Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that there are amendments from Senator Siewert. Are you going to propose amendments?

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I am. Previous amendments have been circulated. I understand a further revision of the amendments has been circulated or is just about to be circulated in the chamber.

The Temporary Chairman:

I believe they have been. I do not yet have that running sheet in front of me. Do you wish to move your amendments, Senator Siewert?

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are a series of amendments. I am looking at sheet 5655 revised 2, to clarify which amendments we are referring to. As I said, I am hoping they have been circulated in the chamber and I propose moving them as a series of amendments. I understand Senator Xenophon has amendments also.

The Temporary Chairman:

We have not yet got sheet 5655 revised 2. Would you like to speak to your amendments in general while we will await the arrival of the running sheet?

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think I should remind the chamber as to where we were at during this debate, because quite rightly we have jumped to the Committee of the Whole rather than revisiting our second reading debate speeches last December. I appreciate that the chamber assistants thought we would do a little bit more second reading than we did. If I can recap where we are up to, the Greens in general are supportive of this bill. I articulated that during that second reading debate. This bill makes what we believe are very important amendments to the previous Welfare to Work arrangements. We think it puts in a place a much fairer approach to people on Newstart and looking for work. It improves the compliance regime, we believe, for people on Newstart. I think it puts in place a potentially much fairer system.

However, there are some issues that came up during the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations inquiry. For a start, the Greens are still very deeply opposed to the eight-week breaching process, but there are a number of issues that came up during the inquiry process which I think are very important suggestions. They relate, for example, to how we deal with homelessness and the timing of deductions when what is going to be put in place is a no show, no pay system. We now have a running sheet. There are implications of the no show, no pay system and issues about the discretion that Centrelink and Job Network providers can apply, hardship provisions and reconnection. When will the comprehensive compliance assessments kick in and how will they be carried out? If people will recall, we were also talking during that debate about the fact that there are now about four different compliance approaches or disconnection approaches, and we want some refinement there. So the Greens are proposing a series of amendments which we believe deal with some of what we see as flaws in the legislation.

At the time, I congratulated the government and I still congratulate the government for moving this bill in the first place and making what I and the Greens think are very important amendments. I also appreciate the interaction that we have had with the minister’s office on this. The minister’s office has been very open to discussions over concerns that the community have raised, both during the committee inquiry and also in correspondence to my office and other offices. I appreciate the fact that there has been meaningful engagement with the minister’s office. I understand that they will be agreeing to some of our amendments but that we are going to agree to disagree on a number of amendments. The No. 1 point here where the government and the coalition seem to agree is that it is acceptable in this country to have a breaching process where people have no income support for eight weeks. We do not think that is appropriate and we will continue to try and get changes there. Chair, my amendment is not first on the running sheet.

The Temporary Chairman:

That is correct, Senator Siewert. The first amendment I have on the running sheet is an opposition amendment. I will ask Senator Bernardi to move that and we will deal with that first.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chair, thank you for the call. I am waiting for some advice with regard to this amendment because my advice was that we were to expect an earlier amendment to come along. I request the chair’s indulgence. I am not sure where we should proceed from at this point.

The Temporary Chairman:

The difficulty is, Senator Bernardi, that your amendment is to oppose schedule 1, whereas the Greens amendments in the first instance are to amend schedule 1.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I could make some general comments, I was of the misunderstanding that there would be an opportunity to give, in effect, a speech on the second reading again. With your indulgence, Chair, I will give an outline of my position because a lot has happened since this matter was before the Senate last December.

Previously, I did not support the second reading, and I outlined the reasons for that. Since that time I have had opportunities to have extensive discussions with the government, the opposition and the Australian Greens in relation to this. My position is that changes to the current legislation are necessary. The legislation introduced by the Howard government was, some would say, anomalous in parts and relatively inflexible, particularly in relation to the ‘three strikes and you’re out for eight weeks’ provision. There was concern about that. It has been acknowledged fairly broadly that it was anomalous that, if you were breached—as a consequence of failing to participate in a job-seeking program, for instance—and lost your benefits for eight weeks, there was no requirement to continue to participate during that eight-week period. Many saw that as an anomaly.

I also think it is important to note that the job market has changed—and that is something that no-one could have foreseen two years, a year or even six months ago—with forecasts of 300,000 Australians losing their jobs as a result of the global financial crisis. It is important that there is a greater degree of flexibility and a more nuanced approach to employment services. That is why I am grateful for the time that I have spent with the minister and his advisers. I have also had a number of good discussions with the opposition shadow and his office on this.

The principal concerns I have in relation to this legislation are as follows. Firstly, in relation to the requirement that there be six failures rather than three before there is a comprehensive compliance assessment, I believe that is simply too high a threshold. It is not reasonable for there to be six failures, six no-shows, in the course of six months before there is a comprehensive compliance assessment. I emphasise that, as I understand it, this is quite different from automatically losing your benefits for a period of eight weeks. There will be an assessment process during which a decision will be made as to whether or not you lose your benefits. I think that it is important to have that nuanced approach in the context of a worsening job market, but I also think it is unreasonable for there to have to be six failures—failures to attend job interviews or meetings with your employment provider—in a period of six months before the assessment is triggered. That simply seems quite extraordinary. To me, it does not seem to be an incentive for those that are deliberately trying to rort or play the system to stop.

There is support amongst welfare rights groups for having the threshold cutting in at three failures in a period of six months. It will also help those who have a genuine problem, who are not deliberately avoiding or shirking their responsibilities in the system but may have a mental health, substance abuse or gambling problem—those people who clearly need some help. I have been heartened to have had a major welfare rights group in this country advise my office that they believe that it would be a good thing for that comprehensive compliance assessment to be triggered at an earlier stage. I think it is important that that be considered.

As I understand it, there were discussions by the government in relation to this. I will await hearing what the minister says about this. As I understand it, the government has considered reducing the threshold from six to three. I think it will have a combined effect. Those who are deliberately avoiding their responsibilities—and there are always some, in any system, who try and rort the system—will be picked up earlier. But, to me, more importantly, those who have a mental health, substance abuse or other problem will be assessed and given a hand up earlier as a result of a comprehensive compliance assessment. Given the rising tide of employment, I think it is important that that approach be adopted.

There is also the issue of the legislative instruments. I understand the opposition has had some significant concerns with respect to giving this broad discretion, if you like, to the government, to the department, to deal with these legislative instruments. My concern has principally been one of scrutiny. As I understand it—I will await the minister’s undertakings in this regard—in relation to the changes to the participation regime there will be at least two months notice required for those instruments to be presented so that the Senate has an opportunity to see them and to scrutinise them before they are due to come into effect—because they will be disallowable instruments.

The other aspect of that is that my preference would be that there be enshrined in legislation a legislative instrument that does not come into force until there has been an opportunity of at least, say, six sitting days, to ensure that it is appropriately scrutinised. As I understand it, that is not the government’s position—they say that would be relatively unprecedented, and we will hear from the minister on that shortly—but my view is that it is important that there be a degree of scrutiny. I look forward to the government’s undertakings in that regard.

