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

This bill has a number of elements to it. Without any amendments, this is simply another attack on the most weak and vulnerable in this country. It is part of the coalition's 'lifters and leaners' approach—if you happen to fall into hard times then you are a leaner and if you are not out there in a job, if you are not a lifter then you are bludging on other people. That is not what it is like in real life for many, many Australians. This is part of the austerity approach from the coalition. This is about trying to get $161.1 million out of some of the weakest people in the community. This is about another back of the axe attack unless there are amendments. It is not sophisticated and it is a rough approach if unamended.

The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill 2014 seeks to amend the Social Security Administration Act 1999. It provides that from 1 January 2015 job seekers who miss an appointment with their employment service provider without a reasonable excuse will have their payments suspended immediately and it will only be reinstated when they attend a rescheduled appointment. It provides that from 1 July 2015 job seekers who have their payments suspended for failure to attend an appointment with their employment service provider without a reasonable excuse will not be back paid for that in the period in which they failed to attend an appointment.

It also provides that from 1 July 2015 the secretary of the department will have the power to specify by way of legislative instrument a class of job seeker aged over 55 who is not exempt from the activity test or other participation requirements, including voluntary work. It extends the delegation of powers of the secretary to include regulations and other instruments made under social security law. It also removes the rights of internal review and review by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal of decisions made by the secretary to suspend payments in specified circumstances. It also removes the right of internal review and review by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal of decisions made by the secretary to suspend payments in specified circumstances.

Under current job seeker compliance provisions contained within the act, the Secretary of the Department of Human Services can determine that job seekers in receipt of a participation payment may incur a payment suspension for participation failures such as the failure to attend an appointment. Payment can be reinstated when the job seeker notifies the secretary of their intention to comply with a reconnection requirement. In practice, this would be a commitment to attend an appointment with their job service provider.

The provisions in this bill mean that from 1 January 2015 a payment suspension for a participation failure would not be reinstated until the job seeker had actually attended an appointment with their employment provider, notwithstanding that an appointment may not be immediately available. The bill also contains provisions that from 1 July 2015 if a job seeker does not have a reasonable excuse for missing the first appointment or did not provide a reasonable excuse when they could have done so, the job seeker will not be back paid for the period of their noncompliance. Currently, once the period of suspension ends, the person receives back pay for that period regardless of whether or not their excuse was reasonable for missing an appointment in the first place.

Labor support the concept of mutual obligation. We acknowledge that job seekers have an obligation to actively seek work and the government has an obligation to support them and provide them with the opportunity to help them get into work. Labor support measures designed to assist people into work. However, Labor do not and will not support punitive measures which put vulnerable people at risk. That is why we opposed the Abbott government's Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill 2014. That included changes that could have seen the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people left without income and without options for up to eight weeks at a time.

That is why Labor is also opposing the government's proposal for job seekers who are under the age of 30 and on Newstart going without any payment for six months of each year that they are unemployed. Labor's position is clear: we will not support measures that impact unfairly on vulnerable people. It is totally unreasonable to expect people to survive with no money at all for six months, let alone also being required to meet activity tests such as the government's proposal for job seekers to apply for 40 jobs per month.

We were pleased to see the government recently backed down on the '40 job applications per month' fiasco in the current request for tender for job services. But we note that the proposed 20 job applications per month measure will still generate in the order of 14 million job applications a month. Talk about red tape! That is one job application for every man, woman and child in the country every six weeks.

The government's proposed Newstart under-30s measures will leave more than 120,000 young Australians without income support for six months of each year that they are unemployed. The government has admitted this and it knows that this will have adverse outcomes. It is at odds with the government's own McClure welfare interim report, a report that said:

The system of sanctions should be progressive, with timely, lighter measures first.

I will just repeat that:

The system of sanctions should be progressive, with timely, lighter measures first.

Denying people any income for the first six months of their unemployment is not a lighter measure first. It is the back of the axe first.

We saw the government resort to punitive measures again when it sought to tighten the definition of a 'reasonable excuse' by way of legislative instrument. The Social Security (Reasonable Excuse - Participation Payment Obligations) (Employment) Determination 2014 (No. 1) sought to change what matters the secretary should take into account when determining whether a job seeker has a reasonable excuse for participation failures. This measure would have stripped away protections for people with mental illness, people who do not have a safe place to live, people with literacy and language issues, people requiring treatment for illnesses, people with drug or alcohol dependency and people who are victims of domestic violence and/or sexual assault. These people are the most disadvantaged job seekers and this government wanted to disadvantage them further.

It is no wonder people find it hard to trust this government when it comes to supporting people into jobs. So we are glad the Senate disallowed that determination. It makes us just that little bit more comfortable knowing that if some of the changes in this bill are to pass, vulnerable people will still have some protection from this mean and dishonest government. So, while Labor is agreeing in principle to the no-show, no-pay provisions contained in this bill, we do have some concerns regarding the practical implementation of these measures. We know that the government has form when it comes to trying to go too far in penalising job seekers, and I have outlined some of that overreach. The explanatory memorandum states:

In practice job seekers would generally have the opportunity to attend a reconnection appointment with their employment provider within a short period of time and thereby have their payment reinstated quickly. Typically this would occur within one to two days of them contacting their provider as prompted through payment suspension. Employment providers will also be able to offer telephone appointments for job seekers in these circumstances. If the job seeker could not be given an opportunity to attend such an appointment promptly it is intended that their payment would otherwise be reinstated.

Our concern in relation to this measure centres on the phrase 'Typically this would occur within one to two days of them contacting their provider as prompted through payment suspension.' We are concerned about how, in practice, job seekers will be notified of their payment suspension, and we are concerned that this is done immediately so that the job seeker has the ability to make contact as quickly as possible. There are instances when job seekers are unaware of penalties having been imposed until they access their bank accounts on the usual payment day and find they have no money. That is when they make contact.

So my question is: how will job seekers be notified when they have been breached for missing an appointment under this measure, and how quickly? If job seekers are immediately suspended upon missing an appointment, and are not notified until some days later, or until they go to get funds, it is foreseeable that some job seekers may go some time with their payment suspended and not be able to get back pay. It may be much longer than two days before they know. Therefore, notice of a payment suspension needs to be provided as soon as the suspension is implemented, to give job seekers the opportunity to contact their employment service provider for a reconnection interview as soon as possible. We will not support job seekers going extended periods without any income support because they were not aware that they had breached their obligations and payments have been suspended. For these reasons we will be moving an amendment that will ensure that a non-payment period will not commence until the person whose payment is to be suspended is notified of their participation failure. We will also be moving an amendment to ensure that, in the event that a reconnection appointment is not available to a person within two business days of that person being notified of a breach, the suspension period will be lifted.

Labor are also concerned that the bill would remove the right to a review of a decision to suspend payments. We are concerned that this sets a dangerous precedent in which people are denied their right to natural justice. We are concerned that it will be used to stop job seekers requesting a review of a decision not to back-pay where they had a reasonable excuse for missing their appointment and where their reasonable excuse had not been taken into account. Labor do not and will not agree to the removal of a job seeker's right to seek a review of decisions which have a financial impact on their lives.

Whenever a government seeks to penalise people for noncompliance, it is only right and fair that those government decision-making processes are subject to review. This is particularly the case where job seekers could be going without payment for some time. As the payment of back pay from 1 July 2015 will be contingent on job seekers being found to have had a reasonable excuse for nonattendance at an appointment, it is important that the decision is subject to review. For these reasons, Labor will move an amendment in the committee stage to ensure that review rights are retained.

Currently job seekers aged 55 or over on Newstart or on special benefit are taken to have satisfied an activity test when they are engaged in at least 30 hours per fortnight of approved voluntary work, paid work or a combination of both, unless the secretary considers that they should not be exempt from an activity test due to the employment opportunities available to that person. Similar provisions apply to recipients of parenting payments who are 55 and over. The government is seeking to amend the act so that the above concessions would not apply to a class of persons who may be specified in a new disallowable legislative instrument requiring them to be looking for full-time work instead of making a valuable contribution in the voluntary sector. Labor are concerned that older Australians who would be required to meet these activity tests and attend appointments may find the task more difficult, given that the discrimination they are subject to is real and can impact on their wellbeing. We are also concerned that the materials accompanying the bill give no clues as to what classes of job seekers over 55 are to be specified in a legislative instrument to be subject to stricter participation requirements. For these reasons, Labor will move an amendment in the committee stage to remove these provisions from the bill.

Item 1 of schedule 2 of the bill is unrelated to other measures in the bill. It would amend subsections 234(1) and (2) of the Social Security (Administration) Act to give the secretary the power to delegate functions of the secretary not just under the principal act but also under legislative instruments including regulations. Currently the administration act only provides for secretarial powers under the act to be delegated to an officer, the Chief Executive of Centrelink or an employee of an Australian government department. The explanatory memorandum states that the main impetus for this amendment relates to recent legislative instruments made under part 2.16A of the Social Security Act 1991 which relate to the job commitment bonus and which will require secretarial powers to be exercised by persons other than the secretary from 1 July 2015.

