Karen McNamara (Dobell, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today in support of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Further Strengthening Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2015. This bill builds upon the successful reforms under the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Act 2014. The 2014 act has at its centre a no-show no-pay principle encouraging job seekers to attend their appointments with job service providers. The reforms proposed in last year's bill have proven effective. In 2013-14 only 65 per cent of job seekers who missed their first appointment attended their second rescheduled appointment. In stark contrast, in June 2015 over 90 per cent of job seekers attended a second rescheduled appointment.

The success of last year's reforms have seen more job seekers placed in paid employment. Importantly, last year's reforms have also reduced red tape and compliance requirements for employment service providers. The reduction of red tape for employment service providers has been attained through the fact that with more job seekers now attending appointments in the first instance, there is a reduction in these service providers requiring follow-up action regarding non-attendance.

This bill also seeks to amend the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to support measures introduced in the 2015-16 budget to strengthen the job seeker compliance framework. This is achieved by providing stronger consequences for job seekers who fail to meet their mutual obligation requirements. Such consequences are also made more immediate under this bill. This bill also simplifies the methods of compliance to ensure that job seekers better understand their mutual obligation requirements.

The provisions outlined in this bill will take effect from 1 July 2016 and contain a number of key factors. One of the significant amendments within this bill is the requirement for an employment pathway plan. The policy around the development of an employment pathway plan is one of common sense. To best position a job seeker for employment, their individual circumstances must be taken into account. Should a job seeker fail to enter into an employment pathway plan, the participation payment may not be made until the job seeker complies with a further opportunity to enter into a plan. If the job seeker does not have a reasonable excuse for not entering into an employment pathway plan, a penalty amount may be deducted from their payment. An employee does not receive payment for not working, so why should someone supported by the taxpayer be paid for doing nothing in return? The same standards of behaviour expected of employees in the workplace should be expected of job seekers in receipt of taxpayer funded income support. Of note is that currently there is no financial penalty imposed for refusal to enter into an employment pathway plan, despite it being a compulsory component to receive participation payments. It is the immediacy of the penalty which is a significant improvement in this bill.

The engagement of job seekers within the job market is another improvement in this bill. When a job seeker fails to engage in job-seeking activities such as training, or programs such as Work for the Dole, the penalty amount would be deducted from the instalment period in which the failure occurs. Job seekers who fail to actively engage in job-seeking activities will receive a penalty in proportion to the action on which they have failed. Put simply, job seekers who fail to participate in job-seeking activities will be penalised in the same instalment period in which they failed. Additionally, when a job seeker fails to undertake an appropriate search for work, their payment may not be payable until an adequate search is resumed. Once there is a demonstrated effort to find employment, job seekers will then receive full back-payment of the penalised amount. Under the current system, job seekers may receive full income support for up to 14 weeks, even if they are failing to conduct an adequate search for employment. This is unacceptable. Income support is designed as a support—it is a hand up when looking for employment, not a handout for nothing in return. Let us not forget that, with eight out of 10 taxpayers currently footing the welfare bill, those receiving payments owe it to Australian taxpayers to meet their employment-seeking obligations. These changes will ensure that there is no opportunity for some individuals to take advantage and be seen to bludge whilst receiving the taxpayer's dollar. Getting people into paid employment is and will always be this government's ultimate goal.

Also included in this bill is provision to ensure ongoing, proactive and enthusiastic job search efforts. Taxpayers' and the community's expectations are that offers of suitable employment should signal the end of income support. However, some job seekers are continually declining these offers. When a job seeker refuses or fails to accept an offer of suitable employment without a reasonable excuse for failure, the eight-week penalty period for failure will no longer be waived by simply demonstrating a re-engagement in job seeking. In 2013-14, around 78 per cent of eight-week non-payment period penalties for failing to engage in job-seeking activities were waived. This bill ensures that this period is not waived and that a strong deterrent is in place for those job seekers who elect to not work.

Unfortunately, in many circumstances and instances, jobs being refused by job seekers are ones that they are capable of doing. The jobs offered are not beyond a person's skill set and do not present a health or safety risk. More often, they are specifically targeted and offered in consideration of personal circumstances. Perhaps more alarming than job seekers refusing positions that they have the capacity and capability to fill are the reasons these job seekers provide for refusal. It is not good enough to refuse job offers and provide excuses such as that it would interfere with holiday plans, that the work is beneath them or that too much effort is required; it is totally unacceptable.

In a similar vein to job seekers being penalised for not showing up to appointments, those that show up but behave inappropriately will also be penalised and made accountable for their conduct. If an employee conducted themselves in an inappropriate manner, they would be suitably penalised by their employer. Therefore, why should those on income support expect payment for conducting themselves inappropriately whilst seeking employment?

As of March this year there were 5,359 people in my electorate of Dobell who were registered as unemployed. I acknowledge that amongst the 5,359 there are any number of families struggling to pay bills, to put food on the table or to provide financially for their children. The majority of job seekers do the right thing and they are genuinely seeking employment—they want to work. On a positive note, as of June this year Dobell has seen a reduction in registered unemployed persons to 4,687. I am not going to say that the government's reforms of last year to strengthen job seeker compliance are the sole reason for this decrease. However, I am going to proudly emphasise that this government is evidently getting more unemployed people re-engaged in the workforce. The change in attitude towards addressing unemployment between the previous Labor government and this government has now seen taxpayer funds no longer available as a permanent income stream. Rather, welfare payments are a support system to assist more job seekers into paid employment.

While there need to be penalties in place to address those who reject suitable employment, there is, of course, leniency in cases of hardship or difficult circumstances. This government acknowledges that sometimes circumstances change. I am sure that many in our community have faced personal difficulties at one point or another, which is exactly why the penalty for failure to accept a suitable job offer is waived if the job seeker is not able to undertake additional activities or if the penalty imposed would cause financial hardship. This provision takes into account those in our community undertaking caring duties and the many other situations which require support due to lack of paid employment.

The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Further Strengthening Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2015 also simplifies the existing compliance framework and assists job seekers in understanding what is required of them when receiving income support.

Debate interrupted.

See this speech in context