Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate is considering the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Increased Employment Participation) Bill 2014.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2) together:

(1) Schedule 2, item 1, page 11 (lines 5 and 6), to be opposed.

(2) Schedule 2, item 4, page 11 (lines 16 to 21), to be opposed.

Schedule 2 of the bill seeks to amend section 42S of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, by increasing from 12 weeks to 26 weeks the unemployment non-payment period during which a participation payment is not payable in circumstances where a person who has been paid relocation assistance becomes unemployed as a result of a voluntary act of the person or as a result of the person's misconduct as an employee.

The opposition amendment has the effect of retaining the unemployment non-payment period at 12 weeks, which is the status quo. The opposition is obviously concerned about the extreme nature of extending this to 26 weeks and we will seek support to have the status quo provision prevail.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I can briefly respond on behalf of the government. The government took a policy position to the last election. The government is serious about its social security legislation to increase employment participation. However, we are aware of the numbers in this place and if this matter were to go to a vote what would occur. On seeking advice from my department in relation to relocation assistance scheme breaches—the situation we are talking about of changing the non-payment period from 12-week to 26 weeks—I understand that, under the existing program, 333 such relocation payments have been made and there have been only three breaches. This means we are dealing, at this stage, with less than one per cent. Given those circumstances, the government is minded to raise the white flag and accept the Labor opposition's amendment on this. We will monitor the situation to see whether or not the breaches blow out beyond the current rate, as indicated by the department, of one per cent. In these circumstances the government will not be opposing the amendment.

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

I indicated in my second reading contribution on this bill that the Greens would be supporting the ALP's amendments. These are half of the changes we seek to move, as I foreshadowed in my second reading contribution. We will be supporting the ALP's changes to this bill.

Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that items 1 and 4 of schedule 2 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

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

The Greens oppose schedule 2 in the following terms:

(1) Schedule 2, page 11 (lines 1 to 21), to be opposed.

We seek to oppose the whole of schedule 2, which contains not only issues around the number of weeks in the non-payment period but also deals with the language of this bill. As I expressed in my second reading contribution, we are concerned about the nuances the changes bring. We are concerned—and I am sure we will be debating the issue this afternoon—about the way that the social security system in this country is changing and taking a much more punitive approach. We believe that parts of this bill contribute to that approach—it seeks to demonise and take a more punitive approach when the evidence shows we need to be taking a much more supportive and incentive based approach. Having said that, the changes that were just rejected by the Senate—thank goodness!—deal with the part of the bill we had the most substantive concerns with.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition will not be supporting these further changes. We appreciate that the Greens have joined us on the most substantive components of this bill; however, the changes Senator Siewert is referring to, as I understand it, rather than dealing with her concerns—which, regarding the language and punitive nature of the current approach, we agree with—are technical changes to paragraphs 42S(3)(b) and 42S(3B)(a) to cover circumstances where the relocation assistance may have been paid to another person for the benefit of the person eligible to receive relocation assistance. On that basis, as technical changes, we see these as reasonable and will not be supporting the Greens changes.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Labor Party for its position in relation to this change. The government also opposes the Greens change, largely for the reasons outlined by the opposition spokesman, Senator Collins.

With relocation assistance it is the Australian taxpayer, not the government, that makes the money available—up to $6,000 worth—and it is therefore appropriate that there be some robust vetting to ensure this money is used for a good and proper purpose, namely to help people relocate to where a particular job is. So to have some penalty if somebody were to breach that generous provision of money obtained from their fellow Australian taxpayers I think is appropriate; therefore, it stands to reason that it is inappropriate to talk about demonising or punitive measures. I will leave my contribution at that, understanding that the Greens will not be seeking to divide on this issue.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is that schedule 2, as amended, stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.