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

I rise to oppose the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill 2014. This is another example of how unfair this government is—how unfair it is to those who are the most vulnerable in society. How incompetent this government is. If the government had the least bit of competence or understanding about the real issues to try and deal with unemployment, they would not be going down this path.

It shows how arrogant this government is that it would allow its ideology to dominate any common-sense approach to dealing with unemployed Australians. Remember: these are our most vulnerable Australians. Thirty-six dollars a day they are surviving on—I would not call it 'living'; they are surviving on $36 a day. Yet this government wants to treat the unemployed as dole bludgers: 'They should not be there; they should be out in gainful employment'! This is the ideology of a coalition who are really so far removed from the reality of unemployment that they cannot make basic legislative frameworks that understand the needs of the unemployed in this country. All they want to do is to implement penal provisions. We have seen already today that this Senate has looked askance at the penal provisions that this government wants to put in place. What we did earlier today was to disallow a regulation that was part of the framework of attacks on unemployed Australians in this country.

You see, the problem for the coalition is that Minister Andrews, who has carriage of this for the coalition, just does not seem to understand the complexities of dealing with unemployment in Australia. If you deal with unemployment on the basis of saying to companies like Toyota and General Motors: 'We don't want you; we don't need you; we're not going to co-invest; you can go away,' and they go away, what basis is that for having any understanding of the real issues on jobs?

As I have said many times, I just cannot understand why the South Australian senators do not do what other coalition South Australian senators have done in the past and actually stand up for their state and stand up for jobs. I have never seen such a weak-kneed, lily-livered, jelly-backed approach from coalition senators in my life. We have had all these debates about jobs in South Australia. We have had all these debates about how we maintain an industry based on manufacturing in South Australia. And I do not think I have heard a contribution from the South Australian senators. I was not a great fan of some of the previous coalition senators, but I will tell you: they would have been in there arguing for jobs. They would have been arguing for their state. They would not have been wanting to turn South Australia into a pale imitation of the United States, with all the social and economic problems that we see there.

This bill that is before us now I think demonstrates the lack of politicians in the coalition's ranks that are prepared to stand up for jobs, because all they seem to want to do is to run this ideological line, this American Tea Party line, that what you do is you punish those who cannot get a job—punish those who cannot get a job! And, as with the Republican Party in the United States, I think we are rapidly seeing the Australian public recognise this—the same as the United States public recognise that you cannot trust the Republicans in the United States with jobs and you cannot trust them to make decent, fair policies.

We have the Tea Party fanatics in the coalition. We know they are there; we have seen them in action. And this bill is about saying, 'We don't care about the unemployed; we can fix unemployment by forcing people into a job.' How do you force people into jobs if the jobs are not there? How do you force people into jobs if the government has got absolutely no idea about how to develop a jobs policy in this country?

It would be less embarrassing for the South Australian senators if they actually stood up against their own party and said: 'You've got it wrong on jobs; you've got it wrong on fairness; you've got it wrong on equity. We should take the words of Brian Loughnane and not be so ideological, otherwise we are doomed.' The South Australians have got an opportunity to actually do something about unemployment, and I would hope that, when this bill goes to a vote, the South Australian senators actually get a backbone—that they stop being jelly-backs; that they actually stand up for their state and say, 'We will not simply penalise South Australians who are going to face the problems with this bill more than those in most other states.' South Australian senators have an opportunity to actually stand up for their state and vote against this bill, on the basis that it does nothing for jobs and it does nothing for South Australians who are looking for jobs. It is about an ideological obsession of the coalition's. It is wrong in policy, it is wrong in equity and it has no basis in social fairness at all.