Neither the bill nor any of the accompanying materials provide any explanation of why the secretary would need blanket powers of delegation, well beyond matters in relation to the job commitment bonus, including delegation of powers under legislative instruments having no relationship with the job commitment bonus. Indeed, part 2.16A of the 1991 act does not require the Secretary of the Department of Human Services to exercise any functions in relation to the job commitment bonus, either under the principal act or under any legislative instrument. Any secretarial powers exercised either in person or by delegation under part 2.16A are those exercisable by the employment secretary, not the Secretary of the Department of Human Services. For these reasons, Labor will be moving in the committee stage to omit the proposed extension of the secretary's powers of delegation to legislative instruments.

To conclude, Labor believes that the government needs to focus its attention away from increasing penalties and making life harder for job seekers, and towards having a credible jobs plan. The member for Eden-Monaro in the other place said in a speech in September, which was reported in the Financial Review,that the government needs to focus on reforms including:

… creating a "desperately" needed jobs plan …

Given all of the above, it is Labor's intention to move amendments that will address these concerns, and I trust the chamber will support them. The amendments will be moved in opposition to the government's attempt to remove review rights in respect of the payment suspension decisions. Labor support the second reading of this bill. Subject to the outcomes of the committee stage, we reserve our rights in respect of the third reading.

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

The Australian Greens will not be supporting the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill 2014. This bill, rather than supporting people to find work, really is about, once again, heaping up the compliance burden on people, demonising vulnerable people and increasing hardship. That is what this particular piece of legislation will do. Job seekers around this country are already finding it hard enough to make ends meet and to find work. It is particularly hard for job seekers to make ends meet when they are trying to exist on the completely inadequate Newstart and youth allowance.

In fact, Newstart and youth allowance are now so far the below adequacy that in fact people are inhibited from finding work. There is a growing mountain of evidence which shows what impact hardship has on people's ability to find work and to maintain a connection with work or to re-gain their lost connection with work. The first thing the government needs to do is to improve the adequacy of working age payments. That would go a long way to helping job seekers find work.

This government is determined to take a demonising, punitive approach to people who are looking for work, rather than to support people into work. Older job seekers and those in remote areas, people with disability, young people and long-term unemployed face multiple barriers in re-entering the workforce after a period of unemployment. Figures out this morning show that the number of people with disability on Newstart has increased, putting paid to the government's argument that people on the disability support pension has blown out. In fact, there are now more people with disability on Newstart than in the past. We know it is much harder for people with disability to find work. During estimates, when I was asking the Australian Human Rights Commission—unfortunately, I was not able to ask the Disability Discrimination Commissioner because now we have only a part-time Disability Discrimination Commissioner, Susan Ryan, who is also the Age Discrimination Commissioner. Having two jobs makes it very difficult and I am not having a go at the work she undertakes; it is just impossible to deal on a part-time basis with the issues which need to be dealt with as discrimination commissioner.

At estimates, I asked the Human Rights Commissioner about complaints. The highest number of complaints that the Human Rights Commission gets are about disability and the highest number of complaints regarding disability are about employment. We can see, therefore, that people are facing very significant discrimination when they are trying to enter the workforce. Job seekers with a disability who are on Newstart face a great deal of discrimination, along with the barriers of transport to get to work. If you are a person with a disability, maintaining support in the workplace is difficult. These are the people who are being targeted by this government. Rather than punishing people by plunging them into further financial hardship and putting in place more straightforward compliance measures, this will not help. In fact it makes it harder. The government should be supporting people into employment, providing a much more case management approach and, as I said earlier, working age payments.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics for October 2014 put Australia's unemployment rate at 6.2 per cent. The youth unemployment rate was a much higher 13.5 per cent. We know that this government is also trying to demonise young job seekers and we know from reports coming out that it is even harder for young job seekers to find work than it is for some of the older job seekers. We can see that from the higher rate of youth unemployment. We also know from a recent youth survey by Mission Australia that young people are wanting to work. They are wanting a career. They have some fears about road blocks to their careers, which again puts paid to the government's argument that young people are choosing to sit at home on the couch while getting youth allowance. That is so far from the truth it is laughable, other than that it makes you cry to think that the government is putting around such a furphy, again trying to demonise young job seekers.

The latest figures on job vacancies say there are 137,283 job vacancies. That is down from the figures in some of the submissions that were quoting July figures of just over 146,000 job vacancies. If you look at the number of people on Newstart and the number of people on disability support pension and youth allowance you can see that millions of Australians are looking for work. If you also take into account those who are underemployed—because we know we have significant underemployment—you can see that there are simply not enough jobs to go around. So punishing young people and older workers or those with disability who are unable to find work is unacceptable in a country which says we give people a fair go.

Plunging people into poverty when they already face multiple barriers is yet another barrier to work and leads to further alienation and depression for job seekers. This legislation contains many concerning schedules. We do not think that this bill is redeemable, although we will be supporting the amendments because it is slightly better, but it does not redeem the bill. We are deeply concerned that this bill removes appeal rights. We treat people appallingly and then we take away their appeal rights. It is unacceptable to remove the essential safe guard of the administrative appeal rights for people on Newstart who are going to be subject to these compliance measures. Many submissions made to the inquiry into this legislation were concerned about this measure, including, for example, the National Welfare Rights Network and Jobs Australia. The national welfare rights said that:

Administrative appeal rights are critical to ensure ongoing integrity of the system and the confidence of the public at large as well and social security recipients.

Jobs Australia, the peak employment services organisation of this country, said:

The denial of review rights reduces accountability in the system and may encourage less prudent decision-making.

They are right. It will encourage less prudent decision making because people will now have no access to the appeal rights that are being removed by this legislation.

When you look at suspension and penalty changes, this bill allows harsher, more severe payment penalties, extended penalties, changes to payback, removal of the important warning penalty, changes to penalty start dates and the discretion for the whole payment rather than just penalty payments suspension. There is not the evidence provided for why these changes are required and why the current penalties and sanctions are insufficient. The recent changes, enabling providers to do follow-up appointments with job seekers, has in fact improved attendance. In other words, a more immediate and personal approach, indicating that a supportive approach—get that: a supportive rather than a penalising approach—is working. It was made clear by evidence in submissions to the inquiry that there are several vulnerable groups who will be particularly disadvantaged by these changes—for example, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We already know that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander job seekers are subject to financial penalties to a much greater extent than non-Indigenous job seekers. We know that they have been subject to breaches more often than non-Indigenous job seekers. There are a range of reasons for this, including access to transport, lack of service facilities, lack of secure mail services and mobility. It is essential that there are safeguards in place to ensure that barriers do not result in termination of payments for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, because we know that there are many reasons why they may not make their connections or their appointments. We also know that they are suffering from a greater degree of disadvantage than non-Indigenous job seekers.

For older job seekers, we are particularly concerned with the provisions in the bill that remove the ability of certain people on Newstart, special benefit or parenting payment, who are 55 or over, from satisfying the activity test via 30 hours of approved voluntary or paid work. This provision dismisses the valuable work that older volunteers contribute to the community. Older job seekers face multiple barriers to re-entering the workforce, including age discrimination. And as the Australian Council of Social Services said in their submission:

… in the absence of adequate public investment in employment assistance and work with employers to shift attitudes towards older workers, the repeated rejections that would result from imposition of the standard requirement to apply for up to 10 jobs a fortnight would demoralise older unemployed people without greatly improving their employment outcomes.

There is strong evidence that age is a distinct barrier to employers hiring job seekers over the age of 45 years. This needs to be addressed with incentives and not punitive messages. Continued rejections for older job seekers—I know from talking to a number of older job seekers—have a very significant effect on their mental health and it also affects their confidence in applying for jobs when they continuously get knock-backs. We do not have a system that is adequately supporting older workers at this point, and we know that there are a growing number of older workers. Already, a third of longer-term unemployed people are over the age of 45, and that has grown by 41 per cent over the last three years. So we know we have a significant problem here, and the government's response is to make it harder rather than putting in place more measures to help older job seekers. The Restart process is a start, but it is not enough.

I have already touched on people with disabilities in my opening comments, and I want to go into this in a little bit more detail. People with disability already face multiple barriers to entering, and also re-entering, the workforce and also engaging with the social security system. As the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations said in their submission:

People with disability experience one of the highest levels of unemployment and poverty, with almost one in two people with disability in Australia living in or near poverty (45%) and almost one in two people with disability disengaged from the labour market (47%).

The comments they made there about older workers being discouraged with constant rejections, people with disabilities are likewise discouraged with constant rejections, having to overcome barriers, dealing with the discrimination that they face and also maintaining their ongoing connection to employment. There is not enough support for people with disability in employment once they gain employment. These changes will adversely affect people with disability, particularly those who are deaf or hard of hearing, who also find it hard to maintain connections sometimes.

