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

I want to go to the issue of the review first. I have quite a bit of experience in this place with reviews. I am thinking of the cashless welfare card. Honestly, the interim evaluation shows that, to the largest extent, it is not worth the paper it is written on. They have done a review and, even with the information that is contained in the review, the minister has just spun that to justify proof of concept. The data they have included does not support the conclusions that the government are drawing and they are using that to justify the expansion of the cashless welfare card trials in the current sites. Also, in the budget there are two new trials. The data simply does not support the conclusions they are drawing. Forty-nine per cent of people have said that their life is worse. The government have spun the so-called figures on drug, alcohol and gambling to the greatest extent possible.

I am sorry, but I do not have much faith in reports or reviews and that the government actually take them into consideration. I am not saying it should not be reviewed, but my point is that this is another ideological program by the government. They will ignore any adverse findings anyway and will continue with it. We need to remember up-front that any review needs to be looked at very carefully so that we ensure that the government act on it. So, while I would have a review, I have little faith that it would be acted on. It is well known that a lot of people within government do not like Work for the Dole, but it continues despite the accidents that have occurred and despite someone losing their life—and we still do not know what happened; we still have not seen that report.

While I am on my feet, I would also like to address the issue of interns. One of the deeply offensive parts of the bill is that it continues to talk about these people as interns. They are going to be exploited workers. The Greens amendment that ensured that people would not work for below the minimum wage was voted down, which is a tragedy. It is quite clear, therefore, that people may end up working below the minimum wage. The government link that to internship when someone will clearly be doing a job that somebody else could do in a paid position. I am still not reassured that people who currently have jobs will not be replaced in this program, despite the government saying that they will not be. The concept of internships under this government has been continually eroded. To compare it to interns in parliamentary offices is, quite frankly, a joke when you compare the exploitation that is going to occur. It is not that it may occur; it will occur in these positions. That is appalling, in my opinion. It is just a cheap political stunt to say, 'You shouldn't complain, because you offer people opportunities to understand the political process.' We are not putting them in workplaces where they work on making a profit for a company. Businesses are already advertising. I know the minister did not like the term 'sandwich artists', but that is, quite frankly, the spin that Subway is putting on it to try to get people onto the superlucrative deal for the big companies. That is the spin they are putting on it. Whether the minister is offended or not, that is the spin that Subway is putting on it, and it is what we can expect from other large employers.

I would also like an assurance from the minister around this whole issue of it being voluntary and being linked to the employment plan. I have had numerous complaints from people who have felt they had no option to argue with their employment plan. In fact, the previous measure that fell off the Notice Paper when the parliament was prorogued for the last election, the stronger compliance for jobseekers measures, sought to make it more difficult, or would have made it more difficult, for people to question and be involved in a good discussion about their employment plan. What guarantees are there—and will the minister commit to this—that no-one will be forced to take on an employment plan where they do not want to do this program but the jobactive provider says, 'This is going to be part of your employment plan'? At what point can they do that, and who can they go to, when the jobactive provider says, 'You shall do it'? It is going to be more and more difficult to discuss and question the employment plan if they do not feel that that position under PaTH is appropriate for them.