The final matter that I have to deal with relates to the issue of reviews. There will be significant changes as a result of what the government is proposing with respect to the way that job seekers are treated in terms of sanctions and the like. I agree that there is certainly need for change, particularly given the inflexibility of some of the measures of the previous government, and also acknowledging that the job market has significantly worsened since the previous set of rules were put in place. That is why I will be moving an amendment, which hopefully will be circulated shortly, to the effect that there be a comprehensive review. I understand the Greens will be moving for a review. I think it is important that there be a review with respect to these changes, which also broadly looks at the interface between state and federal agencies. A concern has been put to me by welfare and other groups that there are people who fall through the cracks. They fall through the cracks because of, for instance, substance abuse or mental health problems, and there is still work to be done in relation to the interface between state and federal government agencies. I agree that there have to be changes, but it is appropriate that there be a thorough review of these changes, which are very significant changes, so that we can see how the system is working and how it can be improved. That is essentially the thrust of my amendment.

In summary, if people are wilfully and deliberately avoiding work then we need to be firm. I think that going from six to three failures in a six-month period is fairer. That does not mean that someone will lose their benefits; it simply means there will be a comprehensive compliance assessment. If, as I suspect, there will be many cases of people not complying because of their individual circumstances, then I think it is important that there be a process in place to assist those people. I would like to think that a review would be an integral part of ensuring that this legislation is appropriately scrutinised by an independent panel with expertise in these matters, which would report to the parliament in the latter part of next year. I think that would be a fair and robust way of dealing with these important changes. That is a summary of my position, and I look forward to the committee deliberating on this matter.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Listening to Senator Xenophon and Senator Siewert reinforces the coalition’s concerns that this bill has a number of very deep flaws in it. Our original proposal was to excise the bill when we foreshadowed these amendments as circulated through the chamber. After consideration of Senator Xenophon’s and Senator Siewert’s foreshadowed amendments, the coalition will not be proceeding with amendment (1) on the basis that we are prepared to work to improve—some would say ‘salvage’—a bill that is deeply flawed. I think that has been acknowledged by the crossbenchers and the opposition today. So the opposition withdraw amendment (1) standing in our name and we will consider the other amendments on their merits.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is pleasing to see that the opposition are now constructively dealing with this legislation and that it appears they are moving towards supporting the legislation. In terms of responding to Senator Xenophon, it may be worth while putting down a range of issues now. If I could say it this way: the new compliance system recognises that job seekers are not always solely responsible for their circumstances. It does not seek to punish job seekers unnecessarily—rather, it will maximise job seekers’ participation in activities that will help them get a job. While these changes to the compliance regime were drafted well before the onset of the global economic recession, it is more important now than ever to keep job seekers actively engaged in activities that will help them find and keep sustainable employment.

The bill does introduce a more work-like no show, no pay penalty that will apply when a job seeker fails to comply with training or work experience without a reasonable excuse. It does retain as a deterrent eight-week non-payment penalties for persistent and wilful noncompliance. The current system has not improved compliance. It does not provide a timely and proportionate response; it makes it harder for people to find employment. And the lack of discretion in the current system means inevitably harsh outcomes.

If I can put it in this framework: the compliance system proposed by the bill allows us to distinguish between someone who does not want to meet their obligations and someone who cannot meet their obligations. Unlike the present automatic three-strike rule, a job seeker—and this I think goes to the heart of what Senator Xenophon was referring to—will trigger a comprehensive compliance assessment when they miss three appointments or three days of activities in a rolling six-month period. An eight-week non-payment penalty will apply only if the prior failures were intentional, reckless or negligent. This of course means that a serious failure will not apply based on a prior incident of noncompliance for which the job seeker had a reasonable excuse.

Centrelink and employment providers—and I think this also goes to what Senator Xenophon was seeking clarification on—will have discretion in how to respond to job seekers’ behaviour. A provider can report noncompliance but can also use alternative means of maintaining participation—ultimately it is about ensuring people get a job and stay in it—and of course that applies if they reasonably believe that there is a better way to ensure a particular job seeker is moving towards employment.

No failure will apply if the job seeker has a reasonable excuse for their noncompliance. The impact of the job seeker’s personal circumstances on their capacity to comply will be considered in determining whether the job seeker has a reasonable excuse. This would of course include homelessness, as defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, mental illness or caring responsibilities. In particular, in response to the Senate committee’s recommendations, the government will review the effectiveness of vulnerability indicators and associated guidelines to ensure that they protect the most troubled job seekers. The government appreciates the work of the Senate committee and has examined the report in detail. The government thanks both the chair and the committee for the work they have done.

The Senate committee also emphasised the importance of job seekers understanding their obligations under the new compliance system. The government will ensure appropriate levels of training for Centrelink and employment service providers and adopt a strategy targeted at communicating changes to all job seekers. The government does believe strongly in an evidence based approach to policy and therefore will collect comprehensive data to monitor and report on the effectiveness of the new compliance system. The government also appreciates the broad community interest in the effects of the compliance policy. For those reasons we will conduct a review of the impact of the new compliance system after it has been in operation for 12 months. On that point, it would be helpful—and forgive me for putting it this way—if the Greens and Senator Xenophon could agree on a set of words. If that is possible it would then avoid the government, and also the opposition, being placed in the position of trying to choose. We have outlined that we do accept the 12-month review; it is the detail that may go into it. We do prefer the Greens proposal, but I did not really want to say that at this point because I do not want to disappoint Senator Xenophon in respect of that. It may be worth making it plain what the government’s view is so that there is no confusion.

In wrapping up, the new employment services will provide job seekers with the right mix of training, work experience and the other support they need to find and keep work. The new compliance arrangements and other measures proposed in this bill will of course form an important part of the new system. It is a key component of the government’s employment participation agenda. I know that we are going to deal with a range of amendments at this point and I hope that, as a way of at least opening the committee stage of the bill and providing direction, my comments will provide some outline of the government’s position in respect of the broader number of amendments that we will deal with in committee and our response to those.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister. Prior to getting into the detail, I would like to ask a series of general questions that follow on from the minister’s response. Perhaps I could clarify the position on the review the minister just asked about. The Greens have been talking to Senator Xenophon, who has slightly modified his amendment and we are happy to support his review. Minister, you were seeking clarification; I do not think you like the clarification that much, but there you go!

I would now like to ask some questions. Perhaps I could ask some questions about a couple of the issues that were at the end of my list, because the minister touched on them just then. One is the education campaign, or the issue about information provision, which the minister touched on, that concerns ensuring that providers and Centrelink are well informed of the amendments to this legislation. But it is also very important that job seekers are well informed. I am wondering what level of resources the government is going to commit to that education, when it is going to start and how it is going to proceed. I will also indicate now—although I appreciate that the minister may not have all the details—that the Greens want to be assured that this is in fact going to happen. I am wondering what mechanism can be undertaken to ensure that we are informed about the education campaign that is going to be undertaken.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A clarification may be helpful, Senator Siewert. When you talk about the resources—and I guess you might say both—are you specifically trying to identify the resources that go into education and training or those resources that go into advising job seekers of the availability of the system and how it works?

