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

This bill has a number of elements to it. Without any amendments, this is simply another attack on the most weak and vulnerable in this country. It is part of the coalition's 'lifters and leaners' approach—if you happen to fall into hard times then you are a leaner and if you are not out there in a job, if you are not a lifter then you are bludging on other people. That is not what it is like in real life for many, many Australians. This is part of the austerity approach from the coalition. This is about trying to get $161.1 million out of some of the weakest people in the community. This is about another back of the axe attack unless there are amendments. It is not sophisticated and it is a rough approach if unamended.

The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Job Seeker Compliance Framework) Bill 2014 seeks to amend the Social Security Administration Act 1999. It provides that from 1 January 2015 job seekers who miss an appointment with their employment service provider without a reasonable excuse will have their payments suspended immediately and it will only be reinstated when they attend a rescheduled appointment. It provides that from 1 July 2015 job seekers who have their payments suspended for failure to attend an appointment with their employment service provider without a reasonable excuse will not be back paid for that in the period in which they failed to attend an appointment.

It also provides that from 1 July 2015 the secretary of the department will have the power to specify by way of legislative instrument a class of job seeker aged over 55 who is not exempt from the activity test or other participation requirements, including voluntary work. It extends the delegation of powers of the secretary to include regulations and other instruments made under social security law. It also removes the rights of internal review and review by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal of decisions made by the secretary to suspend payments in specified circumstances. It also removes the right of internal review and review by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal of decisions made by the secretary to suspend payments in specified circumstances.

Under current job seeker compliance provisions contained within the act, the Secretary of the Department of Human Services can determine that job seekers in receipt of a participation payment may incur a payment suspension for participation failures such as the failure to attend an appointment. Payment can be reinstated when the job seeker notifies the secretary of their intention to comply with a reconnection requirement. In practice, this would be a commitment to attend an appointment with their job service provider.

The provisions in this bill mean that from 1 January 2015 a payment suspension for a participation failure would not be reinstated until the job seeker had actually attended an appointment with their employment provider, notwithstanding that an appointment may not be immediately available. The bill also contains provisions that from 1 July 2015 if a job seeker does not have a reasonable excuse for missing the first appointment or did not provide a reasonable excuse when they could have done so, the job seeker will not be back paid for the period of their noncompliance. Currently, once the period of suspension ends, the person receives back pay for that period regardless of whether or not their excuse was reasonable for missing an appointment in the first place.

Labor support the concept of mutual obligation. We acknowledge that job seekers have an obligation to actively seek work and the government has an obligation to support them and provide them with the opportunity to help them get into work. Labor support measures designed to assist people into work. However, Labor do not and will not support punitive measures which put vulnerable people at risk. That is why we opposed the Abbott government's Social Security Legislation Amendment (Stronger Penalties for Serious Failures) Bill 2014. That included changes that could have seen the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people left without income and without options for up to eight weeks at a time.

That is why Labor is also opposing the government's proposal for job seekers who are under the age of 30 and on Newstart going without any payment for six months of each year that they are unemployed. Labor's position is clear: we will not support measures that impact unfairly on vulnerable people. It is totally unreasonable to expect people to survive with no money at all for six months, let alone also being required to meet activity tests such as the government's proposal for job seekers to apply for 40 jobs per month.

We were pleased to see the government recently backed down on the '40 job applications per month' fiasco in the current request for tender for job services. But we note that the proposed 20 job applications per month measure will still generate in the order of 14 million job applications a month. Talk about red tape! That is one job application for every man, woman and child in the country every six weeks.

The government's proposed Newstart under-30s measures will leave more than 120,000 young Australians without income support for six months of each year that they are unemployed. The government has admitted this and it knows that this will have adverse outcomes. It is at odds with the government's own McClure welfare interim report, a report that said:

The system of sanctions should be progressive, with timely, lighter measures first.

I will just repeat that:

The system of sanctions should be progressive, with timely, lighter measures first.

Denying people any income for the first six months of their unemployment is not a lighter measure first. It is the back of the axe first.

We saw the government resort to punitive measures again when it sought to tighten the definition of a 'reasonable excuse' by way of legislative instrument. The Social Security (Reasonable Excuse - Participation Payment Obligations) (Employment) Determination 2014 (No. 1) sought to change what matters the secretary should take into account when determining whether a job seeker has a reasonable excuse for participation failures. This measure would have stripped away protections for people with mental illness, people who do not have a safe place to live, people with literacy and language issues, people requiring treatment for illnesses, people with drug or alcohol dependency and people who are victims of domestic violence and/or sexual assault. These people are the most disadvantaged job seekers and this government wanted to disadvantage them further.

