Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Social Security (Reasonable Excuse - Participation Payment Obligations) (Employment) Determination 2014 (No. 1), made under subsection 42U(1) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, be disallowed.

This is a disallowance of the Social Security (Reasonable Excuse—Participation Payment Obligations) (Employment) Determination 2014 (No. 1). The opposition is opposed to the social security reasonable excuse legislation that was tabled in the Senate. We have a number of concerns with this issue relating to the discretion acknowledged to exist in determining whether circumstances directly prevent a job seeker from complying with requirements. This concept of 'directly prevent' is a new concept by the government. It is a concept that is really about trying to ensure that an ordinary recipient of Newstart, an ordinary recipient of a payment, is not entitled to have a decent excuse; they are not entitled to actually argue the position before a set of penal provisions are implemented against them.

A number of factors that the secretary of the department was required to take into account have been removed. Previously, the secretary of the department had to take into account a whole range of issues when a person had a reasonable excuse. When the secretary had to deal with this issue, they had to deal with whether the person had access to safe, secure and adequate housing or was using emergency accommodation or a refuge. I would have thought that would have been a reasonable excuse in terms of a person coming into DHS and arguing their position as to why they could not comply with the legislated obligation.

The next one was the literacy and language skills of the person. I know that Senator Edwards made a pretty botched-up attempt to copy a Scottish accent, but there are many, many Australians out there who do have literacy and language skills that are not sufficient for them to put their arguments on their own, and from time to time they do need support and help when in that position.

Also, the secretary was required to take into account any illness, impairment or condition of the person that requires treatment, including an illness that is episodic or unpredictable in nature. How many of our poorest Australians or how many of our fellow Australians who are unemployed who are amongst the lowest socioeconomic group in society have illnesses that is a result of their poor economic circumstances or an impairment or condition that requires treatment? Some of them may have been living on the street. Some of them may have addictions. Some of them may have problems that I do not think the coalition could even contemplate some of our fellow Australians having to deal with in their struggle and battle with daily life.

The secretary was also required to take into account any cognitive or neurological impairment of that person, or any psychiatric or psychological impairment or mental illness of the person. I know from talking to DHS workers that one of the key issues facing many Australians who are on Newstart or who are receiving some payment from government is that they have a psychiatric problem, a psychological impairment or a mental illness. Getting that individual to be able to turn up and actually comply with the obligations on a black and white basis of 'If you don't turn up and you don't comply then you are under a penal provision that means you get absolutely no income' is an attack on people who may have a psychological impairment or a mental illness. Similarly, many Australians unfortunately, have a drug or alcohol dependency.

No-one is saying that these are excuses that can go on forever or that you should not take steps to try and ensure that you comply with your obligations. There has been a flexible position in the past, where DHS personnel look at the specific circumstances of an individual and apply some compassion, some common sense and some reason to the failure of that individual to comply. But what this tabled Social Security determination means is that you cannot run these arguments and, even if you could, then there has to be this higher test of 'directly prevent'—a new concept that is designed to mitigate against some of the poorest people in this country getting access to government payments.

Another area when deciding whether a person had a reasonable excuse was unforeseen family or caring responsibilities of the person. Many of the people who receive government support are young women with family responsibilities who may have been victims of a violent relationship, and they cannot comply because their kid might be sick—they have no other support around and they need to deal with that issue. Yet, the black-and-white approach that the government is seeking to put in place would mean that person would end up with no payments for eight weeks. A related issue was that the person was subjected to criminal violence, including domestic violence and sexual assault. I would have thought that, if you were a victim of violence or a victim of sexual assault and you could nominate that as the reason you could not comply, then you would have been dealt with in a compassionate, sensible manner.

But for the coalition you have to have this black-and-white approach—an approach that is simply about victimising some of the poorest people in this country and people who need support. Another factor that would have been taken into account in the past was that the person had been adversely affected by the death of an immediate family member or close relative; and another reason was a person's recent imprisonment or release from imprisonment. There was a range of arguments, but what was accepted in the past was not a black-and-white position and not a position based on an ideological attack on the individual—it was a position that needed some sensitivity. It is a complex position ands a position that means you have to look at the individual circumstances that people find themselves in. Unfortunately, we have a government who do not seem to care about those issues. We have a government who, through their recent budget, attack the lowest-paid and poorest people in this community. We have a government which shows no compassion and no understanding of the real struggles that many Australians face.

