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

by leave—I move amendments (1), (6), (7) and (10) together on sheet 7261:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item.

[delegation]

(6) Schedule 1, page 6 (line 2), omit the heading.

[people 55 and over]

(7) Schedule 1, items 13 to 19, page 6 (line 3) to page 7 (line 8), to be opposed.

[people 55 and over]

(10) Schedule 2, page 11 (lines 1 to 6), to be opposed.

[delegation]

I am compelled to deal with some of the issues that Senator Abetz raised in his speech summing up the second reading debate. Labor agrees that people who have the capacity, the health and the will to work should be helped to get employment. We have always been a party absolutely committed to employment

In moving these amendments, I will go to some of the issues that have been raised. I seek at the moment to deal with amendments (1) and (10).

Senator Abetz indicated that the government were concerned about jobs. I must say, if the government were fair dinkum about jobs, they would not have chased Toyota and Holden out of the country, getting rid of some of the most skilled jobs in the country and they would not be doing side deals with the Japanese government to send our biggest Defence project to Japan. They would be building the skills for this country. If we had job creation and actually a real plan from the government, not just a three-line slogans about carbon tax, mining tax and free-trade agreements, then many of the issues that we are talking about here would be moot points because people would have access to jobs.

I was on the Senate select committee on new taxes when Labor was in government. The information we had about the mining industry was that the mining industry had about 80 years of easily recoverable minerals available in terms of iron ore. Now that they are going even faster, we will get 70 years. And now people say that that will be even less. There will be plenty of people here with grandkids, plenty of people here with kids who will still be in the workforce when we will have run out of iron ore. So we need a jobs plan.

It is interesting to note that the member for Eden-Monaro, Mr Peter Handy, also called on his own government to create a jobs plan. This jobs plan that the minister was talking about, obviously, is not clear to the Labor Party or to, I assume, other senators in this place and definitely not to the public. So in relation to these two points, amendments (1) and (10) omits item 1 of schedule 2 of the bill and item 4 of the commencement table in clause 3.

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 1999 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 Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 only provides for secretarial power under the act to be delegated by an officer, the Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink or an employee of an Australian government department. The explanatory memorandum states:

The main impetus for this amendment relates to recent legislative instruments made under the social security law which relate to the Job Commitment Bonus, as these contain Secretarial powers that will need to be exercised, other than by the Secretary personally, from 1 July 2015.

These powers would relate to legislative instruments made under part 2.16A of the Social Security Act 1991. Neither the bill nor any of the accompanying materials provide any explanation as to why the secretary would need blanket powers of delegation, including powers under legislative instruments. 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 instruments. Any secretarial powers exercised either in person or by delegation under part 2.16A out of those exercisable by the employment secretary, not the secretary of the Department of the Human Services.

Labor believes that item 1 of schedule 2 of the bill is unnecessary and if allowed to stand as printed will have unforeseen consequences in relation to the proper delegation of secretarial powers not only under the administration act but under part 2.16A of the 1991 act. I acknowledge what Senator Abetz has indicated that he supports these amendments—even though it is under duress. He will not oppose. On that basis, I formally move amendments (1) and (10).

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, you have not yet spoken to amendment (6).

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

I was dealing with amendments (6) and (7). What I thought I indicated earlier was that I would deal with amendments (1) and (10) together and then amendments (6) and (7) together because they are both related.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: But we will have to deal with (1) first because (10) is a separate question. What I propose to do is put the question that (1) be agreed.

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

As I indicated in my second reading contribution, the Greens will be supporting these amendments. We still do not think that they get the bill over the line for us but we think they do improve the bill so we will be supporting them.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Thank you Senator Siewert, I do appreciate your advice. The question is that amendment (1) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: We will now move to amendment (10). The question is that amendment (10), being schedule 2, stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

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

Mr Temporary Chairman, could you put that question again.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: I do apologise. I will put that question again. The question is that amendment (10) being schedule 2 on page 11 (lines 1 to 6) stand as printed.

Question negatived.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: We will now move to (6), being schedule 1 on page 6, line 2.

On the issue of (6) and (7), these are legislative instruments for the over 55s. What (6) and (7) do are to omit items 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19 from the bill. These provisions will, if passed, commence on 1 July 2015.

The government argues that the measures are required to ensure that mature-age job seekers are participating in the workforce rather than being dependent on income support. 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 for that person.

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 look for full-time work instead of making a valuable contribution in the voluntary sector. Labor is 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 subjected to is real and can impact on their wellbeing.

We are also concerned that the materials accompanying the bill gives 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. While in principle it is reasonable to extend appropriate job search requirements to older people who are unemployed, Labor believes that the bill does not take into account the greater difficulties older people have in securing employment, given widespread discrimination against older workers.

I understand you will be taking (6) and (7) separately, Mr Chairman?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Correct. The question then is that amendment (6), being schedule 1 on page 6, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Now we move to (7), being schedule 1 and items 13 to 19. The question is that those items stand as printed.

Question negatived.

Mr Chairman, are we now up to the amendments?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: We are. We have dealt with (1), (6), (7) and (10).

Okay. I move:

(2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (before line 10), before subsection 42SA(2A), insert:

  (2AA) If:

  (a) a participation payment is not payable to a person for a period (the non-payability period) under subsection (2) because of the person's failure to attend an appointment with the person's employment provider; and

  (b) on a day (the relevant day), the Secretary requires the person to attend a rescheduled appointment with the person's employment provider; and

(c) the rescheduled appointment is on a day that is more than 2 business days after the relevant day;

then, despite subsection (2), the non-payability period is taken to end under that subsection at the end of the relevant day.

Note 1: The requirement to attend the rescheduled appointment will be a reconnection requirement or further reconnection requirement.

