Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment Participation) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the amendments. The amendments would fundamentally alter the intention of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Employment Services Reform) Bill 2008. The amendments would contradict the intentions of the government to improve opportunities for job seekers in this country. I have to refute the assertions made by the shadow minister that the changes would not be suited to all circumstances. In fact, the employment services model proposed by the government is a demand driven system. It will focus on the particular needs of job seekers. That is why we have removed the complexity and the levels of red tape that have become a great burden for providers. Instead of having providers focused on job seekers, we have a current arrangement that has those providers focused on accounting for their expenditure and spending all of their time reporting rather than dedicating their efforts towards helping job seekers.

We have had to streamline the way in which the services operate. We have seven programs which bear very little resemblance to each other. As a result, it is a very difficult task for employers to navigate their way through the programs to match their needs with job seekers who are looking for work. There is certainly a lack of coherence around the arrangements. That is partly due to the fact that the previous government, rather than making substantive reforms when required, just continued its tack of small changes and therefore did not really fundamentally tackle the problems.

What I have said all along, and will continue to say, on behalf of the government is that these proposals will improve the opportunities for job seekers. The job seeker classification instrument will allocate people according to their needs. There will be four simple streams in the process. Those streams will be based on relative needs of job seekers. There will be a broader notional account, the Employment Pathway Fund, which will replace the job seeker account. As we also know, in combination with this particular bill there is to be a great deal more resources provided for job seekers who are undergoing training, particularly accredited training. Why do we need that? We have been told by employers that we need a work-like culture in this area. They believe that the current arrangements do not provide for the needs of employers and do not assist employers matching up with job seekers. So we have, on the one hand, much greater access to accredited training, which is determined by an employer driven system through Skills Australia. That runs alongside the new compliance arrangement—and that is why I do refute the assertions made by the member opposite—which also provides a work-like culture.

The member opposite’s main charge, I would have to say, is that the arrangements that we would put in place would prevent early intervention. That could not be further from the truth. The fact is that the no-show, no pay culture intervenes early in the failure to participate by a job seeker. But the intervention is a measured response. The problem at the moment is that there is a letter in the mail to provide one warning but there is no penalty whatsoever. Then there is a second letter in the mail, which is hopefully read by the job seeker, but again no penalty whatsoever. Then you have the third strike of an irreversible, eight-week non-payment period. As I have indicated in the summing up, that has lead to all sorts of adverse consequences and it certainly has not led to the likelihood of those job seekers finding work. But I can tell you this: it has lead to greater evictions of people from their homes, particularly people whose accommodation is precarious, and it has lead to allowing people who have diagnosed mental illnesses to be placed in more difficult circumstances. Indeed, the eight-week non-payment period does not require any form of participation whatsoever by the job seeker, so it does not even ensure greater engagement in order to get off welfare and into work. So, for a whole host of reasons, this bill is required. It brings substantive changes to the outdated, red tape ridden Job Network system and it will be a better thing for job seekers, a better thing for employers and a much better thing for this country.

See this speech in context