The government argues that some of the factors, which I have outlined, could still be considered in determining what constitutes a reasonable excuse. However, job seekers would have to prove that the circumstances directly prevent them from meeting the requirement and they would have to give prior notice where required by the act under section 42U. The secretary will no longer be required to take the above factors into consideration when deciding whether a job seeker has a reasonable excuse. There are many organisations who deal with some of the most unfortunate Australians in this country on a day-to-day basis—non-government organisations and charities. They end up having to deal with many of these unfortunate Australians as a last resort. They take the view that this determination is unfair and should not be implemented. The National Welfare Rights Network said that, if the changes went ahead, they would mean increased financial hardship for people living on $36 a day and more red tape for thousands of employment service providers. Remember that we are talking about people on $36 a day. For most of us, if we were told we had to survive on $36 a day, we would think that $36 a day would be a sufficient penalty anyway. We are talking about penalising people who are living below the poverty line—people who are battling to put clothes on their back.

Under this coalition government, people on $36 a day will now be expected to make 40 job applications a week, go out and get transport to and from jobs and present themselves effectively for jobs. Unfortunately, this government does not have a clue what it is like for some of the poorest people in this country and I suppose their budget is exactly the reasoning that they have on how you deal with people who are poor and unemployed. It really does say that this government has got no concern and no passion.

The National Welfare Rights Network, who deal with these people, say that this determination should not be made. They say that, if employment providers assume responsibility for decisions to deny income support payments for people missing regular appointments, they fear it will fundamentally alter the nature of the relationship with the job seekers. The National Welfare Rights Network and other organisations have to build some compatibility with the individual person; they have to try and counsel the individual person; they have to try to get them ahead in what is a pretty tough situation on $36 a day. They do not want to determine whether someone is given a payment or not, because they have to build up some credibility and some empathy with the individuals. The National Welfare Rights Network has said:

Under these reforms, employment providers will be required to become instant experts on complex social security rules.

That is why you need experts in the Department of Human Services—professionals, face-to-face providers of expertise and advice. The Department of Human Services are under a massive industrial attack by this government, and the workers in DHS are being used as the test bed for Work Choices mark 2. These are the people who are face-to-face with some of the poorest and most underprivileged people in our community. The National Welfare Rights Network says that it is highly unlikely that the charities will become experts on these complex rules, and it is unrealistic to expect them to do so. What the coalition are putting forward, according to the providers that are being asked to deal with some of this, is unlikely and unrealistic. Jobs Australia Chief Executive David Thompson said:

It represents a significant shift of responsibility from government to contracted providers and is a matter of very grave concern to mission and values centred non-profit services from a moral point of view.

He went on to say:

On a practical level it will make it hard to establish effective helping relationships with the unemployed because job agencies will become the enforcer. This is quite unprecedented.

Jobs Australia are saying this is a moral issue. It is an issue of morality. Why would they be surprised about this coalition government having no morals when it comes to the poor and the most challenged people in our community?

Under the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, every piece of legislation is scrutinised to ensure compatibility with Australians' human rights. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has taken issue with the government's assessment that the bill is compatible with human rights. This is a real problem for the government, because the cross-party human rights committee says that, based on the information and analysis provided to the committee, it does not consider that the statement of compatibility adequately demonstrates that the proposed amendments are needed for the purpose of meeting a pressing and substantial concern, that there is a rational connection between the measure and the identified objective, and that the measure is reasonable and proportionate for the achievement of that objective. They are basically saying, 'This is not good.' This is not the first time that we have had the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights—where the Liberals, Nationals, Greens and Independents sit down and analyse these bills for human rights—say there is a problem. That is a problem that should be addressed. You can only address that by getting rid of a bill that tramples over the human rights of ordinary and the most vulnerable Australians.

