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

I am continuing my contribution by expressing the Greens' opposition to this bill. We consider that it will have adverse outcomes for job seekers and we do not believe this is the appropriate approach. In fact, we believe the evidence to the committee showed that this bill would discourage people from re-entering the workforce quickly, and we know that is vital for positive outcomes. We believe this bill is overly punitive and there is no need for this type of change.

I left off by saying that we are concerned about some of the adverse human rights impacts of this legislation; I was also talking about some of the issues raised by the parliamentary joint committee on human rights. We also need to be considering this particular piece of legislation in light of other changes the government is proposing to make and in light of the circumstances that people are currently facing. We are concerned about the community impacts of a number of pieces of legislation on job seekers and that the government is, once again, relying on charities to respond to and solve the crises that people will face.

While the government perpetrates the myth that people have to be forced into work, witnesses to the inquiry clearly said that people actually want to work. Dr Falzon articulated his concerns about the bills, but also said:

As opposed to the set of assumptions that this legislation is predicated on, people do want to work and they love the opportunity to meaningfully participate economically and socially

The truth of the matter is that job seekers far outnumber the available jobs. We received evidence that there are ten times as many job seekers as people on Newstart, Youth Allowance and the Disability Support Pension who have the capacity to work and whom the government is encouraging into work. We also have to look at the number of people who are in the labour market but under-employed at the moment. I found one of Senator Abetz's answers in question time today incredible. I partly understand where he is coming from, but he implied that many of the jobs that people get are not advertised. A lot of the information we received in the inquiry was about advertised jobs. However, to suggest that there are nearly enough jobs out for the people who cannot find work is just ludicrous and lends no credibility to the government's argument of encouraging people in employment. The simple fact is that there are no enough jobs out there for the people who are currently unemployed.

In his evidence to the committee, Professor Mallett said:

My experience, as well as in the research evidence, suggests that people are highly motivated to build independent lives. They actually do not, for the most part, want to be reliant on income support; they want to build independent, sustainable lives.

This issue is not a behavioural issue; it is a structural issue. Those jobs are not there, and it is ludicrous to try to suggest that simply looking hard enough will find you a job. We know that there are a high number of people who are currently unemployed, particularly young people. We know that youth unemployment is growing; it is not that young people do not want to work. They do want to work and, as evidence to the inquiry pointed out, they want to build independent lives. They do not actually want to live in poverty and they do not want to be stuck on the $36 a day from Newstart. People do not actively choose that lifestyle; they want to find work and they need some support to overcome barriers they have to employment. One of the issues that arose in the speech pathology inquiry was that having information and communication disorders impacts on people's ability to engage with the workforce or learning to engage with the workforce. These are the sorts of things that we need to be looking at. The prevalence data indicates that this is a significant issue. My point there is that there are many things that are barriers to people's employment.

This kind of tough approach is not an incentive, but punitive and acts as a disincentive. They have perverse outcomes. I have had constituents calling my office with concerns about these and other changes that the government is bringing in. These reforms we are deeply concerned will have negative impacts that are counterproductive to supporting job seekers into work. People who have worked in this area for a long time have had experience and evidence that shows that this approach does not work and will not work. As the president of National Welfare Rights Network, Ms O’Halloran told the inquiry:

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 should 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 with the heavy penalty system introduced in 2006 and the many changes to that system since that time.

If the aim is to get job seekers to comply with requirements and move into employment, it seems unwarranted to punish people once they have complied or intend to comply. Dr Mestan told the 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.

We know from the evidence that punitive approaches do not work. We need to be looking at how we support people entering employment while recognising the structural barriers in terms of the labour market and also the other barriers to employment that people face. The government should be looking at those, rather than continuing down this ideological route that demonises people, takes a punitive approach and does not recognise the value that people place on finding work. The government should recognise that people do engage with work when they are given support to overcome the barriers to employment and when they are provided with a case management and individualised approach that does not treat people as simply a number on a piece of paper. Such an approach treats them as individuals and recognises that they each have their own concerns, needs, barriers to employment and need for particular areas of support. Ms O'Halloran also said:

If you look at the number of appeals, the appeals also dropped. Our casework experience was that people were getting penalties but they stopped appealing because it was a much faster, better route for them to just re-engage and do a compliance activity.

The point being made to the inquiry was that people do engage with the current regime. You are better off taking that approach than taking a punitive approach like the one that is outlined in this bill. We will not be supporting this bill. We will continue to oppose a punitive approach, because we do not believe that it produces the best outcomes.