In the broader context, these changes need to be seen in conjunction with the other proposals that have been made in the budget—budget proposals that want to dump young people off income support for six months. Those sorts of changes are just simply about demonising young people. Another change to social security that this government is so anxious to push through is: people with disability will not be able to travel overseas for more than four weeks—again, simply demonising people with disability. You also have to look at this in the context of the GP co-payment, and, fortunately, the university deregulation process has just been voted down by this place—that is another area that would have significantly impacted on peoples' abilities to change their circumstances and gain higher education.

We will not be supporting the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill 2014 because it further demonises vulnerable Australians and increases their hardship. We should be taking a supportive approach to job seekers in this country. We know about the excellent work done by organisations that have come to talk to senators and, hopefully, members of the House of Representatives, and we have had case management examples eloquently presented to committee processes around this place.

A good example of that is the work the Brotherhood of St Laurence does with unemployed young people, and the work that St Vincent de Paul does—and many other organisations working with young people that we have seen around Australia. Those are the sorts of examples that we need to be putting in place. Once again, we see legislation from this government that shows a determination to punish people and demonise them; implying that people do not want to work, something that is simply not true.

This bill removes important appeal rights, an unacceptable step that has been widely criticised. If you take away appeal rights here, what is next? The number of Centrelink decisions that are overturned on appeal highlights the importance of the appeal process—to achieve justice for a start. We know this from statistics we learned at estimates and from previous ombudsmans' reports. The bill also allows harsher, more severe payment penalties, including extended penalties that will expose people to unnecessary hardship. There was no evidence presented to the inquiry into this bill to justify these changes or to explain how the current penalties and sanctions are insufficient.

We know that the approach of working with employment services and individual job seekers is showing success. More individualised support—treating people as individuals, meeting their needs, understanding their barriers and treating them as humans is a good start—helps people engage with employment and start to engage with the process—if they are in fact disengaged from the process. We will not be supporting this bill. I indicate that we will be supporting the amendments because we think they are a step in the right direction. But we will not be supporting the bill.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to oppose this bill. As the chamber is aware, Labor has put forward amendments tonight. As Senator Siewert has said, this bill has to be seen in a much broader context; it is not a stand-alone bill. When you look at everything the Abbott government is attempting to do to long-term job seekers under 30, you have to wonder what their real agenda is. What is the motivation for the harsh and cruel attacks on most Australians?

I want to first of all look at those under 30. We have seen the sorts of provisions that the Abbott government wants to put in place. They want to deny people access to a benefit for at least six months, which in and of itself is a harsh measure, leading people to fall back on families—if they have them—or become homeless, or who knows what. That measure in and of itself is a shocking measure and one that Labor clearly does not support. But it does not sit there on its own. It lines up with a whole lot of other harsh and cruel measures.

We have seen some very good programs slashed—programs that get young people re-engaged in work, or re-engaged in education. We know that from this month on Youth Connections is going to lose its funding. I must say that I held out hope that somehow the government would see that this is a program that you would never cut, because it has an enduring success rate of getting young people either back into education or back into school. But it seems there is no backing down from this government on Youth Connections. It will lose its funding, and a program that has a proven track record out in the community will disappear. And what do we have in its place? Work for the Dole. Work for the Dole is, firstly, very expensive and, secondly, a failed program. It does not offer the sorts of supports to young people that programs like Youth Connections do.

The other advantage of Youth Connections is that it is not even expensive to run. It is a very economical program; much more economical than Work for the Dole will be. Nevertheless, the government has just run the red pen through it without any analysis or research. They have just decided it has to go, because they think their Work for the Dole program is the one to go for. Last week at a Senate inquiry we heard evidence about another program—Reclink—which also indirectly gets people back to work.

It is not good enough to say to people who are on the margins of society or who find themselves unable to get back into work that a punishment regime is going to work. There is no research to suggest punishing people is going to work. But that is in fact what the Abbott government wants to do with this bill—abolish Youth Connections, cut funding to a program like Reclink—with its harsh regime for those under 30, saying 'You're on your own for at least six months; it could be more.' These sorts of penalties are not about mutual obligation. They are not. It does not matter how the government likes to dress it up; it is not about mutual obligation. They are going too far. It is one-sided and it is about saying to people: 'You are on your own. Government is not there to support you.' It is a 'lifters and leaners' agenda. The government has said that themselves.

We have heard some really shocking comments from the Abbott government; that young people are 'sitting at home on the couch, eating Twisties and playing on the Xbox'. For goodness sake! That brush tarnishes all young people. And where is the evidence for it? There is none. It is just a throwaway line, like 'lifters and leaners', like this view that people need 'a kick up the backside' to get them out the door to work. What work? Sadly, we are seeing climbing unemployment in Australia. None of us in this place wants people to be unemployed; that is our common motivation. No-one here wants to see people unemployed. But how we get people into employment differs quite markedly between Labor and the government. It seems that the Abbott government's agenda is about punishing people and about saying to people, 'You are on your own. We are here to only help those who are able to help themselves.' And it is a very narrow agenda unfortunately.

When this bill came to us, we were given a very short time frame to examine it. There was a real disincentive for us to hold public hearings. We were asked if we wanted to do a report on the submissions. Of course we did not. We want people to come before the Senate face-to-face. Again and again what we have seen is a failure by the Abbott government to recognise that there are experts out there in the community. I am not an expert on jobs—I am the first to admit that. I do not pretend to be an expert in the employment field. But there are experts out there and we can learn from them. They deal with people who are unemployed, they deal with people who are making tough life decisions every day. That is their expertise yet it seems to me the Abbott government does not want to hear from them because trying to get committees up and giving people a respectful time in which to give their evidence is not something that is at the forefront of the Abbott government's agenda.

We had very little time to examine this bill. In fact, during Senate estimates, because this legislation was not in place, the department was not able to really give us a lot of information. When we held the public hearing a couple of weeks ago we had at best a couple of hours. That does not do justice to any of the evidence that we took. The National Welfare Rights Network has years and years of expertise in this area and we have a lot to learn from them. We do not have to agree with everything they say—I am not suggesting that for one moment—but to dismiss their evidence as somehow 'on the left' or 'not worthy' is a disrespect to that service because they do have something to tell us. We gave them something like 45 minutes. Equally we gave the ACTU and the department 45 minutes each and that was the end of the time that we had. I would like to thank the staff of the committee for doing their best.

But when we time and time again are crammed and get legislation at the last minute, a lot of pressure is put on us to not have an inquiry and it is just not on. The public has a right to know. The government should be open and transparent and these matters should be well ventilated throughout the community because the people who will be the recipients of the outcomes of this legislation, if it gets through the parliament, are ordinary Australians who have a right to understand the motivation behind the legislation.

But this legislation does not sit there in and of itself. It sits in a very harsh regime, which is underpinned by 'you are on your own'. It sits in a regime that is very much a right-wing Tea Party conservative agenda. We are seeing more and more from the Abbott government this Americanisation of a whole range of issues including our social security system, and this is the start.

We are more are more in this country, under the Abbott government, taking the safety net away. We have always had that safety net in place in our country and it is what we pride ourselves on in Australia. We are a fair go country. We look out for each other and that includes having a fair and just social security system, one that has mutual obligation. I have not heard anyone in this place saying 'no mutual obligation'. Of course there has to be mutual obligation. But this is not mutual obligation. Taking away a person's right of appeal, putting very harsh penalties in place and penalising a person so that if they miss appointments they are not entitled to have back pay goes way beyond mutual obligation. It is the beginning of an attack on our social security system in a much broader context of saying, 'No, you are a leaner and therefore you are not entitled to payment.' That is clearly where we are heading with this. When you take a step back and take a long-term view of what the Abbott government is putting in place here, it is an agenda which smacks of: we are going to take the safety net away; bit by bit we are going to remove it. That is what we have seen the Abbott government do with this bill.

When Labor was in government, we did have mutual obligation and we did have penalties in place; there is no doubt about that. And there is no reason to make anything harsher on a job seeker. I could not imagine being unemployed for a very long period of time and through perhaps an accident of mine or not being able to get to an appointment suddenly being penalised. It would be completely unfair.

We are seeing now in our country, very sadly, very high rates of youth unemployment. We know from the inquiry that significant numbers of those who currently fall foul of the sorts of obligations that Labor put in place are largely young men. So it is not as if we do not know who these people are that are currently being penalised. We do know who they are. Of course, there are no prizes for guessing that overrepresented in that group are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people, who are also overrepresented in our jails and overrepresented in the unemployment numbers. Why would we then think that applying a harsher penalty to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders will somehow make things better?