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am after information on what particular resources have been committed to the provision of information about the specific changes, because it is still a complex piece of legislation. There are various non-compliance and failure mechanisms and we are after information on what has been done within Centrelink, within the Job Network providers and with job seekers across the board in relation particularly to their understanding of what the new requirements are on job seekers and the compliance requirement. As I said, it is quite a complex piece of legislation and there are various ways that people could in fact be noncompliant.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Siewert, for that clarification. I am advised that a comprehensive training strategy has been developed for delivery to departmental and Centrelink staff and employment service providers. It is across the chain. This training includes the objective and features of the new employment services model, along with operational policy and IT systems training. Training will be delivered through a variety of mediums, including through face-to-face information sessions, web conferencing and self-paced e-learning options. Internal and external stakeholders were also actively involved in the development of training materials. The training will be undertaken in partnership with a broad communications campaign that includes specific information for job seekers, employers and employment providers on the new employment services arrangements.

When the legislation passes and these changes occur as part of the implementation, Centrelink will support the package by providing its staff—and this is highlighted in what I just said—with internal face-to-face and web based training packages. It wants to ensure that the front staff—that is, the customer service officers—have a high level of understanding of what is required of them, how to implement the package and its interaction with, to use some more technical language now, the EA3000. We talked to the job providers as well. The job providers will need to have a high level of understanding of how the new system will work. Finally, it will include information for job seekers so that they have a high level of understanding of what the obligations are and what the new system will require of them. Of course, I am not saying that the system will always be perfect. We support the appeals process as well. We do provide that information as well when there are issues that arise about how it is interpreted.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his answer. I put on record that he can be guaranteed that we will be pursuing this ongoing issue through estimates to make sure that the education information is being provided.

I would like to move on to data provision. This was a very, very significant issue under the Welfare to Work regime. Anybody outside of Centrelink could not get access to data. Senators may recall that I was in the chamber on a number of occasions raising this issue. We also had the fiasco where data was actually taken down from the website. Not only could we—or anybody else, for that matter—not get access to data; when we raised the issue that we could not get access to up-to-date data, the previous data was actually taken off the website. So this is a very important issue. It is data that community organisations use very extensively. I am looking at what the government’s commitments are for the provision of that data. It is also very important that data is available in a way that is usable. Because this is new legislation and the comprehensive compliance assessment is a new approach—I understand why this new approach is being taken; we do not have an issue with that specifically—it is important, particularly with the change that is being suggested by Senator Xenophon to go from six to three for the no-show provision that is being put in place to kick off the CCAs, that data is available that allows a comprehensive assessment of this new approach.

I wonder what approach the government is taking and what commitment the government is giving about the provision of data, the timely access to data—and I emphasise ‘timely’—and the way that data will be broken down, such as the number of penalties that have been applied; the type of payments; the type of breaches; the number of people being breached and their age, their gender, their Indigenous status; the number of no show, no pay failures; the number of reconnections et cetera. Is all of that data going to be made publicly available? I do not want to tie up a lot of the Senate’s time. I have a list of areas where we are seeking assessment of the data and the way the data is broken down. I wonder how the government is going to be providing that data and whether there will be an ongoing discussion about the provision of that data.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I can start by turning the question around slightly: it is the intention of the government to ensure that we provide at least quarterly reports about the operation of the job seeker compliance arrangements. Included in that will be material such as the number of no show, no pay penalties, the number of reconnection penalties, the number of eight-week non-payment penalties and the number of comprehensive compliance assessments. The reason I have turned it around in this way is that we should look at the way the system is working positively as well. That data should also be available. I said ‘at least quarterly’—obviously there will be an opportunity during estimates to extract data as well—because there is likely to be a lag as it will take some time in the compilation. We will work very hard to ensure that we can at least identify the lag and the dates the information is available for, but it will be provided on at least a quarterly basis. I am sure that Minister O’Connor will work very hard to ensure that the lag is not going to provide data which is unhelpful.

You also asked about the number of males, females and people who might be Indigenous. The only caveat I would put on that is that we will provide as much information as we possibly can except—and it is, of course, deidentified—where it provides information to such a level that it might identify who the groups are. My example—and do not hold me to this—is where there might be 20 people in a small town. Data might not be provided because it may identify the individuals. It would be our preference not to do that. Of course, you will have the opportunity at estimates to examine some of that and have that discussion.

The other point I would make is that some of this bill is contained in the legislative instrument, and it is critical that we get that right as well. The legislative instrument will come up in April. The first set of legislative instruments will be introduced before April, and that will give adequate time for the instrument to be disallowed before the legislation comes into effect—although I would not encourage you to do that, Senator Siewert. It is a matter of process more than anything else, but that will also provide a bit more information in detail about how the bill will operate. That will be contained in there.

The data will be provided by employment services stream and by failure type as well, so that will provide additional information. These are all matters that we will discuss with you in due course—I suspect at estimates. If we can improve upon the type and nature of data after feedback from the Greens or the opposition, we are keen to take that on board. We want clarity and transparency around this. It is about getting people into jobs. It is about ensuring that jobs are the focus.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his response. He can rest assured that we will be pursuing this issue through estimates. I take on board the point about measuring the positive changes out of this legislation. He raised a point that I was going to get to at some stage: the issue of the draft instruments. I have a question specifically about whether exposure drafts of the instrument will be available. The minister is keen to ensure that he has the support of this place. It would probably make life a lot simpler if they had exposure drafts, so I am asking whether the government plans to have such exposure drafts.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The long answer is that the government has been consulting with stakeholders through the development of the new employment services and the new compliance system. The short answer is that the government will provide drafts of key legislative instruments to key stakeholders for consultation, and they will be provided very shortly. I am told I can say that. We are keen to make sure that is happening.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his answer. I am aware that there has been consultation undertaken, but there was also a specific request from community organisations to ensure that we asked the question about the exposure drafts. I thank the minister for committing to that. Before we get into the amendments, I would now like to go—this sounds silly, I know—to some general questions that are more specific, if that is acceptable and if no-one else has any broader questions. I would like to clarify what activities will attract a no show, no pay penalty. Is it more than the work experience and training activities, and if it is, what are those activities?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A job seeker may lose a day’s income support for each day that the job seeker: fails to participate in an activity such as Work for the Dole, Green Corps, other work experience activities or training without a reasonable excuse; engages in misconduct—we could say disruptive or uncooperative behaviour while in an activity; fails to attend a job interview without a reasonable excuse; or intentionally behaves in a manner during a job interview that results in an offer of employment not being made. Medical, psychiatric or psychological treatment is not an activity for the purposes of no show, no pay—it is worthwhile to add that.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On that response from the minister: what constitutes a reasonable excuse?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have not defined it. It is the usual: what constitutes a reasonable excuse is what the ordinary person would consider under the current determinations of what a reasonable excuse would be. It is not circuitous; the current legislation provides for determinations of what a reasonable excuse is. There will obviously be circumstances that will apply at the time, depending on the nature of the issue. Some of those criteria, like failing to participate in an activity without a reasonable excuse, will hang off each individual type of occurrence.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Further to that, will there be guidelines published and available to those who will be determining what a reasonable excuse is, or will this simply be at the discretion of whomever is making the final, arbitrary decision?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maybe I can shorten it. The current legislation provides under the administrative instruments what a reasonable excuse is. It will not change. The draft legislative instruments that we will bring in will reflect the same as what is in the legislative instruments now, subject to consultation to which I have committed. That is the current position, but it will be subject to consultation.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his previous clarification of no show, no pay failures, and I would like to pursue a few more details around that, please. Could a person who is subject to a no show, no pay failure be also subject to a reconnection failure on the same day?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So the question is: can a person be subject to both a no show, no pay failure and a reconnection failure on the same day? The short answer is no, for the purpose of calculating a penalty. The loss of one-tenth of a fortnightly payment would apply. Both, however, could be taken into account—let us not be obtuse about this—for the purpose of a comprehensive compliance assessment.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will it be possible for a person to lose more than three days income in a payment period for no show, no pay failures?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

For example, if a person missed three continuous days of work experience—something like that?

