Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment and Other Measures) Bill 2015. Indeed, this is a very important piece of legislation because it is a stark reminder of the difference between the coalition, who have continually attacked vulnerable people, and the Labor Party, who have always stood up to support and protect vulnerable people. Senator Seselja comes in here and talks about young people just going down to Centrelink. That is not what young people want. They would like to get a job. To suggest that because there is opposition to this legislation somehow we support that as well is really reaching.

Senator Seselja's contribution mentioned a number of measures that he says the government have put in place. What we on this side of the chamber have seen is the fact that when the government first came in they started cutting training programs. They ripped out $50 billion from education. They cut $270 million from the grants program in the Department of Social Services.

Let's not forget that this bill is the second iteration of the government's attacks on young job seekers. The measures in this bill have been rehashed and revised from the Abbott government's first budget. We all know what the first bill sought to do, and that was to cut payments for particular job seekers for up to six months. That was seen, quite rightly, by the community as unfair and harsh. It was rejected.

So those opposite have come in here today having reduced the period without income down to one month and have tried to suggest that this is some way of assisting young job seekers into jobs. Young people are not going to be able to get jobs without any income support. To think otherwise beggars belief. We know that young job seekers need support to be able to go to job interviews, to access transport to get to those interviews, to be dressed for those interviews and to be able to live as well. But the coalition on that side have, from the very first day, throughout their push to strip away income support from job seekers, decided to attack the most vulnerable. They did it in their first budget, not only in this area but all through their first budget. Thankfully, most of that was rejected in the Senate.

The measures contained in this bill are harsh and unfair. They are not much different from those that were proposed and rejected last year. These measures aim to withdraw the social security safety net from a group of young Australians who are highly vulnerable to disadvantage. These measures attack the very heart of our social security system, which is built on the principle that people have the right to adequate income support. The impact of this piece of legislation is clear. The impact of abandoning young job seekers is plainly clear to see for all, except for those opposite. These measures will not help young people into employment. They will not aid young Australians' ability to seek and sustain employment.

The dissenting report from Labor senators quoted from the submission by the Australian Council of Trade Unions which said:

The measures contained in this Bill are harsh, draconian and unfair, and very little different to those proposed (and rejected by the Senate) last year.

It is very important to remember that these measures will not provide an incentive for job seekers to become self-sufficient. I believe that those opposite know that because this is not about providing incentives; this is about attacking young job seekers and those most vulnerable. This is about their budget bottom line.

This bill will drive young people into financial hardship and poverty. It will make it harder for job seekers to focus their energies on finding employment. Pushing people into poverty only makes it harder for them to search for work and get a job. The Australian Association of Social Workers outlined the following in their submission to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee which, again, was quoted in the dissenting report from Labor senators:

Factors leading to poverty such as lack of money for accommodation, subsistence food, clothing suitable to attend job interviews or insufficient funds for transport all interfere with people’s ability to actually look for work.

These measures are completely counterproductive. The outcomes will be at odds with the government's stated intention. This is the very definition of poor public policy. As Mission Australia's David Pigott told the Community Affairs Legislation Committee:

We … think that the current measures before the committee are a bit like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut …

This government clearly believes that the solution to a 13.8 per cent youth unemployment rate is to take a punitive approach to young job seekers, to take the big stick approach. There is no consideration of actually addressing the systemic labour market issues and other barriers, which are the issues which impede young Australians' ability to support themselves through to employment. In his evidence to the Senate committee Mr Pigott stated:

We are concerned, however, that the current budget measures before us risk taking a punitive approach to young people in the current labour market, where there is only one job available for every six job seekers. Youth unemployment has remained stubbornly high since the global financial crisis, and in some areas where we work it is as high as 30 per cent.

Youth unemployment is at very worrying levels all across the country. In regions, in my home state of Tasmania, the youth unemployment rate is over 20 per cent, particularly on the north-west coast of Tasmania, whose representative is Liberal MP Mr Brett Whiteley, who supports this piece of legislation to strip young job seekers of income support. He should be ashamed.

Apparently those opposite believe that this is the fault of young people. We have over 20 per cent youth unemployment in some regions in Tasmania, and yet those opposite believe that this is the fault of young people. They believe young people are simply not trying hard enough to get jobs. They believe young people will find work if they are forced into destitution. The reason the government are taking this approach is not, as I have said, because of overwhelming evidence to support their view—that evidence is not there—or evidence of the effectiveness of cutting payments for jobs. Again, that evidence is not there. The reason they have taken this view is that it is easy. It is easy to demonise young job seekers, and they have done that since they first got elected. It is easy for the coalition to find budgetary savings by cutting support for the most vulnerable people, people whose voices they do not think will be heard. Let me tell you, Madam Acting Deputy President, these people's voices will be heard, because Labor will speak up for them and will continue to fight the government's harsh budget measures.

Those opposite will argue that the most disadvantaged will be exempt. We have heard that in the contributions so far today. They will argue that the most disadvantaged will be exempt from the measures and those who do experience financial hardship will be able to access emergency relief. This is nothing more than an implicit admission that this policy will push people into poverty.