This legislation is about generations of disadvantage, marginalisation and racism. It needs a better answer. It needs a much deeper understanding. Yes, have some penalties there but not of this nature, not of continuing to punish people who are already marginalised in our society. It does not make any sense and it will not get people into work because in many places there is no work. I think of Kwinana in Western Australia, which is a beachside industrial town about 40 kilometres from the CBD. It has got an appalling rate of unemployment. It is shocking. So what are we going to do? Will we go into that community and say to young people, 'It is your fault'?

The jobs are simply not there for those young people—they are just not there.

Obviously, where there are high rates of unemployment—whether it is for males of a particular age or young people—that should signal to us that we need to do something else, that we need to have more supports in place and that we need to look at what else we can do to make sure that people's self-esteem and their self worth remain in place. We know, as a society, that long-term unemployment has lots of other consequences. People start to doubt their self worth. If you are up against someone who is newly unemployed and you have been unemployed for a much longer period of time, you are probably thinking, 'Well, it's the same old same old—I won't get this job either.' And yet these are the very people the Abbott government wants to penalise. To what end? If there are not the jobs there these people will not be able to get them.

Again in my home state of Western Australia we are now seeing—with mining turning more out of the construction stage—higher rates of unemployment. That is a fact, and it is not through the fault of the job seeker. We do not suddenly in Western Australia have a whole new group of 'leaners'. We certainly do not. We have a changing labour market situation, and for a period of time—and let us hope that it is not a long period of time—we will have a higher rate of unemployment. So what are we going to do? Penalise a whole new group of people? To what end?

Are we going to have them all working for the dole? Are we going to have them all penalised with no back pay the minute that they miss an appointment? All of us in this room have missed, I am sure, significant appointments in our lifetime. I know I have. I am the first to hold my hand up and say that I have missed significant appointments, and I have certainly done it more than once. What we are saying to people like this is, 'You miss an appointment and that's it! That's it: we will fine you. You'll be penalised and not only that, we won't give you your back pay.' I have to say, as someone who has a very strong sense of natural justice, that to take someone's money away and then, when they do the right thing, get back on track and make their appointments, not to pay them that money is inherently unfair. It is really unfair to have that sort of punishment regime—to say to someone, 'Even if you fix up the missed appointment we're still going to penalise you.' It does not make any sense to me.

The other issue of concern to Labor is this longer list of what people can be penalised for and the lack of review. Our society—our democracy—is based on a belief that if you feel that a decision has gone against you that you have the right of review. That is something we should cherish. It is a strong part of our democracy and it is not something that we should take away from people—that principle that if you have been wronged, or you think you have been dealt a harsh blow, that you have a right of reply. Anyone, regardless of their political persuasion should support something like that. So we want this right of review period to remain in place. For us it sets a dangerous precedent, where people are denied their natural justice and denied their right to appeal. That is inherently unfair as well.

We have heard in this place that Aboriginal people are likely to be penalised and that people with some sort of disability will no doubt fall foul of this, because we already know that those people already fall foul of the current mutual obligations that are in place. Why would we make it harder for them? What is behind the government's motivation here? It is saying to people who are unemployed, 'You really are on your own.'

If we just look at the numbers: last year Centrelink applied more than 13,000 smaller daily no-show no-pay penalties for job seekers with known vulnerability indicators. We knew that those were job seekers who are vulnerable. That included more than 4,000 with psychiatric problems or mental illness. Here is a group with known issues that we sought to penalise last year. More than 2,000—in fact nearly 2,500—with a homelessness flag on their file were penalised. Almost 400 released from prison, almost 300 who had experienced a recent traumatic relationship breakdown and another almost 300 job seekers with cognitive or neurological impairment were penalised. These are some of the groups who, again, will fall foul of this harsh penalty regime. Why would we do that as a community? Why are we not getting underneath those issues and trying to work through what is in the best interest of these groups of people? We should be supporting them, not punishing them. Obviously, whatever we are doing currently is not particularly working with these groups of people, but we are going to make it worse.

We did see from the inquiry that giving the job service agencies the opportunity to be the first point of call when people miss appointments is having an effect. Getting that call from someone who you know and who says, 'Hey, Sue, you've missed your appointment—what happened?' is working. That is already working; it has not been in place for very long but we are just going to chop that out and say, 'No, we can't be bothered doing that. We're just going to put these penalties in place.'

I would urge the government to look at this and to really come clean on what its agenda is; to drop its Tea Party ideology and to start to give job seekers a real opportunity in Australia. The opportunity of support and proper, fair and even mutual obligation is really what we are seeking tonight. I would urge the government to support Labor's amendments.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to make a contribution to the debate on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill 2014 because it is part of a series of bills that has been put in place around the issues of job participation. People may remember that a previous bill, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill 2014, was handled by the Community Affairs Legislation Committee. Senator Siewert referred to that in her contribution. Basically, we see the bill before us as part of a series of bills that has been introduced by the government, looking at their view about the best way to ensure that people who are unemployed engage more effectively with the system. That seems to be the basis of the process.

As has been said by a number of contributors, we have no problem with the concept of making sure that people who are unemployed are effectively able to engage with the system with the intent that they will then be able to have opportunities and options for their own futures and, most importantly, will be able to look at getting into employment. We have heard many times about the gap between being out of the workforce and having no sense of hope or no sense of option. The opportunity of getting into work and engaging with the community is the key gap which we are seeking to fill.

There is a great deal of agreement about the process, we believe. As was clearly stated by Senator Cameron, this particular bill is a step too far in terms of the way the operational processes work. We believe that we have to work hard to get the balance right between encouragement, support and responsibility. The concept of mutual obligation is not new. It is worrying that, in introducing new processes or new legislation, sometimes there is overenthusiasm to put forward that only the new group has any acceptance of the rights of the process or any understanding of the process. It is important that we see that the concept of mutual obligation is at the core of our social welfare system, as it has been for generations. I am not talking about a short period. It has been the case for generations that, if you are going to be in receipt of a payment from the Commonwealth, you have responsibilities to engage in a process and work within the system.

The intent of the bill is to strengthen the mutual obligation. We do not believe the evidence is there that it is necessary to make these changes at this time. We believe it is necessary to reinforce the concept of mutual obligation, which has been consistently put forward in evidence before the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, when we had the earlier investigation of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill 2014, and before the Education and Employment Legislation Committee. Senator Lines mentioned the experience there.

No-one actually rejects the concept of mutual obligation. What we do reject are the processes in this bill, which I believe are too punitive. Core to the concerns that I have with this bill is the removal of the appeal right that people have now to question judgements that have been made about their engagement and about whether reasonable excuses for not turning up to an appointment are, in fact, reasonable. We have great information. I applaud the information provided to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee by the department. We had very detailed information from the department about how the system operates, how reasonableness is defined, the number of people who have been affected by decisions in the past and also the number of people who have been identified as not meeting their responsibilities. That is a really valuable base upon which to make assessment.

However, the concept that anyone who is impacted by a decision should have the right to appeal is, I think, sacrosanct. I do not understand why that element is put in this bill. I can read the bill, I can read the department's submission and I can understand a little bit about the background as to why they think the penalty for not turning up to an interview should be considered. I understand why there is concern that people are not doing that. I can understand, to an extent, why there is a focus on the particular needs of young people, which comes out in the explanation of the process. I can understand, to an extent—though I do not accept it—the argument about older people who are in the unemployment process. The element that stands out for me in this bill, though, is the rationale for why you would need to take away an appeal right—something that is there now. Indeed, we are concerned that not enough people use it.

I look at the issues around the social welfare system—a system that has always encouraged people to take ownership of their own situation and become personally engaged; in fact, to live mutual obligation. Over the years, I have been involved in a number of reviews, both when I worked in the area and since I have been in this place, looking at the area of appeal and questioning people who work for both the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and the AAT about what they are doing to encourage people to know their rights and to use the current system—to understand that they do have a right to appeal. So I have a basic concern that, even now, when the right exists, everybody does not know they have the right and can access it.

My disappointment is that, in the midst of this bill, which is aimed at making sure that people have greater engagement with the system, one of the key changes is to take away an appeal right. As you know from hearing previous speakers on this side of the chamber, that is a concern that is shared by many. It was certainly shared by a number of the people who came to talk with the committee about their interest in this bill. Naturally, on welfare rights you would expect ACOSS and people who work in the system to identify that this lack of appeal process is of concern. But you also have the Job Network—the very people who are working closest to the people who are caught up in the system—identifying that, amidst all the other issues of engagement and participation, the removal of an appeal is a significant issue.

On that basis, I want to re-raise that because it is something that has troubled me for a long time. I think that our system is based on people knowing their rights. Our system is based on people taking personal responsibility. In that kind of system, in that plan, having a strong appeal process which is available to have decisions independently reviewed means that, if you feel that you have been treated unjustly, if you feel that there have been any errors, you can then have that reviewed. In the process in this particular bill, that is something which is most concerning, and we do not support the removal of the appeal right in the process.