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you have three no show, no pay failures in a row, does that count as three for the purposes of calculating a possible CCA or one?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Three, I am advised.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to clarify this. So a person could have three failures in a row and as long as they did not have a reasonable excuse a CCA would then be automatically triggered?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If a person misses three continuous days of work experience, that will count as three no show, no pay failures and trigger a comprehensive assessment and possibly an eight-week non-payment penalty. If you put it in perspective, the new compliance arrangements are designed to be more work-like and to encourage participation. Individual participation requirements and the consequences of not fully participating will be made clear to job seekers. If a person misses three continuous days of an activity, the provider will have the option to allow the job seeker to make up the time or to determine that compliance action is not the best means of securing engagement. Should the provider report the noncompliance to Centrelink, they will then carry out their own investigation.

So it does not happen without us looking at it, because, of course, you do need to investigate the circumstances surrounding each day of nonattendance. This investigation would include speaking with the job seeker and considering any vulnerabilities the job seeker may have, to determine whether the job seeker had any reasonable excuse. It centres on whether there is a reasonable excuse for not attending the activity on each day. If Centrelink determines that the job seeker had no reasonable excuse and applied three no show, no pay penalties, then a CCA would automatically be triggered.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister. With the new approach—I am talking about the change from six failures to three—is the government anticipating that this will require more CCAs and more eight-week non-payment penalties?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I say, Senator Siewert, you have sifted through this very carefully. I am advised that a shift from six to three no show, no pay failures is likely to result in more CCAs. I think that logically would follow. Whether—and this is the dependent point—this will represent more eight-week non-payment penalties is, quite frankly, an unknown factor because of the matters that I spoke of before because we will not know the basis of the noncompliance until the CCA has taken place. That is the importance of having the CCA there. It could result, for example, in earlier diagnosis of mental illness, which ultimately would result in fewer penalties, or a range of other circumstances which flow from that.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister has confirmed what we thought: the logical consequence is that there could be more CCAs through this process. By the very nature of the CCA process, that is going to be more resource intensive. Is the government therefore anticipating increasing resources to deal with this increase in compliance assessments?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You tempt me here, but I am advised—and this is in fact correct—that the department and Centrelink have discussed the resource implications of effectively delivering comprehensive compliance assessments. Centrelink, with my agency, have confirmed their ability to manage and deliver the new CCA arrangements. To put it succinctly—and I think I can say this on behalf of Centrelink, although I always err on the side of caution—Centrelink are looking to ensure this new system works. They are keen to work with job seekers, particularly those who may be vulnerable, to make sure that we do assist them in getting back into employment. That is the best outcome for them, and I am confident that Centrelink will be able to work through the CCAs, with their existing resources, to provide that outcome for job seekers.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My apologies to the Senate. I am seeking some clarification and it may be that I was involved in a discussion with Senator Xenophon when the minister outlined the change of plan. I wish to confirm and seek a commitment that the government is intending to reduce the number of failures before a CCA is implemented from six to three.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, that is right.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again I thank the minister for his answer. When a CCA has been triggered, will the person be able to commit further failures, and thereby lose more income, while the CCA is being conducted?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I understand the question and if I could paraphrase it: once the trigger is reached for the CCA, will a person be able to commit further failures and thereby lose income while the CCA is being conducted? Once the CCA—which is the way we will address it—has been triggered, no further incidence of noncompliance will be considered until the CCA has been conducted. That provides the ability for us to respond quickly as well. It requires Centrelink to do the work as quickly as possible. It will provide a more beneficial outcome.

With indulgence, could I say that there is a meeting I have to go to. I am sure Senator Carr will be able to confidently provide answers to the questions put. I will be back shortly. It is necessary for me to depart, given that I think I will be talking about chamber management for the next couple of weeks. Forgive me for that and excuse me. I will leave Senator Carr in my place but I will return as soon as I can. If there are matters that you want to put to me, I am happy to deal with them in a short while.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again I thank the minister. I think I am supposed to be at the same meeting but there are other people there. After a CCA has been conducted, is the job seeker’s count of failures wound back to zero; does it start again?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised the answer is yes. Once a job seeker undergoes a CCA, the count of failures required to automatically trigger a further CCA will start again.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is, come what may? With a CCA, come what may, you go back to the start again?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I beg the Senate’s indulgence. I have a series of questions, but, as I said, this is an extremely complicated piece of legislation that affects many Australians and in the current economic climate will unfortunately affect a lot more. I really want to make sure that we get an understanding of this legislation.

I now want to turn to the amount of the penalties for no show, no pay and reconnection failures. Can you explain the difference between the two and why they are different? I am just clarifying the no show, no pay penalty and reconnection failures and why those penalties are different. Explain the difference and why there is a difference.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The no show, no pay penalties mean the job seeker incurs a financial penalty for every reported day of nonparticipation in an activity without a reasonable excuse. No show, no pay penalties are intended to instil a work-like culture and, as such, the penalty represents a proportion of the job seeker’s payment. This effectively means 10 per cent of the job seeker’s fortnightly payment for each day of failure. This does not affect rent assistance, pharmaceutical allowances or youth disability supplements but it does apply to any supplement the job seeker is receiving for participation in Green Corps or Work for the Dole. As is currently the case, access to health cards and family tax benefits will not be affected. Resuming participation will result in a resumption of income support and employment services. A no show, no pay failure means that noncompliance will have an immediate financial impact, but the extent of the penalty will be at the hands of job seekers.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I am sorry, I missed one question. I go back to the specific thing about three triggers rather than six for no show, no pay triggering a CCA. The minister, in a previous answer, tried to explain the fact that a CCA would not necessarily result in an eight-week non-payment period. I recognise that, but there is a potential, by the very nature of CCAs, that that can result in an eight-week non-payment period. The trigger is now half of what was proposed. We have already said there is an expectation that there will be more CCAs and we have already discussed the fact that there will be an independent review in a year, but to me a year seems a long time to wait if the CCAs result in a large number of eight-week non-payment periods. Does the government intend to actually review that prior to the year’s review? And, if it is found that there is in fact an increase in the number of eight-week non-payment periods, does the government intend to look at any possible remedy to that situation?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that the government has already indicated its view on this matter and that it is monitoring the situation. The government wishes to actually reduce the level of penalties. If Centrelink determines that a job seeker has no reasonable excuse and three no show, no pay penalties have been applied, then a CCA would automatically be triggered.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate that. We touched on this in a discussion earlier. I also understand that the minister’s answer is that, yes, while the government is expecting an increase in the number of CCAs carried out, you cannot then say that there would necessarily be an increase in eight-week non-payment periods. In fact, the outcomes of those assessments could be different. The point is that there is a high potential that there will be more people subject to eight-week non-payment periods following CCAs. Is the government intending to monitor that and look at any potential negative consequences that that will have, in terms of the increase in the number of people subjected to the eight-week non-payment period, and, if there is, possibly doing something about it?

