Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

Can I ask the assistant minister, as it is under his—

Mr Pyne interjecting—

I am very courteous to my colleagues. You are rarely courteous to your own, that is obvious, Member for Sturt, Minister for Education.

Can I go back to some of the comments made by the assistant minister with respect to the principle of mutual obligation. The principle of mutual obligation commenced in the early nineties under Working Nation in the Keating years. It was embraced fully by the Howard government. Mutual obligation—namely, that undertakings are expected of job seekers and in receipt of those undertakings being complied with a modest income would be provided—has been a bipartisan position for more than 20 years. That in receipt of a modest level of income to provide modest support for people, there would be an expectation to fulfil requirements, including of course, firstly, to look for work, but also to engage in activities that would increase the likelihood of that job seeker finding employment. What the assistant minister has now just said is that, notwithstanding the fact that young people under the age of 30 who are job seekers and are work ready will be expected to fulfil requirements, they will not get any support of a financial nature from this government. That, I would say to this place, is the tearing up of a compact between the Commonwealth and job seekers that has been in existence and has been bipartisan for more than 20 years. The compact is, of course, the principle of mutual obligation. You are provided some modest level of support and in doing so you must fulfil your obligations to look for work.

Labor has always believed that if you receive an income like Newstart to look for work you must look for work. I as the former minister in this area believed if you do not look for work and had no reasonable excuse in not looking for work your income could well be suspended and should be suspended until you re-engage. This minister, however, seems to think it is quite okay for the Commonwealth to abrogate their responsibility to Australian job seekers by providing no support for the first six months and yet require those same job seekers to undertake activities. So I ask the assistant minister two questions in light of that. Firstly, does he believe that the principle of mutual obligation continues, even though for those job seekers under the age of 30, they will receive nothing for six months, even if they look for work every day, every week, every month for six months? The second question I would like to put to him is: given that the Work for the Dole program has only been funded for $14.9 million over two years for Work for the Dole in 18 areas, what are those job seekers, if they survive the first six months and are still unemployed, who are not in those 18 priority areas going to do, given that the government's rhetoric is that if they have done six months without finding work you have to undertake Work for the Dole? I would like to know the answer to that. Firstly, why are you tearing up the principle of mutual obligation?

See this speech in context