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

I rise today to contribute to the debate on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Seasonal Worker Incentives for Jobseekers) Bill 2017.

The bill will trial a social security income test incentive aimed at increasing the number of jobseekers who undertake specified seasonal horticultural work. The trial will run for two years, commencing 1 July this year, and will have cap of 7,600 participants. Eligible jobseekers—Newstart, youth allowance and other recipients—who have been receiving these payments continuously for at least three months will be able to earn up to $5,000 each year of the trial from specified seasonal horticultural work, such as fruit picking, without this income affecting their income support payment. Any unused balance from the first year of the trial cannot be rolled over to the second year. This measure was proposed by the Nick Xenophon Team last year, and the government subsequently included the measure in its 2016-17 Mid-year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. The amendments in this bill are concerned mainly with the seasonal horticultural work income exemption.

The bill also provides for participants in the trial who undertake specified seasonal horticultural work more than 120 kilometres from their home to receive a seasonal work living away and travel allowance—a payment of up to $300 a year. This allowance will not affect the participants' income support payment as it will be excluded from the social security income test.

The Australian Greens will be supporting this bill. However, I will note some reservations we have with the bill. We have concerns that the bill is limited to one industry and that it allows for income support recipients, who are earning the same amount of money but from different work, to have income tested differently. In other words, we are setting up a different system. As the minister mentioned in his second reading speech on this bill, a recipient of the Newstart allowance, who is single and has no children, can earn up to $104 a fortnight before their payment starts to be reduced. This means that, over the course of a year, they can only earn $2,704 without their income support payment being affected. It is for this reason that we would like to see the policy broadened to all recipients of an unemployment payment by implementing an income bank of $4,000 that accrues over time for Newstart, youth allowance and other payments. This would allow for a more even-handed approach. I will be moving—and I will move it at the end—a second reading amendment relating to the issue of an income bank and note that many in the community services sector have been putting up the concept of an income bank for some time.

We have doubts regarding the bill's ability to achieve employment outcomes for those receiving an unemployment payment. The bill will not provide assistance to people to overcome barriers to employment nor will it address the underlying problem of the lack of available jobs or skill deployment and development in the long term. We know from Anglicare Australia's Jobs Availability Snapshot in October last year that, for every level 5 or low-skilled position that was available in May 2016, there were 6.33 disadvantaged jobseekers. In other words, there is just not enough work for jobseekers. This figure actually worsens when you look at the state and territory breakdowns. The ratio of disadvantaged jobseekers to low-skilled vacancies was 10.62 in Tasmania and 9.39 in South Australia. In other words, we have a very significant issue. While the Greens do support this bill, much more needs to be done to assist those receiving unemployment payments into secure, long-term employment.

Unfortunately, governments—and I am not just pointing the finger at this government, but this government is particularly adept at this—look at this sort of short-term, very seasonal work in the regions as an answer to our unemployment issues. It is simply not the case. While it will help for short periods of time, the concept of an income bank is worthy of support—in fact, that is why I am moving this amendment—but it should not just be restricted to this seasonal horticultural work, which is the very issue that Senator Cameron has just articulated.

I am deeply concerned that this in fact will not make a significant difference to those unemployment rates, but a broader scheme would. This proposes an income bank so people can have $4000, which not only would assist people but it would also get over some of the issues with Centrelink which we are currently dealing with—the difficulty of reporting payments and things like that.

I move:

At the end of the motion, add "but the Senate calls on the Governent to broaden this policy to all recipients of an unemployment payment by implementing an income bank of $4000 that accrues over time for Newstart and Youth Allowance (Other) payments".

As I indicated, the Greens will be supporting this bill, but we will be monitoring it very carefully to see the outcomes and we urge the government to consider the broader concept of an income bank for all people who are receiving those payments, and not just those who are involved in seasonal work.