The government know that this measure will push some young people into homelessness. They know that this measure will leave people without food and that it will leave them without money for transport or their bills. Ms Kate Beaumont, President of the National Welfare Rights Network, highlighted in her evidence to the Senate committee:

This is clearly is not a path to self-sufficiency; it is a one-way street to poverty, an impact on long-term unemployment, poor health, depression and homelessness. This is borne out by the government allocating $8.1 million to help pay the people made destitute by this very policy. The simple reclassification of people and grant them interventions, if their situation deteriorates during the four-week waiting period, should be enough to be convince the public that this is a bad idea, poor social policy and should be rejected.

The emergency relief system, like many community support services, is already stretched to the limit, particularly following the government's previous decision to cut $270 million from Department of Social Services grants. So the $8.1 million will do little to stem the appalling impact of this bill.

The most outrageous of all the measures in this bill is the proposal to establish a four-week income support waiting period for young job seekers. This would see young people under 25 have to wait four weeks prior to receiving income support, in addition to the one-week ordinary waiting period and any other waiting periods that might already apply. On the government's own estimates, this measure will affect 75,000 young people per year. A number of these job seekers will be subject to multiple four-week waiting periods in 12 months. This is nothing but a grab for cash at the expense of these young jobseekers.

The government claim that this measure will save $173.3 million over the forward estimates—but at what cost to the lives of young job seekers and their families, many of whom will be financially crippled by this measure? It is just a watered-down version of the government's initial plan in the 2014-15 budget, which sought to require young people under 30 to actively seek work for six months prior to receiving income support payments. Make no mistake, whether it is six months without any income support or one month, this measure will push young people into poverty and hardship.

The reality of this measure is far from the idyllic existence that those opposite will have you believe. It is not as simple as being supported by your parents for four weeks. For some families, providing for young job seekers for at least five weeks will mean not only that young job seekers will be pushed into poverty but that their families will be placed under financial strain. Then there are those young job seekers who cannot rely on their families for financial support. Maybe these families simply cannot afford it or maybe there is a strained relationship. It is these young job seekers, who do not have the financial support of their families, who will be hardest hit by this measure.

Aside from the obvious financial impacts, experts have also raised real and serious concerns about the impact of this measure on the health and wellbeing of young job seekers. Mental health support and advocacy organisations have voiced their concerns that this measure and the resulting financial hardship will exacerbate or trigger mental health issues such as depression and anxiety. The National Youth Mental Health Foundation, headspace, raised this concern:

… we believe these changes are unlikely to encourage greater workforce and education participation, but rather have the potential to impact negatively on the mental health and wellbeing of all young Australians and disproportionately on those already disadvantaged due to factors such as mental health difficulties, poverty, social isolation or disengagement from family.

Whilst there is significant evidence showing that this measure will push young people into financial hardship and poverty and will have a negative impact on their health and wellbeing—that is quite clear for those who want to listen—there is no evidence to show that it will help young people into work. This was an issue that Labor senators took up throughout the Senate committee inquiry. Participants to the inquiry were unable to identify any evidence to support the rationale for the measure. Even the minister's own department, the Department of Social Services, conceded that there was no evidence that the measure would help young people find work. Departmental officials also specifically refuted the government's claim that the measure was comparable to the New Zealand model of support for young job seekers. Put simply, this measure is based on flawed assumptions about the causes of youth unemployment. Instead of assisting young people to tackle barriers to employment, this measure will punish them.

I turn to the age for eligibility for Newstart. The pain in this bill does not stop after the four-week period without income support. Another measure in the bill seeks to cut payments to young people by extending youth allowance (other) for 22- to 24-year-olds in lieu of Newstart and sickness allowance. This would result in a cut of at least $48 a week for young job seekers between the ages of 22 and 24. That would be almost $2,500 a year. Those opposite have said that this measure is to 'provide incentives to young unemployed people to obtain the relevant education and training to increase employability'. Yet, at the same time, they have cut funding for education, they have plans to cut funding for vocational education and training opportunities, they have cut $1 billion from apprenticeship programs in the 2014-15 budget, they have replaced apprentice support with apprentice debt and they have sought to introduce $100,000 university degrees.

If the government are serious about assisting young people to gain the skills and education they need to find work, perhaps they should start by looking at their own record rather than seeking to punish the very same young people that are the victims of their vicious attacks on education and training. This measure will simply exacerbate the disadvantage that some young people face in the job market while doing nothing to address the structural problems faced by young job seekers.

The bill also seeks to apply a one-week waiting period to all working-age payments. This is just another rejected and rehashed policy from the government's failed first budget. As well as extending the ordinary waiting period to new payments, this measure seeks to further restrict the current exemption on the basis of severe financial hardship. It is proposed that the exemption should only apply if a person is also experiencing a 'personal financial crisis'. The very idea that our national safety net would only be available to people once they are at the point of crisis strikes at the heart of our system. The administrative and documentary requirements that are associated with this exemption are also very burdensome and would mean that many people who should have the waiting period waived would nonetheless be forced to serve the period.

The other element of the exemption is if the severe financial hardship relates to domestic violence which has taken place in the previous four weeks. The lack of understanding about the ongoing impact and support needs of women and children seeking to escape domestic violence is absolutely sickening. That this government believe that the financial impact of domestic violence only lasts for four weeks is beyond belief. It makes me question the sincerity of its commitment to addressing the issue. Again, the impact will be that people who should be exempt from this waiting period will be forced to wait an additional week before they receive any support.

There are other measures in this bill that seek to undermine the income support system. But, in the short time I have left, I can only say: we should be working to invest in education and training. I urge the Senate to oppose these measures.