that individual to comply. But what this tabled Social Security determination means is that you cannot run these arguments and, even if you could, then there has to be this higher test of 'directly prevent'—a new concept that is designed to mitigate against some of the poorest people in this country getting access to government payments.

Another area when deciding whether a person had a reasonable excuse was unforeseen family or caring responsibilities of the person. Many of the people who receive government support are young women with family responsibilities who may have been victims of a violent relationship, and they cannot comply because their kid might be sick—they have no other support around and they need to deal with that issue. Yet, the black-and-white approach that the government is seeking to put in place would mean that person would end up with no payments for eight weeks. A related issue was that the person was subjected to criminal violence, including domestic violence and sexual assault. I would have thought that, if you were a victim of violence or a victim of sexual assault and you could nominate that as the reason you could not comply, then you would have been dealt with in a compassionate, sensible manner.

But for the coalition you have to have this black-and-white approach—an approach that is simply about victimising some of the poorest people in this country and people who need support. Another factor that would have been taken into account in the past was that the person had been adversely affected by the death of an immediate family member or close relative; and another reason was a person's recent imprisonment or release from imprisonment. There was a range of arguments, but what was accepted in the past was not a black-and-white position and not a position based on an ideological attack on the individual—it was a position that needed some sensitivity. It is a complex position ands a position that means you have to look at the individual circumstances that people find themselves in. Unfortunately, we have a government who do not seem to care about those issues. We have a government who, through their recent budget, attack the lowest-paid and poorest people in this community. We have a government which shows no compassion and no understanding of the real struggles that many Australians face.

The government argues that some of the factors, which I have outlined, could still be considered in determining what constitutes a reasonable excuse. However, job seekers would have to prove that the circumstances directly prevent them from meeting the requirement and they would have to give prior notice where required by the act under section 42U. The secretary will no longer be required to take the above factors into consideration when deciding whether a job seeker has a reasonable excuse. There are many organisations who deal with some of the most unfortunate Australians in this country on a day-to-day basis—non-government organisations and charities. They end up having to deal with many of these unfortunate Australians as a last resort. They take the view that this determination is unfair and should not be implemented. The National Welfare Rights Network said that, if the changes went ahead, they would mean increased financial hardship for people living on $36 a day and more red tape for thousands of employment service providers. Remember that we are talking about people on $36 a day. For most of us, if we were told we had to survive on $36 a day, we would think that $36 a day would be a sufficient penalty anyway. We are talking about penalising people who are living below the poverty line—people who are battling to put clothes on their back.

Under this coalition government, people on $36 a day will now be expected to make 40 job applications a week, go out and get transport to and from jobs and present themselves effectively for jobs. Unfortunately, this government does not have a clue what it is like for some of the poorest people in this country and I suppose their budget is exactly the reasoning that they have on how you deal with people who are poor and unemployed. It really does say that this government has got no concern and no passion.

The National Welfare Rights Network, who deal with these people, say that this determination should not be made. They say that, if employment providers assume responsibility for decisions to deny income support payments for people missing regular appointments, they fear it will fundamentally alter the nature of the relationship with the job seekers. The National Welfare Rights Network and other organisations have to build some compatibility with the individual person; they have to try and counsel the individual person; they have to try to get them ahead in what is a pretty tough situation on $36 a day. They do not want to determine whether someone is given a payment or not, because they have to build up some credibility and some empathy with the individuals. The National Welfare Rights Network has said:

Under these reforms, employment providers will be required to become instant experts on complex social security rules.

That is why you need experts in the Department of Human Services—professionals, face-to-face providers of expertise and advice. The Department of Human Services are under a massive industrial attack by this government, and the workers in DHS are being used as the test bed for Work Choices mark 2. These are the people who are face-to-face with some of the poorest and most underprivileged people in our community. The National Welfare Rights Network says that it is highly unlikely that the charities will become experts on these complex rules, and it is unrealistic to expect them to do so. What the coalition are putting forward, according to the providers that are being asked to deal with some of this, is unlikely and unrealistic. Jobs Australia Chief Executive David Thompson said:

It represents a significant shift of responsibility from government to contracted providers and is a matter of very grave concern to mission and values centred non-profit services from a moral point of view.

He went on to say:

On a practical level it will make it hard to establish effective helping relationships with the unemployed because job agencies will become the enforcer. This is quite unprecedented.

Jobs Australia are saying this is a moral issue. It is an issue of morality. Why would they be surprised about this coalition government having no morals when it comes to the poor and the most challenged people in our community?

Under the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, every piece of legislation is scrutinised to ensure compatibility with Australians' human rights. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has taken issue with the government's assessment that the bill is compatible with human rights. This is a real problem for the government, because the cross-party human rights committee says that, based on the information and analysis provided to the committee, it does not consider that the statement of compatibility adequately demonstrates that the proposed amendments are needed for the purpose of meeting a pressing and substantial concern, that there is a rational connection between the measure and the identified objective, and that the measure is reasonable and proportionate for the achievement of that objective. They are basically saying, 'This is not good.' This is not the first time that we have had the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights—where the Liberals, Nationals, Greens and Independents sit down and analyse these bills for human rights—say there is a problem. That is a problem that should be addressed. You can only address that by getting rid of a bill that tramples over the human rights of ordinary and the most vulnerable Australians.

But what do you expect from the coalition government? There are not too many over the other side who would ever have experienced poverty. They would never understand what it is like not to be able to pay the bills. They would never understand what it is like to be out on the street. They would never understand what it is like for some of the poorest and most vulnerable in this country. The previous legislation that the coalition wanted to trample over was reviewed independently under the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Employment Services Reform) Act, and this is what the review said:

The combination of greater flexibility for providers and a more modulated range of sanctions appears to have led to modest improvements in job seekers’ engagement with providers and to a major reduction in concerns about unduly harsh treatment of vulnerable job seekers. As intended, the system has led to a substantial increase in the number of early, lower-level sanctions and a substantial decrease in the number of higher-level sanctions.

This was the independent review of the Labor legislation. It said, 'Look, it is early, but these are the things that are happening.' It was clear that you cannot have a black and white position on dealing with vulnerable Australians. There must be some flexibility. There must be some capacity to look at the circumstances for individuals. This is another set of penal provisions against some of the weakest and most vulnerable Australians, and we are opposing this because we need to stand up for vulnerable Australians. We need to stand up for the weak. It should not be some ideological obsession about dole bludgers that drives legislation, which seems to be the position here. Vulnerable Australians deserve a fair go in this country. (Time expired)