Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Mental Health) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to make a contribution on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill 2014. At the outset, I want to make it very clear that Labor supports measures that are designed to assist people into work. Any commentary to the contrary is simply not true. In government we introduced policies and reforms which were very effective at doing just that. We recognised that there is a need for government policy that assists people to find work—that there is a need to assist job seekers to obtain employment by supporting them and understanding their individual circumstances, their talents and their strengths. It is all about assisting people into employment not victimising these individuals.

As Senator Moore has so rightly said, we agree in the notion of mutual obligation. I think most Australians do. This is not a contested space. People know that income support is provided on the basis that employment cannot be found. I would say that the vast majority of Australians who are receiving income support are very desirous and keen to achieve employed status, and they know that receiving income support is an interim measure to assist them to feed themselves and their family, if they have one, whilst they go through this stage of their life.

As Senator Moore quite rightly said, the unemployment rate in our country at the moment is too high. In my part of Far North Queensland it is far too high. But to say that almost 15 per cent—and those figures are very volatile—of young people in my part of Far North Queensland are leaners devalues my community, and I absolutely defend my community against language that says that my community, to that level, is not attempting to find employment. The truth really is that the jobs are simply not there.

To come back to the bill though, Labor will not support punitive measures which put at risk vulnerable people, and we will draw a line when and where we believe the current government goes too far. And in this bill there are a number of elements where we believe the government has gone too far. Labor did this when we opposed this government's Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill 2014, which sought changes that would have seen the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people left without income and without options for up to eight weeks for each penalty. What does that do to people? If you take any income support off a young person, off a young parent, off an older person who is seeking employment and who has made a mistake and been penalised, what do they do? People just cannot work this out. What do they do if you take people off any payment for that long a period?

We are opposing this government's proposal for job seekers who are under 30 and on Newstart going without any payment. Nil money at all for six months. What does that do to the mental health of that young person and what does it do for their state of being accommodated? Labor have been clear: we will not support measures that impact on vulnerable people or that will make people vulnerable. It is totally unreasonable to expect people to survive with no money at all for six months and at the same time be required to meet activity tests such as the ludicrous proposal for job seekers to apply for 40 jobs per month. The government has backed down on this, now moving to 20 jobs depending on circumstances. I commend the small business sector, which has driven this campaign to make the government change its mind. What would happen in a town like mine, where young people are required to put in applications for 40 jobs every month? Small businesses would be swamped if that were to be pursued. I still have concerns about the proposal that you would now have to still apply for 20 jobs depending on the circumstances. People want the jobs—just have a look at the careers pages of the Cairns Postbut there are not many there.

We saw it again when this government sought to tighten the definition of 'reasonable excuse' with its Social Security (Reasonable Excuse—Participation Payment Obligations) (Employment) Determination 2014 (No. 1), which sought to change what matters the secretary must take into account when determining whether a job seeker has a reasonable excuse for participation failures. This was attempting to strip away protections for people with mental illness, people who do not have a safe place to live, people with literacy and language issues, people requiring treatment for their illness, people with drug or alcohol dependency, people subjected to domestic violence and sexual assault. Those were the people we had to protect via the actions we took earlier this year. These people are our most vulnerable job seekers, and yet this government wanted to disadvantage this group even further. But there are no guarantees that if Labor were to agree to the passage of this bill the government would not try again to the change the determination on 'reasonable excuse'. So while Labor agree in principle to the no-show no-pay principle for appointments contained in this bill, we do have some concerns regarding a number of measures contained within the legislation and we will be seeking amendments on a number of elements.

The first area of concern is the 'suspend until attendance' measure. The bill suspends payments for non-attendance at scheduled appointments until a job seeker actually attends a reconnection appointment rather than upon a job seeker saying that they will attend a reconnection appointment. Of course we want people to go to their reconnection appointments, to go to their appointments with their job service providers—of course we do—but there are some practical amendments that we will make that, frankly, will facilitate less non-compliance in the long run.

We will be making amendments that, firstly, will make the start date for non-attendance penalties commence from the date a person is actually notified of the non-attendance rather than the date of the non-attendance simply because people sometimes do not realise they have missed the appointment, and, secondly, that will provide a legislative basis for the government's stated intention that suspension will not apply where an appointment is not available within two days. These are practical and sensible amendments. They will ensure that people do not get breached for things that, frankly, the system cannot support them to do. If the system structure cannot accommodate the timetable for compliance, then surely the welfare recipient should not be penalised for doing so.

The bill proposes that from 1 July 2015 the government not pay back pay where a job seeker missed their initial scheduled appointment and did not have a reasonable excuse. We are not currently seeking amendments to remove this because we are of the view that the retention of Labor's reasonable excuse determination should act as an adequate safeguard in ensuring that vulnerable people are protected from payment suspension in cases where they are unable to attend their appointment through no fault of their own.

The bill outlines that a total of $161.1 million in savings over four years will be achieved. Labor is concerned that to achieve that level of savings the government is anticipating that there will be very high numbers of job seekers being breached and that they will not have to back pay them. We do want to mark down that concern—that is, that is a lot of money—and we will be watching closely to ensure that people are not being unreasonably penalised through the removal of a back pay provision.