Recently the Community Affairs References Committee has been doing an inquiry on income inequality in Australia. Many of the issues that have been raised in the discussion around this bill came up through evidence and through site visits that we had in that area. We heard really strong evidence from a number of people, some of whom also appeared before the Education and Employment Legislation Committee on this bill, about the issues around employment and making sure that people have a sense that they have options and choices. We heard about the concerns about long-term entrenched poverty and long-term entrenched exclusion from the system.

These same issues were raised by evidence in the committee inquiry on this bill. It was raised that the people who are most needy, the people who have the most need to be involved in some form of job participation and become engaged in the system, are often those who are the most vulnerable and who are the most excluded. It makes sense, to an extent. If you already have a strong education, a strong interest in work and a strong engagement in your society, more than likely you are going to be more job ready than others.

The participation requirements which are central to this bill are focused indeed on the people who need to be involved most. On this basis we completely agree with some of the evidence that was put forward by the department. We need to have people involved. But what is lacking, not just in this bill but in a range of the options that the government have put forward in their plan to have more people in the workplace, is any clear evidence that bringing forward punitive measures has a result of changed behaviour. We have evidence that it does cause difficulties. It does put people into greater need. But where is the evidence—and certainly we have been seeking this from people who are supporting this legislation—that says that, if you make it tougher for people, if you punish them, if in fact you push them further away, that kind of strategy is going to engage, welcome and support to get people back into the system?

And that is the key difference. The process that we as a government supported was surely to reinforce the need for people to be involved—for people to register with their Job Network, to be involved with their Job Network and to have a process of involvement. If there was a breakdown in that and if there was a lack of compliance to a large extent, with people not turning up to interview, not engaging effectively, there was a suspension of payment. The intent of that was to draw to the attention of the person that there was mutual obligation, and we strongly support that. We believe in the concept of having responsibility to ensure that you are working in the system and being involved.

Where this bill ramps it up to another level is that, where that process operates, there is a more directly punitive impact. If it is found that you have missed an interview and the Job Network decides that that is real—we have had significant evidence about the responsibility to determine whether there was a reasonable excuse; the process is still with the Job Network, and then it feeds the information through to the Department of Human Services—the new system is actually saying that, should you re-engage, there is the possibility that you will not have a back payment fulfilled from the time that it was found that you had not fulfilled the obligation. That is the change. The change is not in encouraging people in the system; the change is the depth of the impact if you do not do that.

I raise the concern from the evidence that we have received across a range of inquiries, across a range of community interactions, from the people who work most closely with the people who are vulnerable, with the people who are already excluded, with the people for whom this legislation has been determined. When you talk with the people from the Anglicares, from the St Vincent de Pauls and from the various support agencies, their response is that this is not the best lever to respond to the need. From their knowledge, they believe that we need to put everything in place in our system to encourage people to stay in the system and to identify their vulnerabilities.

I know there is a difference in philosophy. I know that the government will bring forward their process and say that this will ensure that people will be involved. However, what we have now is a group of people in the unemployment process. We have, unfortunately, quite a high unemployment rate and a number of people who are highly motivated and are in the process seeking to get into work. Provided that we have a job market and there are jobs available, that cohort will be most easily placed into employment or re-employment. At the other end, we have some people who have generational unemployment issues. We heard about people who, over years, had not been able to be in the workforce. They had no type of modelling. I quote Lin Hatfield Dodds from UnitingCare Australia in her evidence to our committee inquiry on income insecurity, where she said:

There are people growing up in areas of locational disadvantage, the poverty postcodes, where no-one in a community has ever had a job.

That is truly a confronting concept. Through the process of this inquiry, we were able to visit communities where that was true: whole areas, regions, where people were in a situation where they had been excluded from a society that looked at the value of education and work.

We need to change that. But that also means that there needs to be a way of ensuring that people are welcomed and supported in the system. I do not accept that more punishment actually creates behavioural change. I accept that there are people who need more work to include them in the system and I know that can be incredibly frustrating. There is enough evidence from the services that we have heard from that offering wraparound support that looks at the individual's issues in their families and in workplaces that have led them not being involved currently in the workplace—when those issues are taken into account and personalised strategies are imposed—gets people more job ready and engaged with the community. On that basis, I do not believe the changes in this bill will end up with the outcomes which were intended.

I am also concerned by the significant savings measures in this bill because it seems to me that the only way that the volume of savings linked to this bill can be harvested is if people are removed from their welfare payments. The intent of the bill is to remove people from payments. If that removal is into work then that is a great result, but we do not have the jobs in our current market to make that happen. Through a range of inquiries we saw the number of people who are without work and when you equate them with the number of jobs that are available generally—let alone in particular locations—it does not add up. That means that people will be in the situation of having their hopes dashed in many cases. The fear, worry and disconnect that no matter what they do it will not make a change is the biggest disincentive that we have, and I think that is the major challenge. We have to overcome that.

The other element of the bill that I have a concern with is the treatment of the older unemployed. This is a particularly sensitive topic. We have many more people over 50 involved in the system and this bill changes the way people over 55 are treated and their requirement to engage. The information from the discussions we had through a number of inquiries is that in this cohort alone there is a need to work personally with individuals. In some cases these are people who have lost their work and have never been able, for whatever reason, to re-engage. I question where the evidence is to show that making their requirement tougher will work. I have seen the work of agencies who specialise in this area. They bring forward intensive support programs based on the individual's needs and background and do work hard with employers to make that linkage. That is the way that we should be moving as opposed to increasing their requirement for compliance, which is what this bill does.

There is a real opportunity. There are people who work specifically in this area. Certainly, the commissioner for the ageing, Susan Ryan, has a great interest in this area and is trying to focus very clearly on skills audits and encouraging people who are ageing to make sure that their respect in their own worth is maintained and that their value as an employee is made known across the community. We should be focusing more on that side of the equation rather than lifting their requirement for engagement to meet the requirements for a social security payment.

I do not disagree with mutual obligation. I do disagree in raising the punitive aspects, which this bill does. There is an opportunity for us to work effectively together to see that we have options in this area rather than going down a track which is based on penalty and savings. We should be looking at how we can invest more into the system and into the individual so that we link people with employment, encourage them into employment and, as Senator Lines spoke so passionately about, show respect to people in this situation. (Time expired)

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Mental Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to make a contribution on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill 2014. At the outset, I want to make it very clear that Labor supports measures that are designed to assist people into work. Any commentary to the contrary is simply not true. In government we introduced policies and reforms which were very effective at doing just that. We recognised that there is a need for government policy that assists people to find work—that there is a need to assist job seekers to obtain employment by supporting them and understanding their individual circumstances, their talents and their strengths. It is all about assisting people into employment not victimising these individuals.

As Senator Moore has so rightly said, we agree in the notion of mutual obligation. I think most Australians do. This is not a contested space. People know that income support is provided on the basis that employment cannot be found. I would say that the vast majority of Australians who are receiving income support are very desirous and keen to achieve employed status, and they know that receiving income support is an interim measure to assist them to feed themselves and their family, if they have one, whilst they go through this stage of their life.

As Senator Moore quite rightly said, the unemployment rate in our country at the moment is too high. In my part of Far North Queensland it is far too high. But to say that almost 15 per cent—and those figures are very volatile—of young people in my part of Far North Queensland are leaners devalues my community, and I absolutely defend my community against language that says that my community, to that level, is not attempting to find employment. The truth really is that the jobs are simply not there.

To come back to the bill though, Labor will not support punitive measures which put at risk vulnerable people, and we will draw a line when and where we believe the current government goes too far. And in this bill there are a number of elements where we believe the government has gone too far. Labor did this when we opposed this government's Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill 2014, which sought changes that would have seen the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people left without income and without options for up to eight weeks for each penalty. What does that do to people? If you take any income support off a young person, off a young parent, off an older person who is seeking employment and who has made a mistake and been penalised, what do they do? People just cannot work this out. What do they do if you take people off any payment for that long a period?

We are opposing this government's proposal for job seekers who are under 30 and on Newstart going without any payment. Nil money at all for six months. What does that do to the mental health of that young person and what does it do for their state of being accommodated? Labor have been clear: we will not support measures that impact on vulnerable people or that will make people vulnerable. It is totally unreasonable to expect people to survive with no money at all for six months and at the same time be required to meet activity tests such as the ludicrous proposal for job seekers to apply for 40 jobs per month. The government has backed down on this, now moving to 20 jobs depending on circumstances. I commend the small business sector, which has driven this campaign to make the government change its mind. What would happen in a town like mine, where young people are required to put in applications for 40 jobs every month? Small businesses would be swamped if that were to be pursued. I still have concerns about the proposal that you would now have to still apply for 20 jobs depending on the circumstances. People want the jobs—just have a look at the careers pages of the Cairns Postbut there are not many there.