Note 2: For business day, see section 2B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.

This is that a payment suspension period reconnection appointment is to be available within two business days. This amendment inserts a new subsection 42SA(2AA). This is an amendment to subsection 42SA of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, which inserts a new subsection to require that a payment suspension imposed following a determination by the secretary under section 42SA(1) must be lifted if a reconnection appointment cannot be made available within two business days of the person having undertaken to attend a rescheduled appointment.

The opposition understands that it is the government's intention that a reconnection requirement will be made available to a person whose payment has been suspended within two business days of the beginning of the suspension period. The explanatory memorandum states this intention quite clearly:

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.

We are concerned that this intention is insufficient. Labor is concerned that the bill does not include a legislative requirement for the suspension to be lifted if an appointment cannot be rescheduled within two days. Under the bill as it stands, the intention that it will occur will be given effect through administrative arrangements only. Administrative arrangements do not guarantee that the two-date limit will actually end up being what is put in place or that it will not be changed at a later date.

Small changes to the administrative arrangements could significantly alter the practical effect of this bill, and it is appropriate that the parliament retain oversight of enough of the settings to guard against the possibility that a reasonable sanction regime could be turned into an oppressive and harmful one. This amendment ensures that a reasonable sanction regime cannot be turned into an oppressive and harmful one.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: The question now is that amendment (2) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Now we are moving to amendment (3).

I move:

Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 17), after item 8, insert:

8A At the end of section 42SA

  Add:

(4) The Secretary must notify the person of a determination under subsection (1). The Secretary may do so in any way that the Secretary considers appropriate.

This relates to the non-payment of participation payments where the secretary must notify persons of a determination. It inserts a new subsection (4) in section 42SA. This amendment inserts a new subsection, 42SA(4), into the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, to require the secretary to notify a person that the secretary has made a determination under subsection (1) that a payment is not payable to the person due to a participation failure.

While it is currently the case that a person in respect of whom a determination under subsection (1) has been made is notified of the determination under the administrative arrangements, there is presently no statutory duty on the secretary to do so. Because of the scheme in relation to non-payment periods being put in place under this bill, particularly in relation to when non-payment periods will commence, it is important that the secretary now carries a statutory duty to notify a person that a participation payment will not be payable because of participation failure.

This amendment is also consistent with amendment (9), which if carried will provide that, for the purpose of calculating the maximum penalty amount for a non-attendance failure, the non-attendance failure penalty period will begin on the day the person is notified by the secretary that a determination under the subsection has been made. In relation to the method by which the secretary will notify a person, we expect that that will be made by the usual means—that the person concerned would receive notifications from Centrelink. If a person has an expectation they will be contacted by phone, SMS, email or letter, then that will be the method by which the secretary will notify them. In any event, notification should be by the most timely and effective method possible in the circumstances of the case.

Question agreed to.

I move opposition amendment (4):

(4) Schedule 1, items 10 and 11, page 4 (lines 26 to 30), to be opposed.

This amendment relates to non-payment periods and merits review. This amendment omits items 10 and 11 from the bill. The amendment to the bill to omit item 10 would amend the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to remove the right of a person to seek an internal review pursuant to section 129 of a decision pursuant to section 42SA(1) or the new subsection 42SA(2A) proposed in the bill. Similarly, the amendment omits item 11 which would amend the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to remove the right of a person to seek a review of a decision of the secretary under section 42SA(1) or section 42SA(2A) by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, pursuant to section 144 of the act.

Under section 42SA(1) the secretary may determine that a participation payment is not payable to a person if they fail to participate in a participation activity they are required to undertake or they fail to attend an appointment they are required to attend or they fail to comply with a reconnection requirement. There is a range of issues relating to this amendment that I have dealt with to some extent in my speech in the second reading debate. On that basis, I simply seek the movement of this non-payment period.

Question negatived.

I move opposition amendment (5):

(5) Schedule 1, item 12, page 5 (lines 9 and 10), omit subitem (3).

Amendment (5) goes to the issue of merits review. It omits subitem 12(3) from the bill. This amendment omits from the bill a provision dealing with the commencement of items 10 and 11. This amendment is consequential to amendment (4) in relation to the removal of merits review rights.

Question agreed to.

I move opposition amendment (8):

(8) Schedule 1, item 24, page 9 (lines 5 to 7), omit "period for which the participation payment is not payable under subsection 42SA(2) because of the person's failure referred to in paragraph 42SA(1)(b) or (ba)", substitute "non-attendance failure penalty period".

This amendment goes to the issue of the failure penalty period. It amends item 24 of the bill. The amendment omits the words 'period for which the participation payment is not payable under subsection 42SA(2) because of the person's failure referred to in paragraph 42SA(1)(b) or (ba), and substitute "non-attendance failure penalty period"'. This change is consistent with the wording of proposed subsection 42T(3B) in amendment (9).

Question agreed to.

I move opposition amendment (9):

(9) Schedule 1, item 24, page 9 (after line 11), after subsection 42T(3A), insert:

  (3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A), the non-attendance failure penalty period is the period:

  (a) beginning on the day the person is notified by the Secretary of the determination under subsection 42SA(1); and

  (b) ending on the day the period under subsection 42SA(2) ends.

Amendment (9) goes to the issue of payment suspension—failure penalty period to begin on the day the secretary notifies of the determination. It inserts a new subsection 42T(3B). This amendment to the subsection requires that the first day for which a participation failure penalty is calculated is the day on which the secretary notifies a person of the secretary's determination under subsection (1) that a participation payment is not payable as a result of noncompliance with a participation penalty. Again, I dealt with these issues in my speech in the second reading debate. I think that what this amendment is all about is well understood.

Question agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.