So I will be watching carefully those jelly-backed, lily-livered South Australian senators when it comes to this issue, and coalition senators from other states, like the Tasmanian senators who are going to impose this draconian legislation on Tasmanians as well. Because where are the highest areas of unemployment? South Australia and Tasmania. That is not to say we do not have unemployment problems elsewhere; we certainly do. But there is an opportunity now for those who are not Tea Party extremists in South Australia, for those who want to look after South Australians and, by extension, all those in this country who are doing it tough—those people surviving on $36 a day, who do not know where the next meal is coming from, who, under this package of legislative changes that the coalition want to bring in, will be facing six months with no income. How about creating an underclass in this country! That is what the coalition are doing.

I suppose, if you were a Tea Party supporter, you would not care about that. You would not really worry as long as the market is operating effectively, as long as your business is allowed to operate how it likes. Exploit workers if you want. Get any of those externalities out of the way of business—so, no union involvement, no collective bargaining, no decency, no underpinning of a decent social safety net for Australians.

That is the position that this coalition proposes. Was anyone aware of this before the last election? Of course we were not. The Australian public were lied to; they were lied to by the coalition. They lied about their welfare policies. They lied about their jobs policies. They lied about their environmental policies. They lied about every policy of substance. They said there would be no cutbacks to pensions, and there are. They said there would be no increases in taxes, and there are.

This is a government based on ideology. It is about ideology; it is not about the national interest. For the coalition, when it comes to ideology versus the national interest, the national interest comes a long way second—because where is it in the national interest to say to our fellow Australians, 'You will not be allowed to have any income for six months?'

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We'll fix the budget.

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

Where is it? I heard the comment that it is 'because we'll fix the budget'.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Correct.

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

You do not fix the budget by starving Australians. You do not fix the budget by making Australians survive without any income for six months. I just do not understand.

I think there are some people of goodwill in the coalition; there are some people of goodwill. I just wonder whether they will look at this legislation and take the same view as the experts in unemployment, the people who study this for a living, the academics who look at this and say, 'This is crazy; these penal provisions do not work.' Will they support the reality of this academic analysis? Will they support St Vincent de Paul, The Smith Family, the welfare rights groups? Or will they simply say, 'You get people back to work by starving them into a job'? I hope that is not the case, but I am afraid we have not seen much sign that the coalition can be trusted, that they will deal with anyone fairly and that they will not take an ideological approach to what they are doing.

At the estimates hearings, I asked questions of the Department of Human Services. I live out in the lower Blue Mountains, near Penrith. There are many unemployed people in Penrith. There are many families doing it tough not only in Penrith but in the western suburbs generally. Where are the bulk of the unemployed in my state of New South Wales? They are in the outer suburbs and they are in rural and regional Australia. And what does this bill do for the residents of Western Sydney and the residents of rural and regional Australia who happen to be unemployed? It says to them, 'Unless you "earn or learn"'—another slogan, another ideological beat-up—'you will have no income for six months.' Where is there a place for this type of ideology in a modern economy? Where is there any place for this in a society that has some compassion and caring for our fellow Australians?

There is no compassion and no caring from this rabble of a government over there—no compassion and no caring from this mob over there. They do not care about the unemployed. As long as the people who sit in their Bentleys handing over the brown paper bags of money in the front seat of the Bentley to Liberal politicians get looked after, they do not care about anybody else. They do not care about anybody else. And the National Party?

Government senators interjecting—

Give us a break! The National Party have got electorates where there is massive unemployment, massive youth unemployment. But what do the doormats of the coalition do? They sit quietly and do nothing. They allow the coalition to rip away at the hospital system in rural and regional Australia. They allow them to rip away at the education system in rural and regional Australia. No wonder the National Party are described as doormats. When I first came here I said, 'No, the National Party can't be doormats!' But I was here a couple of days and I knew the National Party were the doormats of the coalition—the absolute doormats! But under that doormat you now find the South Australian senators. They are even worse than a doormat. Lift that doormat up and out scuttle the South Australian senators! It is pretty awful, I have got to tell you. But National Party senators, do not feel too bad. Senator Edwards will scuttle out from under that doormat and you will know that he is even more jelly-backed than you lot in the National Party!