The government is also seeking to remove the right to review a decision to suspend a job seekers' payment. Labor is seeking an amendment to remove this so that the status quo is maintained and job seekers are still able to have these decisions reviewed. This is the one element of the bill that I find most confusing. I cannot see what the government's motivation is for this element. Under principles of natural justice, surely the ability for someone to review a decision to suspend a payment should be sacrosanct. It should always be there and available so that if a mistake is made, and mistakes do happen, someone can go back and review the decision.

We are concerned that the bill seeks to remove the right to review a decision in which payments are suspended. We are concerned that that sets a dangerous precedent where people are denied their right to natural justice. We are concerned that it could be used to stop job seekers requesting a review of the decision not to back pay when they had a reasonable excuse for missing their appointment and that reasonable excuse has not been taken into account. We will not stand by and agree to the removal of job seekers' rights to seek a review which will have a financial impact on their lives. Whenever a government seeks to financially penalise people for noncompliance, it is only right and fair that those governments' decision-making processes are subject to review.

I want to go to the report brought down by the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, in particular the Labor senators' dissenting report. They note evidence provided by the National Welfare Rights Network with regard to the review process, and quote the National Welfare Rights Network, saying:

…restricting appeal rights on the basis that few people would exercise the right to appeal, or that the impact on people would be small, ignores the general unfairness. It also ignores the potential disengagement and undermining of a person’s relationship with DHS and employment services that can occur when a person cannot correct a decision, even if the financial loss was only temporary.

Jobs Australia was also quoted by the Labor senators of the committee. Jobs Australia were reasonably supportive of the bill, but they also submitted similar concerns about the removal of the ability for administrative review of the decision to suspend payments. The report quotes Jobs Australia, saying:

The denial of review rights reduces accountability in the system and may encourage less prudent decision-making … and we believe that any decisions that affect a person’s payments should be reviewable as a matter of principle.

I agree with Jobs Australia.

There are elements that Labor will seek to amend around the secretary's powers of delegation. But I really want to go to one element of the bill which, once again, I find astonishing, and it is the question of the over-55s part of the bill. The government is seeking to remove current concessions for over-55 Newstart, special benefit and parenting payment recipients in relation to their activity test for these payments. Labor is seeking an amendment to review this so that the status quo is maintained and that these payment recipients continue to receive concessions in relation to activity tests. Once again, I want to go to the Labor senators' dissenting report. They describe the current circumstance where:

… under subsection 502A(1) of the Social Security Act 1991, persons aged 55 years and over who are in receipt of an activity tested income support payment … may be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of the activity test where they have in the fortnightly payment period engaged in at least 30 hours’ approved voluntary work, a combination of voluntary and paid work, or, paid work.

We understand that it is the intention of the government that the current concessions received by job seekers aged 55 to 59 and receiving Job Services Australia's assistance will be removed by a legislative instrument. The next sentence in the Labor senators' dissenting report is quite understandable:

Submissions and evidence in opposition to this was overwhelming—

of course it was overwhelming—

and compelling arguments were outlined by almost all submitters—

including the Australian Association of Social Workers, who said:

… it was difficult to see justification for the proposed changes to the current arrangements for job seekers over 55 … due to the limited job opportunities for those particular jobseekers, and the suggestion that people would willingly retire on Newstart is strongly contested.

I agree. St Vincent de Paul supported their evidence in their submission. They talked about pervasive age discrimination. Unfortunately, pervasive age discrimination is still a reality in our country. Governments of all persuasions have tried many ways to encourage employers to employ people who are older. None of us have succeeded. Age discrimination is a reality that we live with, but to say that this is a group of the so-called leaners—people over the age of 55 who want to volunteer, be part of society and not be socially excluded; we know exactly what happens as soon as people are excluded—is extraordinary.

The Australian Law Reform Commission conducted an inquiry into Commonwealth legal barriers to older people participating in the workforce or other productive work. They decided against proposing any changes to the concessional activity test. The ALRC has argued that the concessional activity test requirement did not appear to be acting as a barrier to mature age participation and that it recognises the value of volunteering not only as a potential pathway to paid employment but also as a form of productive work in its own right.

Labor supports mutual obligation. We know that the best thing we can do to assist people who are unemployed is to assist them to get a job. The way to do it is the trick. My view is that the way to do it is to look at the evidence. The evidence is that people with disability want to work; people over 55 want to work; young people want to work. It is less than helpful for the member for Dawson to say that young people are just sitting around, or lying on a couch eating Twisties. I ask him to withdraw that comment. That is so hurtful to unemployed people, particularly young people.

The numbers of people who are persistently not attending the appointments are small in the scheme of things. That does not mean to say that we do nothing about it. What we need to do is to ascertain why those people are not attending their appointments. We know some of the reasons are to do with transport or to do with the person's mental health circumstances. We know that in many cases the reasons are to do with people's housing arrangements or to do with their literacy.

There are a group of people who are intergenerationally unemployed, and that is a cohort we need to work very closely with. Of course mutual obligation is agreed, but the obligation goes two ways. The obligation is on the job seeker to attend their appointments, to make sure they are doing what they have been asked to, but the obligation is also on a government, any government, to ensure that they do everything they can do to remove those barriers to participation—that transport services are provided, not necessarily by the Commonwealth but provided, and that we look after the health of job seekers. I commend Labor's amendments to this bill.