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer to your question is yes. We have already expressed an intent for the eight-week non-payment penalties not to increase.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that the government probably wants the eight-week non-payment period not to increase but, unfortunately, because the triggers have been halved to three, there is that potential. We will keep watching this issue very closely. Could the government also explain why preclusion periods are not able to be worked off when the rationale is supposed to be a focus on engagement? We would have thought being able to work them off would have been consistent with the whole philosophy of re-engaging people in employment.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that it has been a longstanding practice that there is a waiting period for people who leave employment of their own volition. It will no longer be viewed as a compliance breach. This is to encourage people to stay in employment until they find another job. Employment that ceases because a person is a victim of bullying or harassment or any other such behaviour would not be subject to a waiting period.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for your answer. That is the end of my general questions. I now turn to our amendments. I have questions that specifically relate to them, and for the benefit of the government and its advisers, they are around ‘reasonableness’ and ‘misconduct’. I seek leave to move Greens amendments (2), (7), (8) and (11) together.

Leave granted.

I move Greens amendments (2), (7), (8) and (11):

(2)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 22), omit “must”, substitute “may”.

(7)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (line 18), omit “must”, substitute “may”.

(8)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (line 32), omit “must”, substitute “may”.

(11)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 11 (after line 15), after subsection 42M(1), insert:

     (1A)    The Secretary may only determine that a person commits a serious failure under subsection (1) if the person has committed within a 6 month period at least:

             (a)    three connection failures; or

             (b)    six no show no pay failures.

These amendments relate to Centrelink’s discretion. This issue was discussed quite a bit during the Senate inquiry. These amendments provide for Centrelink to have discretion in applying all the penalties in the new compliance regime. The amendments achieve this by changing the word ‘must’ to ‘may’ so that Centrelink can do some of the things that the minister was just discussing in terms of the compliance assessment et cetera. We believe it is an important distinction to ensure that people’s individual circumstances can be appropriately considered before Centrelink applies a penalty.

One of the most harmful aspects of the current regime is Centrelink’s lack of discretion in breaching people for participation failures. This has been constantly identified as an issue. Centrelink has been applying penalties without the ability to take into account a person’s individual circumstances. We have always said, and I think the government also acknowledges this, that the previous system was harsh and rigid. These amendments will allow the system to be applied in a much fairer manner. I believe they are consistent with the intent of the government to get this system to work. I did discuss this issue, if people remember, some time ago in the second reading debate on the bill, and I indicated that we would be moving amendments along these lines.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government is supporting these amendments. Centrelink is the decision maker and it is appropriate that it has discretion in dealing in this manner.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition believes that there is already plenty of discretion built into this legislation. After a CCA, a number of outcomes can occur, including a job capacity assessment, an eight-week non-payment period or, indeed, no action at all. We believe that there needs to be some certainty in this legislation and, accordingly, the coalition will not be supporting these amendments.

Question agreed to.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (3):

(3)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (lines 28 to 31), omit paragraph 42C(4)(a), substitute:

             (a)    the person satisfies the Secretary that the person has a reasonable excuse for the failure; or

This amendment deals with ‘reasonable excuse’. We did touch on this issue in the second reading debate, but I have some specific issues about reasonable excuse that I would like to raise here. This amendment allows the secretary to consider whether a person has a reasonable excuse for all elements of a no show, no pay failure. The bill, as written, excludes the secretary from considering a reasonable excuse where a person has committed misconduct. There is a concern that actions that are construed as misconduct may indeed be because, for example, a person is suffering from a mental illness—and I will go into that in a little more detail in a minute. Also, a person is possibly not acknowledging their illness or there are other reasons that would otherwise be considered a reasonable excuse. We see no reason why misconduct should be excluded in this way.

We believe that this amendment is also addressing the issue of consistency. We need a much more consistent approach across the different penalty provisions. We explained earlier that there are a variety of provisions and that they are complex. We believe that it will make it easier for job seekers, employment service providers and Centrelink if reasonableness applies to other judgments as well.

This was raised on a number of occasions in the submissions to the Senate inquiry. It was also raised by Ms Gill, who appeared before the inquiry. She very clearly highlighted the issues and expressed concern particularly around what is considered misconduct for people who are suffering from mental illness. She used the example of a person actually forgetting that they have a commitment or an appointment. She pointed out that the person may in fact not acknowledge that they have a mental illness. They may think they have forgotten the commitment but in fact they never took on board the fact that they had a commitment in the first place. That could be construed as misconduct rather than a reasonable excuse.

We are seeking to expand the definition. Obviously, there will be times where there is quite clearly misconduct, but there is always grey in these issues. Sometimes what may appear to be blatant misconduct may in fact not be. When you look into it, there may be a quite reasonable explanation for what would otherwise seem to be misconduct. We believe that that approach would put another element of fairness into what has turned into a very punitive and harsh regime. This just puts a little bit more fairness into this legislation. It will ensure that in circumstances where somebody is suffering from mental illness—and I am only using that as an example; there could be other examples—that will be considered. The point is that we do not necessarily know and we do not necessarily have all the bases covered. This provides, in a case where what could be considered misconduct occurs, an ability to look a little bit below that and to see that in the circumstances what happened was in fact reasonable.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not support this amendment. Misconduct is narrowly interpreted at common law. Reasonable conduct, by its nature, would not constitute misconduct. The Guide to Social Security Law will provide decision makers with further guidance as to what would constitute misconduct. This amendment is therefore superfluous.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition will not be supporting this amendment either. We believe that already there is a great deal of discretion applied to what constitutes misconduct and what constitutes an inadvertent breach. I believe that, notwithstanding the sincerity with which Senator Siewert approaches the issue of those with mental illness, that will be considered in any response or any punitive action taken against those who are in breach.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am at least pleased to hear that the minister and the opposition believe that it could be taken as reasonableness. It makes that a little bit clearer. We believe, however, the more appropriate approach would be to include it in the legislation. We believe a specific reference to reasonableness is necessary, particularly for vulnerable job seekers because we are specifically worried about them. As I said earlier, because of behaviour that may on the face of it be considered to be misconduct but behind which there are underlying factors—such as undiagnosed mental illness or harassment at work—we need to expand what could be considered reasonableness and to clarify very specifically in the legislation that it is accepted as reasonableness.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move Greens amendments (4) and (10) on sheet 5655 revised 2:

(4)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (line 5), at the end of subsection 42C(5), add “, provided that the penalty amount may not be deducted until at least the instalment after the first instalment made following notification to the person of the no show no pay failure”.

(10)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 9 (line 35), at the end of subsection 42H(5), add “, provided that the penalty amount may not be deducted until at least the instalment after the first instalment made following notification to the person of the reconnection failure”.