We can joke about it all we like, but this is a very serious issue. All of the welfare groups that have looked at this piece of legislation have said it is unfair, it is not acceptable, it is going to make the poorest people in this country pay a price.

Senator Seselja interjecting—

Senator Seselja is yap, yap, yapping away in the background. Senator Seselja will not stand up for public servants in Canberra. He has absolutely no capacity to look after any of his electorate. Senator Seselja, when they scuttle out from under the doormat, I will bet you are one of them!

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Cameron, address your remarks through the chair.

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

I apologise. Through you, Acting Deputy President, Senator Seselja will be scuttling out from under the doormat and he will say to the public servants, 'Oh, I'm sorry, I can't do anything for you.' Of course he cannot do anything for them—you have got to have a backbone before you can do something for your electorate! You have got to have a bit of courage, a bit of commitment. Stand up. Do not try to climb up the greasy pole, Senator Seselja. Stand up for your electorate. Stand up for the poorest in this country. You actually chaired this Senate inquiry—

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Cameron, address your remarks to the chair.

Senator Seselja was the chair of this inquiry for some of the period. So you have got to say that Senator Seselja has got absolutely no compassion for the unemployed, absolutely no understanding of the needs of the unemployed. People came to that Senate inquiry and said, 'Senator Seselja, you've got it wrong.' They were looking around for Senator Seselja and they could not find him because he was under the doormat! They made submissions to Senator Seselja but they could not find him, they did not know where he was. He was under the National Party doormat and he was screwing unemployed Australians. (Time expired)

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

The Greens wall be opposing the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill. We believe this is yet another of the government's ideological attacks on those seeking to find work. Of course, the regulation that we have just disallowed—we had the discussion on it earlier today and last night—was part of that attack on job seekers. As St Vincent de Paul Society Chief Executive Officer John Falzon said to the inquiry, there are so many reasons why people find themselves on the pathway to despair instead of the pathway to employment. This is clearly what the government does not understand. They think people do not find a job because they do not want to find a job. They do not understand that it is not because they cannot find work. They think it is because they make that choice. They think people make a lifestyle choice. Well, they don't.

This government is not interested in addressing the many barriers that people who rely on income support experience when trying to find work. Instead, the government chooses to punish and humiliate these people, seemingly at every turn in their lives. This unrelenting punishment and demonisation of people trying to find work, in itself, provides another barrier for people who are trying to find work, another disincentive to work. Virtually everybody, except the department, who made a submission to the inquiry into this bill did not support it. Ms O'Halloran, who is the President of the National Welfare Rights Network, said:

Our network opposes the introduction of the bill before you, fundamentally on the ground that we question the purpose of the bill—whether it is actually to punish people or to help people into paid work. We would think that we would all be united in the view that helping a person who is unemployed into paid work would be the goal and we do not believe that this bill will achieve that goal. In fact, we think it will be counterproductive. That is based on our casework experience, real life lived caseload experience, with the heavy penalty system introduced in 2006 and the many changes to that system since that time.

Of course, this is winding back the promises that the Rudd government made to the absolutely horrendous Welfare to Work regime that the Howard government brought in.

Last night Senator Abetz tried to conflate the two discussions about the regulation we disallowed today and this particular bill. He accused me of referring to this bill rather than the regulation. He obviously had not read his own government's explanatory memorandum on the regulation as opposed to this particular bill. Although, I will say that the explanation of the regulation had a very similar statement of compatibility with human rights. The one that I am addressing is, of course, about this particular bill and, coincidently, it uses the same flawed argument about compatibility with human rights. It notes:

The Bill engages the right to work, the right to social security, and the right to an adequate standard of living.

It uses the same sort of ridiculous excuse for demonising and punishing people because they had a right to work. The Human Rights Committee noted the measures of the bill that remove and limit the ability to waive the non-payment period for refusal of suitable work or persistent noncompliance, and it does say, 'may limit' the right to social security, the right to an adequate standard of living and the right to equality and non-discrimination'. The Human Rights Committee expressed concerns that, notwithstanding the assurances in the explanatory memorandum, it remains:

… unclear how limiting the availability of a waiver on the ground of a jobseeker’s severe financial hardship, or because a jobseeker agrees to undertake more intensive activities, such as Work for the Dole, would achieve the stated objective of the measures.