It is no wonder people find it hard to trust this government when it comes to supporting people into jobs. So we are glad the Senate disallowed that determination. It makes us just that little bit more comfortable knowing that if some of the changes in this bill are to pass, vulnerable people will still have some protection from this mean and dishonest government. So, while Labor is agreeing in principle to the no-show, no-pay provisions contained in this bill, we do have some concerns regarding the practical implementation of these measures. We know that the government has form when it comes to trying to go too far in penalising job seekers, and I have outlined some of that overreach. The explanatory memorandum states:

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.

Our concern in relation to this measure centres on the phrase 'Typically this would occur within one to two days of them contacting their provider as prompted through payment suspension.' We are concerned about how, in practice, job seekers will be notified of their payment suspension, and we are concerned that this is done immediately so that the job seeker has the ability to make contact as quickly as possible. There are instances when job seekers are unaware of penalties having been imposed until they access their bank accounts on the usual payment day and find they have no money. That is when they make contact.

So my question is: how will job seekers be notified when they have been breached for missing an appointment under this measure, and how quickly? If job seekers are immediately suspended upon missing an appointment, and are not notified until some days later, or until they go to get funds, it is foreseeable that some job seekers may go some time with their payment suspended and not be able to get back pay. It may be much longer than two days before they know. Therefore, notice of a payment suspension needs to be provided as soon as the suspension is implemented, to give job seekers the opportunity to contact their employment service provider for a reconnection interview as soon as possible. We will not support job seekers going extended periods without any income support because they were not aware that they had breached their obligations and payments have been suspended. For these reasons we will be moving an amendment that will ensure that a non-payment period will not commence until the person whose payment is to be suspended is notified of their participation failure. We will also be moving an amendment to ensure that, in the event that a reconnection appointment is not available to a person within two business days of that person being notified of a breach, the suspension period will be lifted.

Labor are also concerned that the bill would remove the right to a review of a decision to suspend payments. We are concerned that this sets a dangerous precedent in which people are denied their right to natural justice. We are concerned that it will be used to stop job seekers requesting a review of a decision not to back-pay where they had a reasonable excuse for missing their appointment and where their reasonable excuse had not been taken into account. Labor do not and will not agree to the removal of a job seeker's right to seek a review of decisions which have a financial impact on their lives.

Whenever a government seeks to penalise people for noncompliance, it is only right and fair that those government decision-making processes are subject to review. This is particularly the case where job seekers could be going without payment for some time. As the payment of back pay from 1 July 2015 will be contingent on job seekers being found to have had a reasonable excuse for nonattendance at an appointment, it is important that the decision is subject to review. For these reasons, Labor will move an amendment in the committee stage to ensure that review rights are retained.

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 to that person. Similar provisions apply to recipients of parenting payments who are 55 and over. 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 be looking for full-time work instead of making a valuable contribution in the voluntary sector. Labor are 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 subject to is real and can impact on their wellbeing. We are also concerned that the materials accompanying the bill give 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. For these reasons, Labor will move an amendment in the committee stage to remove these provisions from the bill.

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 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 administration act only provides for secretarial powers under the act to be delegated to an officer, the Chief Executive of Centrelink or an employee of an Australian government department. The explanatory memorandum states that the main impetus for this amendment relates to recent legislative instruments made under part 2.16A of the Social Security Act 1991 which relate to the job commitment bonus and which will require secretarial powers to be exercised by persons other than the secretary from 1 July 2015.

Neither the bill nor any of the accompanying materials provide any explanation of why the secretary would need blanket powers of delegation, well beyond matters in relation to the job commitment bonus, including delegation of powers under legislative instruments having no relationship with the job commitment bonus. 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 instrument. Any secretarial powers exercised either in person or by delegation under part 2.16A are those exercisable by the employment secretary, not the Secretary of the Department of Human Services. For these reasons, Labor will be moving in the committee stage to omit the proposed extension of the secretary's powers of delegation to legislative instruments.

To conclude, Labor believes that the government needs to focus its attention away from increasing penalties and making life harder for job seekers, and towards having a credible jobs plan. The member for Eden-Monaro in the other place said in a speech in September, which was reported in the Financial Review,that the government needs to focus on reforms including:

… creating a "desperately" needed jobs plan …

Given all of the above, it is Labor's intention to move amendments that will address these concerns, and I trust the chamber will support them. The amendments will be moved in opposition to the government's attempt to remove review rights in respect of the payment suspension decisions. Labor support the second reading of this bill. Subject to the outcomes of the committee stage, we reserve our rights in respect of the third reading.