Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Hansard source

I thank honourable senators for their contributions to this debate. To make it absolutely clear, we as a government are committed to creating the environment where every possible job opportunity can arise. That is why, as a government, we went to the last election with a program to get rid of the carbon tax, to get rid of the mining tax, to get rid of red and green tape and to introduce free trade agreements, and I am delighted to report to the Senate that all of those policy initiatives have now been implemented, and we are proceeding even further.

Senator Bilyk tells us in her contribution about government investing money. Can I simply say to those opposite, and anybody listening, that government has no money of its own. It either takes it out of the pocket of a fellow Australian to make the payment or it borrows it from elsewhere, which then requires a future government to take it out of the pockets of our fellow Australians to pay that debt off to whoever lent the money to the Australian government. So in all of these discussions, let us keep in mind that when the Labor Party talks about investment in this and investment in that, they are really saying, 'We want even greater borrowings' or, 'We want to tax the people even more.' And this is in a circumstance where we are borrowing $1,000 million per month just to pay the interest bill on existing borrowings. What we heard from those opposite was that they would increase that indebtedness even further, requiring even further borrowings not only for that but then for the following interest payments.

We, in the government, firmly believe that the best social welfare policy a government can deliver is a job. Everybody knows, or they should know, that if somebody is in gainful employment their physical health, their mental health, their self-esteem and their social interactions are all improved as is the health and wellbeing of everybody in the family unit. That is why we as government are so anxious to get people into jobs. Indeed, those opposite from time to time condemn the government's Work for the Dole program. I remember launching many of them under the Howard government, and when you launch them you see 20 long faces and 20 unhappy campers. But when you go to the graduation six months later, you see 20 smiling faces and people saying, as they have said to me, 'Eric, you know the only problem with Work for Dole is that it only goes for six months.' Indeed, just recently, I was in the electorate of the hardworking member for Dobell—and what a change it is to have a decent member for Dobell in Mrs Karen McNamara—and inspected a few Work for the Dole programs. The participants were absolutely delighted that they were engaged in meaningful activities; that they could reflect on their day knowing that they had made a positive contribution; that they had helped to improve a community amenity; and that they could reflect on their work that day and having made a positive contribution.

As a caring society, we look after those in need. We on this side are absolutely committed to that. But to achieve that you need a good healthy economy to make those payments. We, as a community, say quite rightly, 'If your luck is down, we will assist you.' An Australian would say in response, 'Thank you', to society. 'Thank you, my fellow Australians, for digging deeper in your pockets and providing me with assistance during this difficult period. I will therefore undertake my mutual obligation, which is to do everything I possibly can to gain employment.' As the Assistant Minister for Employment, the Hon. Luke Hartsuyker, said in the other place—and if I may, I commend his second reading speech; it was a very good one:

This bill will ensure that more job seekers in receipt of income support meet their mutual obligation requirements to attend scheduled appointments with their employment provider.

I have here some statistics. But before I get on to those, I remind Senator Bilyk, with respect to her contribution to this debate and how terrible she thought certain events had been in recent years and in recent times, that that was under the regime of the government of which she was a part. Now to the statistics: in the 2012-13 financial year, while 11.6 million compulsory appointments with employment providers were scheduled, a staggering 4.3 million of those appointments were not attended by job seekers. This is an attendance rate of only 63 per cent and a non-attendance rate of 37 per cent. In the 2013-14 financial year, we had 12.75 million compulsory appointments and, of these, 4.47 million were not attended by job seekers, which is a ratio of 65 to 35. In very rough terms, that is two-thirds to one-third. This sheer volume of missed appointments creates a huge burden and additional cost for the Department of Human Services and employment providers. It is an extra cost on our fellow Australians—the taxpayer. We have no difficulty with unemployment benefits and other benefits being paid where people are doing it tough. But when you have a situation of one-third of those on benefits breaking compulsory appointments, I say to Senator Bilyk and others who have a genuine heart for those doing it tough: keep in mind that there might be some that do play and game the system.

The example Senator Bilyk mentioned would have been exempted. For example, if somebody is involved in a car accident, of course they are exempt from these provisions and they do not form part of the statistic; they are removed from the statistic when they advise the employment provider that on the way to the appointment they were in a car accident—or a close relative died, or somebody had to be taken to hospital. All those examples are fully and absolutely catered for in the regime.

When you are in full-time employment, you are actually expected to turn up to work on time, to perform your duty, to be there between whatever the hours might be. When you are unemployed, to ask that you have an appointment once a month at a scheduled time is—with respect—not too much to ask. Therefore, we want to make sure that the provisions are somewhat tighter, to protect the taxpayer. But might I also say: I think we do the job seekers a service. It might be described as tough love, but there is no doubt that, if you push people into employment from time to time, they look back and say: 'We cannot believe how we survived during our period of unemployment without doing anything useful during our day'.

So this legislation is not motivated by wanting to punish people—the unfortunate language employed by some opposite. No, we just want a fair and reasonable system that is ultimately sustainable in the long term for our fellow Australians. Let's never forget that each single dollar of unemployment benefit is paid for out of the pocket of one of our fellow Australians.

Workers are expected to keep commitments like appointments in return for their wages; the same sort of standard should be expected of job seekers in receipt of taxpayer funded income support—to quote my colleague that honourable Luke Hartsuyker, the assistant minister.

Currently, a job seeker who has their income support payment suspended because they failed to attend an appointment can get that suspension lifted simply by indicating they will attend another appointment sometime in the future—that is, a person can simply say they will attend another appointment, even if they have no real intention of doing so, and still get their income support. We believe there should be more rigour in the system. This is not about punishment. This is about being fair to all, including the job seeker.

I could go on at some length, because this is a policy about which I feel very passionate: getting our fellow Australians back into employment. Sometimes this requires toughening up the legislation, especially in circumstances where roughly one-third of the unemployed cohort, regrettably, are not keeping their appointments. That comes at great extra cost to the taxpayer and great annoyance to the employment providers. We do those job seekers that failed to have a reasonable excuse no favours by allowing them to continue in that conduct.

The Australian Labor Party have indicated a number of amendments that are going to be moved in the committee stage. I have indicated to the Australian Labor Party that we can every now and then do a count. We understand that the numbers in this place require us to accept Labor's amendments for this legislation to get through. As a result, I do not think I will be an active participant in the committee stage. I will simply say that we do agree with all of Labor's amendments, albeit somewhat reluctantly, to enable the legislation to go forward. On that basis, I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.