The Human Rights Committee considered that:

… the characterisation of the bill—

in the explanatory memorandum—

as promoting the right to work by providing 'a stronger incentive to accept an offer of suitable work', is not an accurate assessment of the limitation on human rights …

The committee suggested that the bill also has the potential, disproportionately or unintentionally, to impact negatively upon particular groups resulting in the engagement or limitation of the rights to equality and non-discrimination. This is from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, and they have found that there are significant issues. I also note that the Community Affairs Committee reported on this legislation just this week, but the minister had not responded to that particular point.

This bill does have an impact on job seekers. It has a negative impact on job seekers. A decision to take away all of someone's income support is very serious and can have catastrophic impacts on people's lives. This is another part of a calculated, cruel attack on job seekers and those on income support. It is harsh and, of course, as many of the government's other measures will do, it impacts disproportionately and heavily on the most vulnerable people in our community. But, of course, the government know that because this is part of the approach they are taking through the budget. It is quite obvious that their approach is to demonise, to punish and to be harsh on the most vulnerable in our community.

The government have this flawed thinking that, if you take harsh approach and push and push the most vulnerable, those that are trying to find work, they will suddenly see the light and think that a job is a good idea. There are hundreds and thousands of people anxiously looking for work. There are only just under 150,000 available jobs currently. So, no matter how much you push and punish people, take away their rights and seek to have stronger penalties, you will not be able to encourage people into jobs that just are not there. This will simply make life harder.

As the people who are at the coalface of working with the most disadvantaged and pick up the pieces as a result of the government's flawed policy approach say, as Ms O'Halloran said: 'It is counterproductive.' As Dr Mestan said as part of the Community Affairs Committee inquiry:

Worse than ineffectual, the policy is likely to be counterproductive because, once a person is sanctioned, they have no incentive to meet requirements, whereas in the current regime, where payments are recommenced upon compliance, there is a strong incentive for a sanctioned person to quickly meet requirements.

Part of the concern that the Greens have is that the longer people are disconnected with the system the harder it is for them to re-engage. Surely that is what we want. We actually want people who make a mistake to be able to re-engage with the system and to be able to then continue with their participation plans, which they will have worked out. Dr Mestan said:

… the main aim does not seem to be to get people into employment. I feel it can be counterproductive. It could prevent people from getting employment, because they will be sanctioned even if they try to re-engage in intensive activities.

This bill discourages people from re-entering the system quickly, which we know is much better and will lead to much more positive outcomes. This bill is unnecessary, particularly if the government were looking at a more incentives based approach and if it were genuinely addressing the barriers that people are facing to employment. They just are not. This bill assumes that everybody can get a job if they just look hard enough, if they just try that little bit harder. People are trying to find work, but, as I said, the jobs are not available for those people. So, the government are punishing people simply for not being able to find a job. Stronger penalties for people that cannot find work will not help people engage with the system if there are no jobs to be found.

Part of the problem that we have with this bill is the cumulative effects of all the changes that are coming under both the budget and other measures that the government are bringing in. We are desperately concerned that the most vulnerable Australians already face many barriers to employment, and remember that they are living in poverty. They are living on Newstart. If you are under 25 you are living on Youth Allowance. You live on less than $36 a day on Newstart. If you are living on Youth Allowance you are living on less than that. Here you have a group of extremely vulnerable Australians who are living on less than $36 a day. They are trying to meet all their requirements and they are trying to exist in poverty. Poverty itself is a barrier to employment. These people are the ones that we are talking about who will be subject to these stronger penalties because they potentially may make a misstep. This bill takes away the ability for the penalties to be waived. We do not think that is good policy.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 2 pm, Senator Siewert, the debate is interrupted for question time.