We saw it again when this government sought to tighten the definition of 'reasonable excuse' with its Social Security (Reasonable Excuse—Participation Payment Obligations) (Employment) Determination 2014 (No. 1), which sought to change what matters the secretary must take into account when determining whether a job seeker has a reasonable excuse for participation failures. This was attempting to strip away protections for people with mental illness, people who do not have a safe place to live, people with literacy and language issues, people requiring treatment for their illness, people with drug or alcohol dependency, people subjected to domestic violence and sexual assault. Those were the people we had to protect via the actions we took earlier this year. These people are our most vulnerable job seekers, and yet this government wanted to disadvantage this group even further. But there are no guarantees that if Labor were to agree to the passage of this bill the government would not try again to the change the determination on 'reasonable excuse'. So while Labor agree in principle to the no-show no-pay principle for appointments contained in this bill, we do have some concerns regarding a number of measures contained within the legislation and we will be seeking amendments on a number of elements.

The first area of concern is the 'suspend until attendance' measure. The bill suspends payments for non-attendance at scheduled appointments until a job seeker actually attends a reconnection appointment rather than upon a job seeker saying that they will attend a reconnection appointment. Of course we want people to go to their reconnection appointments, to go to their appointments with their job service providers—of course we do—but there are some practical amendments that we will make that, frankly, will facilitate less non-compliance in the long run.

We will be making amendments that, firstly, will make the start date for non-attendance penalties commence from the date a person is actually notified of the non-attendance rather than the date of the non-attendance simply because people sometimes do not realise they have missed the appointment, and, secondly, that will provide a legislative basis for the government's stated intention that suspension will not apply where an appointment is not available within two days. These are practical and sensible amendments. They will ensure that people do not get breached for things that, frankly, the system cannot support them to do. If the system structure cannot accommodate the timetable for compliance, then surely the welfare recipient should not be penalised for doing so.

The bill proposes that from 1 July 2015 the government not pay back pay where a job seeker missed their initial scheduled appointment and did not have a reasonable excuse. We are not currently seeking amendments to remove this because we are of the view that the retention of Labor's reasonable excuse determination should act as an adequate safeguard in ensuring that vulnerable people are protected from payment suspension in cases where they are unable to attend their appointment through no fault of their own.

The bill outlines that a total of $161.1 million in savings over four years will be achieved. Labor is concerned that to achieve that level of savings the government is anticipating that there will be very high numbers of job seekers being breached and that they will not have to back pay them. We do want to mark down that concern—that is, that is a lot of money—and we will be watching closely to ensure that people are not being unreasonably penalised through the removal of a back pay provision.

The government is also seeking to remove the right to review a decision to suspend a job seekers' payment. Labor is seeking an amendment to remove this so that the status quo is maintained and job seekers are still able to have these decisions reviewed. This is the one element of the bill that I find most confusing. I cannot see what the government's motivation is for this element. Under principles of natural justice, surely the ability for someone to review a decision to suspend a payment should be sacrosanct. It should always be there and available so that if a mistake is made, and mistakes do happen, someone can go back and review the decision.

We are concerned that the bill seeks to remove the right to review a decision in which payments are suspended. We are concerned that that sets a dangerous precedent where people are denied their right to natural justice. We are concerned that it could be used to stop job seekers requesting a review of the decision not to back pay when they had a reasonable excuse for missing their appointment and that reasonable excuse has not been taken into account. We will not stand by and agree to the removal of job seekers' rights to seek a review which will have a financial impact on their lives. Whenever a government seeks to financially penalise people for noncompliance, it is only right and fair that those governments' decision-making processes are subject to review.

I want to go to the report brought down by the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, in particular the Labor senators' dissenting report. They note evidence provided by the National Welfare Rights Network with regard to the review process, and quote the National Welfare Rights Network, saying:

…restricting appeal rights on the basis that few people would exercise the right to appeal, or that the impact on people would be small, ignores the general unfairness. It also ignores the potential disengagement and undermining of a person’s relationship with DHS and employment services that can occur when a person cannot correct a decision, even if the financial loss was only temporary.

Jobs Australia was also quoted by the Labor senators of the committee. Jobs Australia were reasonably supportive of the bill, but they also submitted similar concerns about the removal of the ability for administrative review of the decision to suspend payments. The report quotes Jobs Australia, saying:

The denial of review rights reduces accountability in the system and may encourage less prudent decision-making … and we believe that any decisions that affect a person’s payments should be reviewable as a matter of principle.

I agree with Jobs Australia.

There are elements that Labor will seek to amend around the secretary's powers of delegation. But I really want to go to one element of the bill which, once again, I find astonishing, and it is the question of the over-55s part of the bill. The government is seeking to remove current concessions for over-55 Newstart, special benefit and parenting payment recipients in relation to their activity test for these payments. Labor is seeking an amendment to review this so that the status quo is maintained and that these payment recipients continue to receive concessions in relation to activity tests. Once again, I want to go to the Labor senators' dissenting report. They describe the current circumstance where:

… under subsection 502A(1) of the Social Security Act 1991, persons aged 55 years and over who are in receipt of an activity tested income support payment … may be deemed to have satisfied the requirements of the activity test where they have in the fortnightly payment period engaged in at least 30 hours’ approved voluntary work, a combination of voluntary and paid work, or, paid work.

We understand that it is the intention of the government that the current concessions received by job seekers aged 55 to 59 and receiving Job Services Australia's assistance will be removed by a legislative instrument. The next sentence in the Labor senators' dissenting report is quite understandable:

Submissions and evidence in opposition to this was overwhelming—

of course it was overwhelming—

and compelling arguments were outlined by almost all submitters—

including the Australian Association of Social Workers, who said:

… it was difficult to see justification for the proposed changes to the current arrangements for job seekers over 55 … due to the limited job opportunities for those particular jobseekers, and the suggestion that people would willingly retire on Newstart is strongly contested.

I agree. St Vincent de Paul supported their evidence in their submission. They talked about pervasive age discrimination. Unfortunately, pervasive age discrimination is still a reality in our country. Governments of all persuasions have tried many ways to encourage employers to employ people who are older. None of us have succeeded. Age discrimination is a reality that we live with, but to say that this is a group of the so-called leaners—people over the age of 55 who want to volunteer, be part of society and not be socially excluded; we know exactly what happens as soon as people are excluded—is extraordinary.

The Australian Law Reform Commission conducted an inquiry into Commonwealth legal barriers to older people participating in the workforce or other productive work. They decided against proposing any changes to the concessional activity test. The ALRC has argued that the concessional activity test requirement did not appear to be acting as a barrier to mature age participation and that it recognises the value of volunteering not only as a potential pathway to paid employment but also as a form of productive work in its own right.

Labor supports mutual obligation. We know that the best thing we can do to assist people who are unemployed is to assist them to get a job. The way to do it is the trick. My view is that the way to do it is to look at the evidence. The evidence is that people with disability want to work; people over 55 want to work; young people want to work. It is less than helpful for the member for Dawson to say that young people are just sitting around, or lying on a couch eating Twisties. I ask him to withdraw that comment. That is so hurtful to unemployed people, particularly young people.

The numbers of people who are persistently not attending the appointments are small in the scheme of things. That does not mean to say that we do nothing about it. What we need to do is to ascertain why those people are not attending their appointments. We know some of the reasons are to do with transport or to do with the person's mental health circumstances. We know that in many cases the reasons are to do with people's housing arrangements or to do with their literacy.

There are a group of people who are intergenerationally unemployed, and that is a cohort we need to work very closely with. Of course mutual obligation is agreed, but the obligation goes two ways. The obligation is on the job seeker to attend their appointments, to make sure they are doing what they have been asked to, but the obligation is also on a government, any government, to ensure that they do everything they can do to remove those barriers to participation—that transport services are provided, not necessarily by the Commonwealth but provided, and that we look after the health of job seekers. I commend Labor's amendments to this bill.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Three months ago, I spoke on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill 2014. Tonight, speaking on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Compliance Framework) Bill 2014, it feels a bit like Groundhog Day, because they are both essentially about the same thing—the Abbott government's desire to punish job seekers for being unemployed.

The government love punishing job seekers, because they need a scapegoat. They need someone else to blame for their failure to make significant progress towards their goal of creating one million jobs within five years. They have gone very quiet on that of late. We have not heard much about that of late from the other side. That is another broken promise, I presume. Finding someone else to blame is all they have left. That is because they cannot hide the problem—not that that has stopped them from trying.

We know from a report in March this year in The Australianwhich those on the other side, when they were in opposition, loved so often to quote from and to get their questions from—that advisers to the Minister for Employment, Senator Abetz, asked Treasury department officials to adjust jobs forecasts and add another 160,000 jobs to their projections. In a scene that could have come straight out of a script from Yes Minister, Senator Abetz spent $16,000 of taxpayers' money investigating his own office's attempts to interfere with Treasury jobs data. Funnily enough, though, the investigation found nothing and Senator Abetz refused to make the $16,000 report public.