But what do you expect from the coalition government? There are not too many over the other side who would ever have experienced poverty. They would never understand what it is like not to be able to pay the bills. They would never understand what it is like to be out on the street. They would never understand what it is like for some of the poorest and most vulnerable in this country. The previous legislation that the coalition wanted to trample over was reviewed independently under the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Employment Services Reform) Act, and this is what the review said:

The combination of greater flexibility for providers and a more modulated range of sanctions appears to have led to modest improvements in job seekers’ engagement with providers and to a major reduction in concerns about unduly harsh treatment of vulnerable job seekers. As intended, the system has led to a substantial increase in the number of early, lower-level sanctions and a substantial decrease in the number of higher-level sanctions.

This was the independent review of the Labor legislation. It said, 'Look, it is early, but these are the things that are happening.' It was clear that you cannot have a black and white position on dealing with vulnerable Australians. There must be some flexibility. There must be some capacity to look at the circumstances for individuals. This is another set of penal provisions against some of the weakest and most vulnerable Australians, and we are opposing this because we need to stand up for vulnerable Australians. We need to stand up for the weak. It should not be some ideological obsession about dole bludgers that drives legislation, which seems to be the position here. Vulnerable Australians deserve a fair go in this country. (Time expired)

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

The Greens will be supporting the motion to disallow this reasonable excuse determination. We do not support this regulation. It is more of the government's attack on the most vulnerable in our country, attempting to blame those that cannot find work, to demonise them, to imply that they do not want to seek work—which seems to be the government's approach from the comments they have made about people without a job sitting at home on the couch collecting their unemployment payments. That simply does not reflect the truth. I have spent a lot of time talking to people who are, unfortunately, unemployed, and I have not met anybody that does not want a job. I am aware of the very large number of Australians who are desperately seeking work—but there are just not enough jobs on the market for everybody. There is a little bit of context here, which is that the previous Liberal government, under Mr Howard, brought in Welfare to Work, and they significantly tightened up the regulations relating to people who are unemployed who are on Newstart—bearing in mind that Newstart forces people to live below the poverty line. They were harsh requirements. Later, the Rudd government did change some of those rules: for the better, we thought; in fact, the Greens thought that they did not go far enough in some instances.

This is an attempt to wind back a more humane approach to how we support and work with the unemployed. The approach of, 'punish, punish, punish', does not incentivise people to find work. People want to find work; in fact, they get significantly depressed about continuing to be blamed for not being able to find work. I mentioned earlier today some of the evidence that was presented to an inquiry into the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill—which is another piece of the government's puzzle, in terms of wanting to put more and more pressure on to those that are looking for work—as well as evidence to the inquiry into the government's other proposed changes to social security legislation——these are the bills that contain about 20 measures, including a measure dumping young people off income support for six months and expecting them to live on thin air. In that particular inquiry, held just last week, we heard evidence about the high number of people who are on the Disability Support Pension, Newstart or Youth Allowance and who are looking for work. At the moment, there is just no way that there is work for all of those people.

As Senator Cameron was just outlining, this particular regulation winds up the pressure on those people who are looking for work. The Explanatory Statement to the regulation says that 'the department will implement a policy to clarify that a person should not typically be found to have a reasonable excuse if the circumstances in subsections 6(3) or 6(4) are not present, or if they are present but did not directly prevent the person from meeting the requirement that was the subject of the failure.' That is the bit I think is particularly important: it is 'not directly to prevent the person'—who is going to make that decision? As Jobs Australia has pointed out, that question is causing a great deal of concern for providers, because they are being put in the position of making that call, and putting that information through to the department. I think this is bad policy. Again, the motivation is to seek to demonise job seekers and to imply that they are not genuinely looking for work.

When we consider this regulation, we have to consider it in the context of all the other changes the government is making to social security. I cannot get past this issue: the huge mistake the government is making, or wants to make—hopefully this Senate will not pass this measure—that is, dumping anybody under the age of 30, subject to some exclusions which I will get to in a minute, onto 'nil payment'. It is a really cute term: 'Newstart nil payment'. It means people will still be subject to the rules of Newstart, but they will not get any payment for six months, and then they will go on to Work for the Dole, and then they will go back on to 'nil payment' again. I ask anybody how they could survive for six months on nil payment.