These items are around the timing of deduction for the penalty amount. These amendments provide that, when deducting the payment for no show, no pay penalties or reconnection penalties, the deductions can occur only in the instalment period after the first instalment period following the notification to the person of the failure. So, rather than the deduction happening immediately or in the period directly after the failure, this amendment gives people time to prepare for their loss of income. We think this is reasonable. They still incur the penalty but there is time for them to prepare for it. As I said, the penalty is still applied and it also gives time for Centrelink to ensure that they are in fact making the right decision. Under the legislation, the timing is pretty tight. This allows both Centrelink to make that decision and the person to prepare, and they still cop the penalty.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will support both of these amendments.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition do not support these amendments. We believe that, in the context of penalties, if someone has conduct that is worthy of a penalty then they should have an immediate penalty. They have had plenty of time in which to plan and determine whether or not they want to participate in this. Accordingly, they should have an immediate penalty and it should not be delayed—which would cause further distress. The coalition will be opposing these amendments.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Siewert’s) be agreed to.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (5), (6) and (9) on sheet 5655 revised 2 together:

(5)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (line 7), section 42D, omit “If”, substitute:

        (1)    Subject to subsection (2), if

(6)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (after line 15), at the end of section 42(D), add:

Reconnection and hardship provisions

        (2)    If the Secretary determines that a person commits more than 2 no show no pay failures within the same instalment period, the Secretary may determine that the person’s penalty amount is to be reduced or waived if:

             (a)    the person begins to comply with a no show no pay requirement imposed on the person; or

             (b)    the Secretary determines that:

                   (i)    the person does not have the capacity to undertake any no show no pay requirement; and

                  (ii)    the deduction of the penalty amount would cause the person to be in severe financial hardship.

Note:   For in severe financial hardship see subsection 14A(7) of the 1991 Act.

        (3)    If the Secretary determines that a person commits a no show no pay failure, then the Secretary may require the person to comply with a requirement (the no show no pay failure requirement).

(9)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 9 (after line 30), after subsection 42H(4), insert:

     (4A)    The Secretary may end a person’s reconnection failure period if the Secretary determines that:

             (a)    the person does not have the capacity to undertake the reconnection requirement; and

             (b)    the deduction of the penalty amount would cause the person to be in severe financial hardship.

These amendments relate to issues around hardship provisions and working off the penalties. These amendments do two things: firstly, they include hardship provisions for no-show, no-pay and reconnection penalties. Secondly, they make provision for people to be able to work off no-show, no-pay penalties.

One of our concerns with the bill is that there is nothing in the bill to stop people from having continuous no-show, no-pay penalties or reconnection penalties. There may be circumstances where a person will miss a whole training course, for example, and potentially lose half their payment. In these circumstances, we believe there should be an ability for Centrelink to not impose a penalty if it would cause financial hardship.

We also believe that, given that the focus of the government’s policy is on re-engagement—and I very quickly touched on this in one of my questions before—there should be an option for people to be able to work off no-show-no-pay penalties. There are such provisions in the act in other areas—for example, relating to serious failures. This also touches on the issue of different compliance regimes and different penalties. We are seeking to make the bill fairer with these hardship provisions. I still think the intent of the legislation is retained but it does mean, in circumstances where people are caught up in those particular circumstances I articulated, that hardship provisions are able to be implemented.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In respect of the hardship provisions, I can indicate the government does not support the Greens amendments. These amendments are not supported, primarily, as the length of the penalty is really in the hands of the job seeker. A job seeker who meets their participation requirements will incur no further penalty. These matters, of course, are then also kicked into the CCA eventually, so the process is there. It is, quite frankly, a good process and certainly an improvement in the regime. It is clearly designed to encourage the jobseeker to engage in seeking employment and remaining in employment.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition does not support these Greens amendments. Basically, I believe we are seeing a watering down of the penalties in this bill, which are already rather slight. To do any more and to consider hardship provisions for people who know their obligations, commitments and the penalties when there is so much discretion already attached to the compliance regime, I believe, is a retrograde step. So the coalition will not be supporting these amendments.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I anticipated that these amendments would not get strong support from the government or the coalition but I would like people to bear in mind that—as I articulated earlier—unfortunately, due to the financial crisis there are going to be many more people in these unfortunate circumstances and affected by this legislation. There are going to be many more people that will potentially require hardship provisions.

In the past, the coalition’s approach seems to have been that there are a lot of people who are purposely unemployed and not willing to look for a job. As I understand this legislation, it is about re-engagement and encouraging people back into the workforce, not about blaming people. We believe that not only the hardship provisions but also being able to work off no-show, no-pay penalties are consistent with the government’s approach of re-engagement and would be an added benefit to this legislation to help people re-engage with the workforce. As I said, it is consistent with the government’s stated approach and the way they want this particular piece of legislation to operate. However, I am disappointed that neither the government nor the coalition will accept these amendments.

Question negatived

I move Greens amendment (12) on sheet 5655 revised 2:

(12)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 12 (after line 22), after section 42N, insert:

42NA Comprehensive compliance assessment

        (1)    Before the Secretary determines that a person has committed a serious failure under section 42M, the Secretary must conduct a comprehensive compliance assessment in relation to the person.

        (2)    The comprehensive compliance assessment must assess the following:

             (a)    the reasons why the person may have committed failures under this Division;

             (b)    the reasons why the person may have failed to meet other requirements under the social security law;

             (c)    whether the person has any barriers to employment;

             (d)    whether the person’s participation requirements are appropriate.

This amendment relates to comprehensive compliance assessments. It implements the government’s stated policy intention in respect of comprehensive compliance assessments, CCAs. We support the CCA process, as I have articulated. But, as I also said in the second reading debate, we believe the detail should be in the legislation. It provides more certainty for participants. Part of the problem with the previous system was that a lot of it was either in instruments or in contracts with Job Network providers. We believe that is an inappropriate way to implement this process and we believe that it is important that the provisions have a legislative base.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Amendment (12), which relates to the comprehensive compliance assessments, is one that the government is minded to support. This includes the CCA in legislation rather than in a legislative instrument. It does not, of course, affect the substance of the CCA. It is one of those areas where decisions always have to be made on balance between what is put in legislation and what is put in legislative instruments. The usual reason for using legislative instruments is that the legislation will provide the framework and the instruments will provide the meat, so to speak, but in this instance we can agree to your amendment, begrudgingly.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition will be opposing this amendment. We do not intend to divide on it, if that is of any benefit to those who are watching the broadcast. Ultimately, whilst we do support the principle of putting this in the legislation, we do not support the approach that is being taken on this occasion.

Question agreed to.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Chair, because of the running order on the sheet 5655 revised 2, can I just seek clarification that it is okay to move Greens amendments (13) and (20) together.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator Siewert, and you can speak to both of them at the same time, but I will put them as two separate questions.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Chair. I move Greens amendment (13) on sheet 5655 revised 2:

(13)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 12 (after line 22), after section 42N, insert:

42NB Serious failure for unemployment resulting from a voluntary act or misconduct

        (1)    The Secretary may determine that a person commits a serious failure if:

             (a)    the person is unemployed as a result (whether direct or indirect) of a voluntary act of the person; or

             (b)    the person is unemployed as a result of the person’s misconduct as an employee.