So, without being able to hide the fact that they are falling short of their commitment to create one million jobs in five years, the government are seeking to blame job seekers for being jobless. The government just cannot accept that their own industry policies are failing to save Australian jobs—jobs in places such as Simplot, Electrolux, Caterpillar, Qantas, BP, Rio Tinto, Kellogg's, BHP, Arrow Energy, Forge, Alcoa, Asciano, Sensis and Caltex. They just refuse to accept that their cruel and unfair budget, which takes an axe to household incomes, is also very damaging to consumer confidence. We all know that consumer sentiment is very pessimistic, as I evidenced last week in a speech. They just cannot accept that it is their fault. The government will blame anyone but themselves for the failure to protect and create Australian jobs. So, according to the government's twisted logic, it must be the fault of the Australian job seekers. And the government will seek to punish job seekers for being unemployed, even though there are not the jobs there for them.

This was the reasoning behind the ridiculous proposal to make job seekers apply for 40 jobs a month—a proposal which was thankfully dumped, not because it would not assist one job seeker to get a job but because it would see businesses swamped with millions of job applications, and those on the other side had a backlash from employers about it. When Senator Abetz was asked on ABC's 7.30 program what job seekers would do in places where jobs are sparse, he replied:

When jobs are sparse, it means that you've got to apply for more jobs to get a job.

Well, if the jobs are not there, you cannot actually get the jobs. But this just typifies the arrogance of the government, who seem to think that, when a person is unemployed and cannot get a job, it is all the fault of that person. It is behind a philosophy contained in this bill—and the stronger penalties bill, which I spoke on in this place previously—that unemployed people are perfectly capable of getting jobs as long as you give them a hard enough kick up the backside; in other words, kick them while they're down.

Only a cruel and heartless government such as this one could come up with a policy as brutal as denying income support to job seekers under the age of 30 for six months of every year. This policy is not just brutal; it is also incredibly stupid. How is a job seeker expected to visit potential employers, post job applications and travel to appointments when they do not even have the money to feed, clothe or house themselves? How do they engage in their participation obligations when they do not have any money to travel? This embarrassing, heartless policy is going to place immense pressure on our emergency relief services and welfare agencies, let alone the friends and families of the unemployed young people who find themselves destitute for six months of every year.

It is enlightening to note that the financial impact statement for this bill outlines estimated savings of $161 million, which indicates that the government anticipates a large number of additional breaches without having to pay those job seekers back. Before I go on to the provisions of the bill, let me make it clear that Labor accepts without question that when a person receives a payment such as Newstart or youth allowance they have a responsibility to actively seek work and to demonstrate that they are serious about seeking work. We accept that in certain circumstances there should be penalties for job seekers who deliberately evade their obligations, but those are in the minority.

Labor introduced policies and reforms aimed at encouraging job seekers to attend appointments with their employment service providers because we know that this gives them a better chance of getting a job, but we do not support a regime that penalises job seekers for circumstances beyond their control or continues to penalise those who have demonstrated a willingness to re-engage with their participation obligations. Labor will always oppose measures that are unnecessarily punitive and put vulnerable job seekers at risk.

We may be able to support this bill with significant amendments, but not in its current form. Let me explain what this bill seeks to do and why I believe these measures are so unnecessarily harsh. Under the current arrangements the Department of Human Services can suspend the payment for certain participation failures, such as the failure to attend an appointment. The payment can be reinstated when the job seeker notifies the department of their intention to comply with the requirement and the job seeker can receive back pay for the period of their noncompliance. The bill seeks to treat non-attendance failures in the same way as other failures. This means an excuse for nonattendance will not be considered reasonable unless the job seeker gives prior notice or the department is satisfied that it would not be reasonable to expect them to give prior notice.

Through this bill the government is seeking to maintain the payment suspension until the job seeker has actually met the attendance requirement rather than just notified the department that they will do so. In other words, if a job seeker missed an appointment with their employment provider but was not considered to have a reasonable excuse, they would have to attend a reconnection appointment before they could have their payment reinstated. The bill also provides that a job seeker who does not have a reasonable excuse for missing an appointment, or does not give notice of a reasonable excuse, will not be back paid for the period of their noncompliance.

The explanatory memorandum to this bill states:

In practice job seekers would generally have the opportunity to attend a reconnection appointment with their employment provider within a short period of time and thereby have their payment reinstated quickly. Typically this would occur within one to two days of them contacting their provider …

This may typically occur within one or two days, but that would not always be the case. This measure raises a number of questions, like how would the decision to apply a penalty be communicated to the job seeker? If you are unemployed and you do not have access to a computer, do you have to wait for it to come by snail mail? These things have to be taken into account. How will the government make sure job seekers are notified in a timely manner so they have an opportunity to reconnect?

My colleague Ms Julie Collins, the shadow minister for employment, said over in the other place that she is aware anecdotally of job seekers who were unaware a breach had been applied until they tried to access their bank account on payday. And what if a job seeker is unable to attend a reconnection appointment? Also in the other place the member for Shortland, Jill Hall, said that she had assisted job seekers who were breached because of a car crash or because a family member had been rushed to hospital. These people had their payments reinstated—I acknowledge that—but what if a job seeker did not have a reasonable excuse for the breach and, because of circumstances beyond their control, was unable to reconnect?

Another provision of this bill applies to mature age job seekers. Currently job seekers aged 55 or over are taken to have satisfied an activity test if they are engaged in at least 30 hours per fortnight of approved voluntary work or paid work. However, the department can decide not to exempt them from an activity test due to the employment opportunities available to that person. The bill would allow the government to remove these concessions for a class of people through a disallowable instrument. The previous speaker, Senator McLucas, commented on this same topic. She said how astounding she thought it was, and I have to say that I agree with her. At the moment the government is proposing to do this for job seekers aged 55 to 59. Labor is concerned that older Australians would find meeting these activity tests more difficult given the reports of the age based discrimination faced by older workers, let alone, once again, the lack of job opportunities. I cannot wait to see those million jobs in five years!

Labor is firmly opposed to attempts by this government to transfer to employment service providers responsibility for decisions about whether job seekers have a reasonable excuse. Stakeholders have been very concerned at this prospect since it was raised and included in the exposure draft of the purchasing arrangements for employment services. The bill seeks to extend the secretary's powers of delegation, and we on this side are concerned that the government could use this provision to delegate its responsibilities to employment service providers. The problem with this is not just that it creates more work for employment service providers but such a move would shift responsibility to employment service providers for something which is clearly a function of government. The Department of Human Services already have the expertise to make these decisions; employment service providers do not, nor are they equipped to deal with the fallout of negative decisions against job seekers. They are overwhelmingly opposed to this measure, which would lead to their staff being subjected to abuse and would damage their relationship with job seekers. Simply as an occupational health and safety issue that has to be of concern. It would also make it more difficult for providers to support and assist job seekers to find a job.

The worst aspect of this bill is seeking to remove the right of review of a decision to suspend payments. This provision runs entirely contrary to the principle of natural justice. Being able to request a review of a decision of the Department of Human Services is a fundamental right of any income support recipient, including job seekers, and it should remain so. As I mentioned in my contribution to the stronger penalties bill, these more punitive arrangements against job seekers who have been breached will have a disproportionate effect on vulnerable job seekers.

In the last financial year, Centrelink applied 13,296 smaller daily no show, no pay penalties to job seekers with known vulnerability indicators. This included    4,019 with psychiatric problems or mental illness, 2,443 with a homelessness flag on their file, 393 released from prison, 286 who had experienced a recent traumatic relationship breakdown and 276 job seekers with a cognitive or neurological impairment. The no show, no pay penalties to job seekers with known vulnerabilities indicators included all of that and that is just atrocious.

Indigenous job seekers have traditionally been overrepresented among those penalised and in the same year, 11,915 smaller no show, no pay penalties were imposed on Indigenous job seekers, compared to 34,409 non-Indigenous job seekers. In other words, Indigenous jobseekers received a quarter of the no show, no pay penalties.

Labor will not support measures which are harsh and punitive and are going to further disadvantage vulnerable people. The rhetoric of this government when it comes to job seekers implies that they are lazy and unmotivated. The truth is unemployed people want a job. They want the comfort and dignity that comes with earning a decent living. Nobody wants to spend their life living on $35 a day. Not one unemployed person I know wants to spend their life living on $35 a day. The overwhelming majority of job seekers are doing the right thing or are at least trying to. And what happens? They get kicked because there are no jobs available for them to fill or they do not have the skills. Every Saturday, I look at the jobs in the Tasmanian newspapers and I do not know where Tasmanians are going to get a job. It has been mentioned that they could move away but I fail to see how moving away from family, community and a support base could help in any way, shape or form. As I said, the overwhelming majority of job seekers are trying to do the right thing.