Job seekers will still have to apply for 40 jobs. I know that there has been speculation again in the media today—and Senator Abetz might want to clarify this in his contribution to this debate—that the coalition are rethinking that requirement to apply for 40 jobs. They have actually realised that it is totally unrealistic to require people to find 40 jobs to apply for, and they have realised just what that meant for the community. They misread that. It showed a clear lack of understanding about the sorts of jobs that are out there, about how people apply for jobs, and about what that requirement would actually mean. I keep saying this: they either get it, and they are just being indescribably, outrageously mean and cruel to people under 30, by subjecting them to no income support; or else they are bad policy-makers.

Even if they were just looking at this particular measure, that measure in itself is terrible enough. But then we look at this measure—the regulation that we are talking about—in the context of forcing people off Newstart. We know that the evidence shows that when you are subjected to living in poverty—and in this instance they will have no visible means of support—it becomes yet another barrier to employment. Living in poverty means they may not be able to remain in accommodation; they are likely to get sick because they can't eat—their diet will be inadequate, to say the least; they will be in quite vulnerable circumstances; and it will definitely affect their mental health. They may then, for example, miss applying for 40 jobs, or make some other mistake in their participation—living on nothing is, very clearly, going to affect their ability to participate. And then how will they be able to demonstrate that it does 'not directly prevent the person from meeting the requirement'—to participate—'that was the subject of the failure'? In this instance, that means that they will be put on a no-income support period for even longer. That is just one interaction that I think will have some significant problems. There are also issues around caring, and around single parents being able to find work, now that more of them have been dumped off Parenting Payment onto Newstart. This also affects Parenting Payment obligations. We are subjecting job seekers to even greater problems and barriers to finding work.

This is clearly about penalising people. It is not about helping them into work. Again, the cute explanation in the statement of compatibility with human rights for this particular measure talks about article 6 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and recognises the right to work. This includes the right to the opportunity to gain a living by work which a person fully chooses or accepts and is considered an inherent part of human dignity. Then it seeks to justify this by the determination:

… encourages participation payment recipients to engage with their right to work by incentivising those people to actively participate in statutory requirements and mechanisms designed to encourage them to obtain work.

What a lot of nonsense! If I was not in this place I would probably be using more creative language, because this is a pack of nonsense. What an absurd attempt to justify being cruel to job seekers by saying it is 'incentivising those people to actively participate in statutory requirements'. It is a load of codswallop. This is nothing short of the government's continued campaign of harsh, cruel, blaming and demonising treatment of job seekers who want to find work. They face many barriers to work, but they want to find work. We should not be demonising people. We should be helping and truly incentivising people. This is not incentivising. This is cruel and harsh treatment as part of the government's extended campaign to demonise people who are genuinely trying to find work. We will be supporting the disallowance and not supporting this regulatory change.

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

Australia, overall, has a very good welfare system. Australians are relatively pleased with it, and we as a government are seeking to maintain it. But it is vital that our welfare system be retained as a fair and sustainable system. And for it to remain fair and sustainable it has to be robust and it has to be as rort-free as possible.

Before going into what the legislative instrument, or regulation, actually does, allow me to debunk the myths we have just heard from Senators Cameron and Siewert. Senator Cameron's speech reminded me of the Empire State Building: for every story there was a major flaw. Whilst he generated a lot of heat in his contribution, there was not much light. It appears he actually pulled out the wrong speech. Let us just go through a few comments made by Senator Cameron. He talked about the parliament's Human Rights Committee's observations on this regulation. There was no such report. The report to which he referred refers to legislation that is still to come before the parliament, not this regulation. Wrong, wrong, wrong. But isn't it great to be wrong and to then make false accusations about the government and pretend that somehow, by peddling these falsehoods, you have heart, you have compassion, you have a social conscience? He was so concerned about the issues that he actually got the wrong speech and was talking about matters completely and utterly unrelated to this regulation.

He went on to say that job service providers will now have to make these decisions under this regulation—again, false; again, wrong. No: the Department of Human Services officials, under this regulation, will continue to make the decisions. But he said, 'But these professionals in the Department of Human services will be swept aside, and job service providers will have to make decisions they don't want to make.' Guess what? They will not have to. The Department of Human Services continues to make these decisions. Again, Senator Cameron was either clothing himself with complete ignorance when coming into this debate to make his contribution or deliberately seeking to scare the Australian community. Either way, Senator Cameron has done himself and the Australian Labor Party a great disservice.

