Bridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to rise and speak in support of this increase—a very modest increase, but an increase nonetheless. It's a step in the right direction, one I've long advocated for with many others in this place. I understand that there are a range of views on raising the rate. However, this increase is much needed and one that I fully support. It's the first raise in what we now call JobSeeker since the early nineties, which was around the time that I finished school. As we've already heard, this is the single biggest year-on-year increase to the rate of unemployment benefit since 1986, an increase of 9.7 per cent between 1 April last year and 1 April this year. We've also heard that this increase is an investment of $9 billion, which is not an insubstantial amount, and, if we want a safety net, we do need it to be sustainable. This increase is a start in balancing the need to support Australians who need our help and also ensuring that our social security system can be maintained for decades to come.

Before I go on, I do want to acknowledge Minister Ruston for her work in bringing about this change. The minister has worked diligently to ensure an increase has been possible. It's no secret that I've been advocating for an increase since I was elected, and I thank the minister, who has always been prepared to meet with me, listen to me and work with me on this issue. It is important to point out that, for all the grandstanding we hear from Labor, Labor did not deliver on this in their own time in government.

Whilst the coalition government is working to deliver some change, I still believe there is much more work to be done. You've heard me say it in this House before, but it bears repeating again: we can't and we won't move the dial on long-term unemployment or intergenerational unemployment if we don't have wider reform—in particular, reform that addresses the barriers preventing a JobSeeker recipient looking for or accepting meaningful work, such as access to child care; reliable transport; mental and physical health challenges; trauma; and disadvantage. The consequent changes to mutual obligation are, in my view, very unhelpful. There is an opportunity to ensure that we look at how mutual obligation can be a more useful tool for those seeking work, rather than the increasingly meaningless burden it puts on both the potential employer and the potential employee. I fail to see how encouraging jobseekers to apply for jobs that they are in no way able to fill is helping anyone.

Last year I spoke to a local business that epitomises some of the many challenges that both jobseekers and employees are facing. After advertising for a machinery operator position, the business received almost 100 applications, the majority of them just fulfilling the mutual obligation requirement to apply for a job. After much time spent sorting through applicant after applicant, three were selected to come in and interview for the job. Further challenges were then presented, with one applicant disclosing an addiction problem, another applicant having a significant health challenge that would leave them unable to perform all the duties required of the position, and the third applicant, who was successful in being hired for the position, leaving the role after just a few weeks due to considerable mental health challenges. After all this time and effort, it was back to the drawing board. This is an example of an issue I heard several times from employers across a variety of industries in Northern Tasmania. There are some jobs there, but there are not people suitable to fill them.

While I certainly accept that there are a portion of jobseekers who don't want to engage, they make up an incredibly small minority of jobseekers. So where's the gap? When we talk about making someone job ready, what does this really mean? It needs to be about ensuring that someone is ready, beyond just having skills. What are the other barriers that may stop them from accepting work? We can't be expected to fix every challenge faced by an individual when they're looking for work. But, when many of our population who need employment and want employment are bumping into one or more roadblocks, I do believe that as a government we have a responsibility to address some of the broader issues.

I've spoken in this place before about a group of diverse constituents whom I met with in 2019, very shortly after I was elected. Levi, Sue, Merridee, Abbey, Maddi and Terry are all participants in the Skills for Education and Employment program in Launceston who came to me to raise the issues they faced as Newstart recipients looking for work. They raised the issue of mandated appointments with job agencies, which are seemingly nothing more than a box-ticking exercise. The issue of transport and the often prohibitive cost of personal transport prevent jobseekers from accessing employment and job-seeking services, particularly in a regional area like Northern Tasmania. Public transport is an option, but it's certainly not as robust a system as you would find in a major city, which leaves many jobseekers stuck, particularly when a number of job listings advise that those reliant on public transport need not apply.

Accessibility issues surrounding mobiles and internet services are also challenges that were raised with me by this group and have been raised by others. Jobseekers are required to be available at set times by phone for appointments with service providers, to apply for jobs online or to complete their Centrelink reporting obligations. These are acceptable requests. But they do present a challenge to those who can't afford this technology on a regular basis. Perhaps this is an area where we could look to be more flexible or offer more flexibility. It also sends a message to jobseekers that their time is not valued.

It also needs to be said that this area is an incredibly complex policy space. No matter the government, when it comes to addressing the challenges, we seek to apply a broad policy to fit a group of people that just aren't homogeneous. Certainly, someone living in a small rural or regional town will see their rent assistance go further than someone living in a metropolitan city. By the same token, someone on government assistance will likely see their budget for food extend further if living in the city, compared to someone buying groceries in a small town. There are individual people with individual needs, and a one-size-fits-all policy is not going to fit all. You are always going to have those who will be worse off than others. We have to look at striking a balance between support for unemployed Australians and incentives to work, and we are making some headway.

This bill does include a permanent reform to increase the amount of money that jobseekers can earn before they lose a cent of their payment—up to $150 a fortnight. I've had a number of discussions with constituents in my electorate on this issue during my community catch-ups recently, and I know this permanent reform will make a difference. Temporarily extending the waiver of the one-week ordinary waiting period for certain payments until 30 June is also welcome.

Some people might move on and off JobSeeker a number of times throughout their working life, but, for those who are on it long-term or where there is intergenerational disadvantage, we have to examine why. This raise is a welcome step in the right direction to lifting Australians in need, but I will continue to advocate for further reform to ensure that we can support people to gain meaningful employment.

See this speech in context