Note:   A participation payment is not payable for 8 weeks for a serious failure (see section 42P).

Limitations on determination

        (2)    Despite subsection (1), the Secretary must not determine that a person commits a serious failure under that subsection if the person satisfies the Secretary that the person has a reasonable excuse for the failure.

Note:   The Secretary must take certain matters into account for the purposes of subsection (2) (see section 42U).

Note:   The Secretary may continue the participation payment pending the outcome of an application for review (see sections 131 and 145 of the Administration Act).

And we oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:

(20)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 14 (line 18) to page 15 (line 26), subdivision E to be opposed.

I touched on these issues previously. These amendments relate to the preclusion period for serious failure or unemployment resulting from a voluntary act or misconduct. We have some concerns, as I think I articulated in the second reading debate, about the preclusion period. These amendments deal with unemployment resulting from a voluntary act or misconduct, and the concern we have is that, again, the legislation does not adequately deal with the proposition that there may be a reason that the person has been made unemployed, whether it is directly or indirectly a result of a voluntary act. We believe that the particular circumstances need to be taken into account when applying the preclusion period, so these amendments provide for that.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We do not support the position that is being put by the Greens. The government believes it is important that people who voluntarily leave employment have to wait before they receive income support. However, I think it is reasonable to say we will ensure that the eight-week preclusion period applies only in genuine cases of voluntary unemployment, not in cases of unfair dismissal or similar circumstances. So, in truth, I think that takes into account what you are trying to put forward.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for that assurance. Could you possibly point out the mechanism that will look at and take into account the circumstances of someone’s unemployment status and whether they voluntarily left a job or were made unemployed for alleged misconduct? What process will be used for ensuring you are satisfied that it does in fact count as misconduct or that there was no reasonable reason for them to leave employment?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am subject to correction here, but my recollection is that there is a separation certificate. It is in the social security legislation guidelines. This action is taken to ensure that we do the right thing. When someone voluntarily leaves their employment, there is always that waiting period, and you have to ensure the legislation is applied correctly. That is why we have guidelines in the social security legislation—to ensure that we deal with those cases correctly.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am trying not to delay the Senate too long. Minister, regarding the answer to my question about why the provisions for working off penalties do not apply across the board, could you articulate a little bit more clearly—and I accept that you touched on that just then; maybe I am not accepting your answer—why it is not possible for someone to work off that particular penalty, as it is with other penalties?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think one of the difficulties that we are dealing with is that we are talking about two distinct sets of circumstances. Voluntarily leaving a job means making a conscious decision, all things being equal, with no other outside influence, to leave—to do something else, to put it broadly. I do not want to put all the circumstances that someone might envisage. That requires the waiting period because, although the circumstances will vary for each individual, they have made a conscious decision. The regime that we are talking about here, no show, no pay and those areas, is designed for people looking for employment. We are looking at two distinct sets of circumstances and I do not think it is fair to try and bring them together under one system. The best thing we can do for someone who is gainfully employed, is receiving a payment and has no reason to leave is to keep them in that employment. That is the best way to ensure their long-term benefit. We all know that a job provides self-esteem and positive outcomes. Circumstances where a person has made a conscious decision to leave employment and is voluntarily looking for employment should not be juxtaposed with circumstances where a person is in the job seeker market and is required to undertake a range of activities to find work. There is a system in place to deal with that. Those circumstances are distinct. I hope that provides some assistance.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not saying I agree with your distinction, but thank you for providing that. I want to go back to the reasoning behind what it means to voluntarily leave a job. One of the issues that was raised during the Senate inquiry and also informally with me is: what happens where someone leaves a job because they are uncomfortable, because they have not been able to make adequate childcare arrangements or because they feel harassed and do not want to take a case through the harassment process because they do not feel they would be able to prove a case, so it is easier for them to leave work? Is that able to be dealt with through the process that you outlined before in the guidelines so that people have, basically, a way of explaining why they left a job without copping the preclusion period?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps we can deal with that in the following way. Currently, unemployment due to misconduct is defined as a situation where a person has contributed to their own unemployment—that is, they have been dismissed or been given the option of resigning from suitable work because of their actions as a worker. The intention of this policy is not to penalise people for something over which they clearly had no control; the intention is primarily to provide a deterrent for those who might behave inappropriately at work in order to be dismissed and avoid a penalty for leaving employment voluntarily. I think we would all agree with that. A person who was dismissed for lack of ability to do the job or even incompetence cannot be considered to be unemployed due to misconduct. There are graduations of that. The government is happy to take you through the guidelines that Centrelink will use in dealing with these, Senator Siewert. What you have outlined is one scenario—there are multiple scenarios in this environment. My advisers might correct me on this, but you do not want a decision maker examining a plethora of individual, minute circumstances and applying the policy inconsistently because it is too discretionary. There is discretion, but the discretion is always narrow. In voluntarily leaving your employment, the discretion is narrower. It is designed to ensure that there is a deterrent to leaving employment. It is there so that the decision maker does not have a wide variety of circumstances to look at to make an assessment, because invariably that leads to a range of inconsistent outcomes. There is a clear deterrent, and that deterrent will be applied.

In circumstances where someone has left employment because they felt uncomfortable, these are always difficult judgments because they relate to the individual. My strong advice to people is always—and I will draw on my earlier career as an industrial inspector, if my advisers don’t mind me talking for a second—that, if there is harassment in the employment market, you do not have to put up with it. There are a range of places you can go to seek redress. The employment market is such that among the Human Rights Commission, the state industrial inspectors and the federal industrial inspectors there is a range of support, including unions—which were also a part of my previous career—to assist those people to adequately deal with that. There are also complaints-handling procedures in many awards—in fact, I am sure in all awards—about how you deal with these things in a practical way. It is about that, rather than simply saying, ‘I’m not quite feeling well today, because of the circumstances,’ and leaving. It is designed to be a deterrent, so that people do not do that and that they consider their options, which are more practical. The practical options are in complaints handling. If there are redresses available then use those; otherwise, you have a circumstance where someone may leave a place of employment and the next day—using even your scenario—it blows over and circumstances change, outlooks change, and they should have been in their employment but they are not. That would be a disappointing outcome for all.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition does not support these amendments moved by the Greens. I think Senator Ludwig has outlined a number of reasonable arguments about why they should not be supported. I would like to make the following observations, Senator Siewert. What concerns me with these amendments is that it appears that you are seeking to find every excuse under the sun why people should not be penalised for failing to fulfil an obligation that is a very reasonable obligation—either to seek work or, in this case, to hang onto the job that they have. You mentioned the amount of harassment that arose in evidence to the Senate committee. There are a number of forums and avenues in which people can try to redress any difficulties in the workplace or if they are forced out of work. I agree with Senator Ludwig that there have to be very narrow parameters. Unfortunately, in your amendment the parameters are far too broad for me; they are far too broad for the coalition. It also does not reflect the coalition’s belief that there needs to be some personal responsibility and accountability. If someone is gainfully employed and they decide that they do not want to be gainfully employed anymore, and they participate in some misconduct, I find it hard to believe that many people would support that as a reason or a justification for them to be receiving some sort of benefit. I hope I am wrong, frankly, about the Greens amendments looking to make excuses for everyone to get out of this but, as we have been going through this, that has been a common theme and it fills me with some concern.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Bernardi, I think you, whether deliberately or by accident, are misrepresenting the approach the Greens are taking to this legislation. It is completely wrong. We are trying to put in place amendments that would make this legislation fair, that deal with real-life circumstances. While I fully know that there are provisions for dealing with harassment, in the real world sometimes it does not work that way. Sometimes people are just so over it, they do not want to deal with what is, until the new IR legislation comes into place—I realise we are not debating that now, but I have some problems with it—the current legislation. Work Choices has it made extremely hard to address these issues. So, in the real world, sometimes it does not happen that way. Sometimes people actually need to leave to regain their sanity even, because they are in a dire situation they just cannot deal with and it is easier to leave.