Some of the comments he made also related to the draft request for tender—nothing to do with this regulation whatsoever. The Department of Human Services will continue to make the decisions. Then the good senator asked, 'What if the person has psychological issues, or he or she has drug and alcohol issues?' It is pretty simple. Have a look at the regulation—if you got that far. I think he was reading other documentation, and that is why we got the confused speech. All this regulation seeks to do is to explain matters to be taken into account in determining whether a person had a reasonable excuse: in clause (4)(i), 'If the person's failure was a result of the person being incapacitated due to illness, injury or disability'. The test further up says, with reference to the reasonable person, that if you suffer from injury or from mental illness then that is covered by the regulation. Every single example, every single story was completely flawed in Senator Cameron's contribution.

He then asked, 'What about if you have family responsibilities?' It is a pity he did not read clause (4)(iv): 'If the person's failure was a result of the person having unforeseeable and unavoidable caring responsibilities'. It is there, black on white, for anybody who actually does the hard yards of reading the regulation. Anyone wanting to know what is actually in it will be satisfied that everything Senator Cameron said was spoken either in ignorance or with a complete wilfulness to mislead the Australian people. It is there, black on white. Then he asked 'What about if somebody was the victim of criminal violence or the victim of assault?' I have already gone through if a person's failure is due to being incapacitated by injury. I would have thought that would be a pretty good answer to Senator Cameron's question.

Indeed, the regulation we have before us is designed to ensure that there is some robustness in the system, and every fair-minded Australian would say that that is reasonable. But because Senator Cameron does not want people to think it is reasonable or fair he came out with these extreme examples—each and every one of which is covered in the regulation before us. Indeed, he went as extreme as to ask, 'What if there was a death in the family?' If Senator Cameron had done his homework he would have seen that clause (3)(b) says the matters include:

(b) whether there were exceptional and unforeseeable circumstances beyond the person’s control such that no reasonable person would expect the person to comply with the requirement that resulted in the failure …

I think every Australian listening in to this debate this evening would accept that the professional people in the Department of Human Services would come to the conclusion that a death would be just such a circumstance covered by clause (3)(b). So it really does beg the question: what is it that motivates the harsh, ugly and misleading language used by the Australian Labor Party?

With what the senator said, trying to champion the workers of the Department of Human Services, he is in fact saying that the officials in the Department of Human Services, confronted with a job seeker not reporting because of a death in the family, would say that was not an exceptional or unforeseeable circumstance. Basically what he is saying is that the professional staff would be completely and utterly unreasonable. It is a sad reflection on Senator Cameron that he has such a view of the hardworking people in the Department of Human Services. It is a sad reflection on Senator Cameron and the Australian Labor Party that they do not understand that which is before them, black on white, in relation to this particular regulation. In all of this, Senator Cameron pretends that he is compassionate. There was a lot of passion in what he said, but it was not compassionate, because the passion with which he spoke was conceived in ignorance and born in ignorance. There was simply no truth to that which he was asserting.

Australians are willing to assist their fellow Australians in tough times. In exchange, those Australians who provide that assistance—namely, the taxpayers—do not unreasonably expect that those who are the beneficiaries of their largesse through their taxes will do their very best to do the right thing in all circumstances.

I return to Senator Siewert's comments. Regrettably, I think she may have listened in to the comments of Senator Cameron and then just echoed them. Senator Siewert asked, 'What if you have caring responsibilities?' I have already pointed out that caring is specifically referred to in the regulations. But then she had the audacity to say, 'This is a government that is harsh, cruel and seeking to demonise.' No. It was Senator Siewert's contribution that falsely accused the government of seeking to demonise and acting cruel and harshly in certain circumstances, but her assertions can be absolutely and utterly rebutted by the words of the regulation that is currently before us.

Having debunked the nonsense of Senator Cameron, in particular, and Senator Siewert, I will turn to the positive elements of this regulation.

Debate interrupted.