For those who are not, for those who are deliberately, flagrantly avoiding their obligations, the Department of Human Services has the tools available to encourage them to comply. But this government is not talking about encouraging people to comply. They are talking about the stick and the carrot and taking the big stick to them. I find that completely unbelievable. What sort of Australia do we want to be? Do we want people to be penalised when there is not enough work out there and people are penalised, especially if they are under 30, by having no income for six months? There is a presumption on the other side and I can understand why—probably all of them would not have come from families where maybe there was not support available. To a large proportion of people in Australia there are no jobs available where they live and there is no family support available either. It is just going to make it so hard for people. I shudder to think how people will approach this sort of thing psychologically. I think we will damage many people and we should not be doing it. I for one do not support it.

This government's plans have the potential not just to punish those who are deliberately flouting the system but also to punish the vulnerable job seekers who are having a go as well. That is completely inappropriate. Some job seekers do make mistakes. Job seekers go through difficult circumstances. It is a very tough market out there.

There are 800,000 job seekers in Australia and fewer than 150,000 vacancies—that is, one in 4.5. It is not as though job seekers are not trying, but this government does not have plans to help them, nor do they have a plan to create jobs. They want to close down trade training centres, a great place for young people to learn some skills so that they are ready for the entry-level job market. This government does not encourage young people to get skills. I tend to think is it a bit like, 'We know where we want to be in society and we do not think anybody else should be able to get there.' All this government has a plan for is punishing job seekers, punishing those who cannot find work.

The punitive approaches contained in this bill and in the stronger penalties bill are typical of the arrogant attitude of the government that, if you do not have a job you are just not trying hard enough. So we will just kick you up the backside to make sure you find that job. Miraculously it is going to pop out of thin air for you if we kick you up the backside. Instead of focussing on punishing job seekers, this government should come up with an industry policy to create or save jobs, like they promised to do before the election?

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A lovely idea.

Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be a lovely idea, Senator Urquhart. As I said earlier, they have gone very quiet on the jobs front of late. We have not heard very much from that side so I am looking forward to hearing what they are going to do. Why do they not come up a policy that lends support to manufacturing, instead of scaring it away? Why do they not come up support to stop jobs being sent overseas such as the jobs in Qantas? Why do they not focus on creating services that help and support job seekers rather than punish them? Why do they not invest in higher education and instead of a deregulation agenda which puts a university degree out of the reach of the average Australian listen to the people? I was at an inquiry earlier this evening and unable to be at the vote but I was very pleased that the education reforms were voted down.

Unemployed Australians are this government's excuse—their alibi—for their failure to create jobs. They cannot recognise their own failures, so they blame the victims of the failures instead. Australian job seekers deserve a government— (Time expired)

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

I thank honourable senators for their contributions to this debate. To make it absolutely clear, we as a government are committed to creating the environment where every possible job opportunity can arise. That is why, as a government, we went to the last election with a program to get rid of the carbon tax, to get rid of the mining tax, to get rid of red and green tape and to introduce free trade agreements, and I am delighted to report to the Senate that all of those policy initiatives have now been implemented, and we are proceeding even further.

Senator Bilyk tells us in her contribution about government investing money. Can I simply say to those opposite, and anybody listening, that government has no money of its own. It either takes it out of the pocket of a fellow Australian to make the payment or it borrows it from elsewhere, which then requires a future government to take it out of the pockets of our fellow Australians to pay that debt off to whoever lent the money to the Australian government. So in all of these discussions, let us keep in mind that when the Labor Party talks about investment in this and investment in that, they are really saying, 'We want even greater borrowings' or, 'We want to tax the people even more.' And this is in a circumstance where we are borrowing $1,000 million per month just to pay the interest bill on existing borrowings. What we heard from those opposite was that they would increase that indebtedness even further, requiring even further borrowings not only for that but then for the following interest payments.

We, in the government, firmly believe that the best social welfare policy a government can deliver is a job. Everybody knows, or they should know, that if somebody is in gainful employment their physical health, their mental health, their self-esteem and their social interactions are all improved as is the health and wellbeing of everybody in the family unit. That is why we as government are so anxious to get people into jobs. Indeed, those opposite from time to time condemn the government's Work for the Dole program. I remember launching many of them under the Howard government, and when you launch them you see 20 long faces and 20 unhappy campers. But when you go to the graduation six months later, you see 20 smiling faces and people saying, as they have said to me, 'Eric, you know the only problem with Work for Dole is that it only goes for six months.' Indeed, just recently, I was in the electorate of the hardworking member for Dobell—and what a change it is to have a decent member for Dobell in Mrs Karen McNamara—and inspected a few Work for the Dole programs. The participants were absolutely delighted that they were engaged in meaningful activities; that they could reflect on their day knowing that they had made a positive contribution; that they had helped to improve a community amenity; and that they could reflect on their work that day and having made a positive contribution.

As a caring society, we look after those in need. We on this side are absolutely committed to that. But to achieve that you need a good healthy economy to make those payments. We, as a community, say quite rightly, 'If your luck is down, we will assist you.' An Australian would say in response, 'Thank you', to society. 'Thank you, my fellow Australians, for digging deeper in your pockets and providing me with assistance during this difficult period. I will therefore undertake my mutual obligation, which is to do everything I possibly can to gain employment.' As the Assistant Minister for Employment, the Hon. Luke Hartsuyker, said in the other place—and if I may, I commend his second reading speech; it was a very good one:

This bill will ensure that more job seekers in receipt of income support meet their mutual obligation requirements to attend scheduled appointments with their employment provider.

I have here some statistics. But before I get on to those, I remind Senator Bilyk, with respect to her contribution to this debate and how terrible she thought certain events had been in recent years and in recent times, that that was under the regime of the government of which she was a part. Now to the statistics: in the 2012-13 financial year, while 11.6 million compulsory appointments with employment providers were scheduled, a staggering 4.3 million of those appointments were not attended by job seekers. This is an attendance rate of only 63 per cent and a non-attendance rate of 37 per cent. In the 2013-14 financial year, we had 12.75 million compulsory appointments and, of these, 4.47 million were not attended by job seekers, which is a ratio of 65 to 35. In very rough terms, that is two-thirds to one-third. This sheer volume of missed appointments creates a huge burden and additional cost for the Department of Human Services and employment providers. It is an extra cost on our fellow Australians—the taxpayer. We have no difficulty with unemployment benefits and other benefits being paid where people are doing it tough. But when you have a situation of one-third of those on benefits breaking compulsory appointments, I say to Senator Bilyk and others who have a genuine heart for those doing it tough: keep in mind that there might be some that do play and game the system.

The example Senator Bilyk mentioned would have been exempted. For example, if somebody is involved in a car accident, of course they are exempt from these provisions and they do not form part of the statistic; they are removed from the statistic when they advise the employment provider that on the way to the appointment they were in a car accident—or a close relative died, or somebody had to be taken to hospital. All those examples are fully and absolutely catered for in the regime.

When you are in full-time employment, you are actually expected to turn up to work on time, to perform your duty, to be there between whatever the hours might be. When you are unemployed, to ask that you have an appointment once a month at a scheduled time is—with respect—not too much to ask. Therefore, we want to make sure that the provisions are somewhat tighter, to protect the taxpayer. But might I also say: I think we do the job seekers a service. It might be described as tough love, but there is no doubt that, if you push people into employment from time to time, they look back and say: 'We cannot believe how we survived during our period of unemployment without doing anything useful during our day'.

So this legislation is not motivated by wanting to punish people—the unfortunate language employed by some opposite. No, we just want a fair and reasonable system that is ultimately sustainable in the long term for our fellow Australians. Let's never forget that each single dollar of unemployment benefit is paid for out of the pocket of one of our fellow Australians.

Workers are expected to keep commitments like appointments in return for their wages; the same sort of standard should be expected of job seekers in receipt of taxpayer funded income support—to quote my colleague that honourable Luke Hartsuyker, the assistant minister.

Currently, a job seeker who has their income support payment suspended because they failed to attend an appointment can get that suspension lifted simply by indicating they will attend another appointment sometime in the future—that is, a person can simply say they will attend another appointment, even if they have no real intention of doing so, and still get their income support. We believe there should be more rigour in the system. This is not about punishment. This is about being fair to all, including the job seeker.

I could go on at some length, because this is a policy about which I feel very passionate: getting our fellow Australians back into employment. Sometimes this requires toughening up the legislation, especially in circumstances where roughly one-third of the unemployed cohort, regrettably, are not keeping their appointments. That comes at great extra cost to the taxpayer and great annoyance to the employment providers. We do those job seekers that failed to have a reasonable excuse no favours by allowing them to continue in that conduct.

The Australian Labor Party have indicated a number of amendments that are going to be moved in the committee stage. I have indicated to the Australian Labor Party that we can every now and then do a count. We understand that the numbers in this place require us to accept Labor's amendments for this legislation to get through. As a result, I do not think I will be an active participant in the committee stage. I will simply say that we do agree with all of Labor's amendments, albeit somewhat reluctantly, to enable the legislation to go forward. On that basis, I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.