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

The Greens wall be opposing the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill. We believe this is yet another of the government's ideological attacks on those seeking to find work. Of course, the regulation that we have just disallowed—we had the discussion on it earlier today and last night—was part of that attack on job seekers. As St Vincent de Paul Society Chief Executive Officer John Falzon said to the inquiry, there are so many reasons why people find themselves on the pathway to despair instead of the pathway to employment. This is clearly what the government does not understand. They think people do not find a job because they do not want to find a job. They do not understand that it is not because they cannot find work. They think it is because they make that choice. They think people make a lifestyle choice. Well, they don't.

This government is not interested in addressing the many barriers that people who rely on income support experience when trying to find work. Instead, the government chooses to punish and humiliate these people, seemingly at every turn in their lives. This unrelenting punishment and demonisation of people trying to find work, in itself, provides another barrier for people who are trying to find work, another disincentive to work. Virtually everybody, except the department, who made a submission to the inquiry into this bill did not support it. Ms O'Halloran, who is the President of the National Welfare Rights Network, said:

Our network opposes the introduction of the bill before you, fundamentally on the ground that we question the purpose of the bill—whether it is actually to punish people or to help people into paid work. We would think that we would all be united in the view that helping a person who is unemployed into paid work would be the goal and we do not believe that this bill will achieve that goal. In fact, we think it will be counterproductive. That is based on our casework experience, real life lived caseload experience, with the heavy penalty system introduced in 2006 and the many changes to that system since that time.

Of course, this is winding back the promises that the Rudd government made to the absolutely horrendous Welfare to Work regime that the Howard government brought in.

Last night Senator Abetz tried to conflate the two discussions about the regulation we disallowed today and this particular bill. He accused me of referring to this bill rather than the regulation. He obviously had not read his own government's explanatory memorandum on the regulation as opposed to this particular bill. Although, I will say that the explanation of the regulation had a very similar statement of compatibility with human rights. The one that I am addressing is, of course, about this particular bill and, coincidently, it uses the same flawed argument about compatibility with human rights. It notes:

The Bill engages the right to work, the right to social security, and the right to an adequate standard of living.

It uses the same sort of ridiculous excuse for demonising and punishing people because they had a right to work. The Human Rights Committee noted the measures of the bill that remove and limit the ability to waive the non-payment period for refusal of suitable work or persistent noncompliance, and it does say, 'may limit' the right to social security, the right to an adequate standard of living and the right to equality and non-discrimination'. The Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that, notwithstanding the assurances in the explanatory memorandum, it remains:

… unclear how limiting the availability of a waiver on the ground of a jobseeker’s severe financial hardship, or because a jobseeker agrees to undertake more intensive activities, such as Work for the Dole, would achieve the stated objective of the measures.

The Human Rights Committee considered that:

… the characterisation of the bill—

in the explanatory memorandum—

as promoting the right to work by providing 'a stronger incentive to accept an offer of suitable work', is not an accurate assessment of the limitation on human rights …

The committee suggested that the bill also has the potential, disproportionately or unintentionally, to impact negatively upon particular groups resulting in the engagement or limitation of the rights to equality and non-discrimination. This is from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, and they have found that there are significant issues. I also note that the Community Affairs Committee reported on this legislation just this week, but the minister had not responded to that particular point.

This bill does have an impact on job seekers. It has a negative impact on job seekers. A decision to take away all of someone's income support is very serious and can have catastrophic impacts on people's lives. This is another part of a calculated, cruel attack on job seekers and those on income support. It is harsh and, of course, as many of the government's other measures will do, it impacts disproportionately and heavily on the most vulnerable people in our community. But, of course, the government know that because this is part of the approach they are taking through the budget. It is quite obvious that their approach is to demonise, to punish and to be harsh on the most vulnerable in our community.

The government have this flawed thinking that, if you take harsh approach and push and push the most vulnerable, those that are trying to find work, they will suddenly see the light and think that a job is a good idea. There are hundreds and thousands of people anxiously looking for work. There are only just under 150,000 available jobs currently. So, no matter how much you push and punish people, take away their rights and seek to have stronger penalties, you will not be able to encourage people into jobs that just are not there. This will simply make life harder.

As the people who are at the coalface of working with the most disadvantaged and pick up the pieces as a result of the government's flawed policy approach say, as Ms O'Halloran said: 'It is counterproductive.' As Dr Mestan said as part of the Community Affairs Committee inquiry:

Worse than ineffectual, the policy is likely to be counterproductive because, once a person is sanctioned, they have no incentive to meet requirements, whereas in the current regime, where payments are recommenced upon compliance, there is a strong incentive for a sanctioned person to quickly meet requirements.

Part of the concern that the Greens have is that the longer people are disconnected with the system the harder it is for them to re-engage. Surely that is what we want. We actually want people who make a mistake to be able to re-engage with the system and to be able to then continue with their participation plans, which they will have worked out. Dr Mestan said:

… the main aim does not seem to be to get people into employment. I feel it can be counterproductive. It could prevent people from getting employment, because they will be sanctioned even if they try to re-engage in intensive activities.

This bill discourages people from re-entering the system quickly, which we know is much better and will lead to much more positive outcomes. This bill is unnecessary, particularly if the government were looking at a more incentives based approach and if it were genuinely addressing the barriers that people are facing to employment. They just are not. This bill assumes that everybody can get a job if they just look hard enough, if they just try that little bit harder. People are trying to find work, but, as I said, the jobs are not available for those people. So, the government are punishing people simply for not being able to find a job. Stronger penalties for people that cannot find work will not help people engage with the system if there are no jobs to be found.

Part of the problem that we have with this bill is the cumulative effects of all the changes that are coming under both the budget and other measures that the government are bringing in. We are desperately concerned that the most vulnerable Australians already face many barriers to employment, and remember that they are living in poverty. They are living on Newstart. If you are under 25 you are living on Youth Allowance. You live on less than $36 a day on Newstart. If you are living on Youth Allowance you are living on less than that. Here you have a group of extremely vulnerable Australians who are living on less than $36 a day. They are trying to meet all their requirements and they are trying to exist in poverty. Poverty itself is a barrier to employment. These people are the ones that we are talking about who will be subject to these stronger penalties because they potentially may make a misstep. This bill takes away the ability for the penalties to be waived. We do not think that is good policy.