I find it incredible that the coalition is still trying to defend what was a harsh system that unfairly penalised people, that ended up breaching an inordinate number of people, in particular Aboriginal Australians. In my home state of Western Australia I think the number of Aboriginal people who were breached increased by 300 per cent. And those figures are probably wrong, because people just dropped out of the system. So don’t try and label the Greens as some sort of group that is now trying to get everybody out of having to take care of their responsibilities. We are trying to put in place a fair system that needs to be flexible enough to deal with the increasing number of people who unfortunately we are going to see on our unemployment lists.

Quite clearly, Australians did not appreciate either Work Choices or Welfare to Work, both of which were systems that punish people, in particular Aboriginal Australians. We have been reviewing this legislation with them particularly in mind. Having said that, I have said my piece in terms of our belief that these amendments make the legislation more consistent across the different penalties. In fact, I think it is a misconception to believe that the working-off provisions in the other sections of the bill are somehow light on those who are unemployed and have been subject to an eight-week penalty provision. I think you should try doing it yourself for a while and see if you think it is a particularly light way of trying to survive. It is not. The submissions that the Greens have received, both those that have gone through the Senate inquiry and those received from direct correspondence, show that people have gone through this legislation very carefully and have suggested very fair amendments, which we are trying to implement here.

So, please, I urge the coalition to take another look at our amendments and look at how they will be implemented in the real world, because that is what we are trying to do—we are trying to look at this through the eyes of the people who are going to be impacted by this legislation. We are not judging them from above but are looking at it from the perspective of people who are actually trying to survive. There are going to be more people in this situation. There are going to be more people who are going to fall through the system, perhaps not deliberately, and they may be subject to this.

We are also keen to make sure that this legislation addresses the fact that where people are breaching the system there are enough penalties in place. We believe that there should be enough checks and balances to ensure that those people are dealt with appropriately, but we also need to ensure that vulnerable job seekers are not unfairly treated and that they get the help to re-engage and find the job they need. In some cases, these people need additional assistance and we need to ensure that that is built into this system. We are keen to ensure that it is fair for all Australians and that some people are not being blamed, penalised and demonised, which is what happened under the previous regime.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendment (13) on sheet 5655 revised 2 be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question now is that subdivision E in item 1 of part 1 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (21) on sheet 5655 revised 2:

(21)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 14 (line 31 to 33), omit subsection 42S(2), substitute:

        (2)    Despite subsection (1), the Secretary must not make a determination under that subsection if the Secretary is satisfied that the voluntary act or misconduct was reasonable.

This amendment relates to a reasonable test for misconduct. I think I have previously articulated our concerns about what can reasonably be considered to be misconduct. This provision goes back to the issue about extending the ‘reasonable excuse’ to a person becoming unemployed through misconduct. For fairness and consistency we do not believe that there is justification for a reasonable excuse not to apply to misconduct. Through this amendment, we will have an alternative to that which is provided for in the legislation.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that the government does not support this item. Senator Carr dealt with the reasons earlier. Unless there is any need I will not deal with those again.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We will be opposing this on the basis of the arguments outlined previously. And I would just say to Senator Siewert that although I seem to inflame her on occasions I do not intend to. We are talking about voluntary misconduct here. They are the key words. If people are misbehaving due to their own actions or by their own choice I think that making excuses for them is a very tough thing to do. I say that not to badger you or to get you up to attack me again—I accept your flame from the last time; that is just our position.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will respond briefly and I will try not to flame. I accept that some people will engage in voluntary misconduct. I can appreciate that. We come from the position that we need to not assume that everybody is acting in that manner. We come from the perspective that we need to look at whether there is a reason for their misconduct. It may be assumed that it is misconduct but in fact it is not and there may be a reasonable reason for it. We are not pretending that everything in the world is perfect. We do acknowledge that there will be some people who engage in misconduct. We think that there are adequate provisions in this legislation to deal with that. But, as I said, we come from the perspective that we do not necessarily assume that it is always misconduct and that there is no reason for it.

Quite often, when you look beneath the surface, there may be circumstances where what is considered to be misconduct is in fact not. Even if somebody thinks it is misconduct there may in fact be a reasonable reason for it. That is where we come from. We do not assume that everybody is bad.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move Greens amendments (14) to (19) on sheet 5655 revised 2:

(14)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 12 (after line 22), after section 42N, insert:

42NC Determination about serious failure requirements and severe financial hardship

                 If the Secretary determines that a person commits a serious failure, the Secretary must also determine that this section applies unless the Secretary is satisfied that:

             (a)    the person does not have the capacity to undertake any serious failure requirement; and

             (b)    serving the serious failure period would cause the person to be in severe financial hardship.

(15)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 12 (line 25), after “serious failure” insert “and has determined that section 42NC applies”.

(16)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (line 28), after the note, insert:

     (1A)    The Secretary may make a determination under paragraph (1)(b) on request or on his or her own initiative.

(17)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (lines 32 to 33), omit paragraph 42Q(2)(b), substitute:

             (b)    if the Secretary makes a determination under paragraph (1)(b) on request—the day before the request was made; or

             (c)    if the Secretary makes a determination under paragraph (1)(b) on his or her own initiative—the day before the Secretary makes the determination.

(18)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (line 34), after the note, insert:

        (3)    Section 42NC does not affect the operation of this section.

(19)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 17 (line 24), omit “42Q(2)(b)”, substitute “42Q(2)(c)”.

Also, I withdraw Greens amendment (24) on sheet 5655 revised 2 as it is in fact the same as amendment (19). Amendments (14) to (19) provide for the circumstance where the secretary makes a determination that a person is unable to comply with a serious failure requirement and the person would suffer financial hardship—the serious failure period ends the day before the secretary makes the determination or the day before the request is made by the job seeker to consider hardship.

As the bill is written at the moment, the serious failure period would end the day the secretary makes the determination, but it would take the secretary some time to make that determination. The person then suffers a loss of income despite the finding that they would be put into serious financial hardship. We believe it is much more appropriate that the person suffers no loss in these circumstances, so this series of amendments is to deal with that provision. The issues around financial hardship are acknowledged in the bill, and we believe this makes it a little bit clearer and fairer for job seekers.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be brief: we support the amendments.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition do not support these amendments, on the basis that we believe they further water down the already watered down regime that is going to be implemented under this legislation.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Siewert’s) be agreed to.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens amendment (22) on sheet 5655 revised 2:

(22)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 15 (after line 27), before section 42T, insert:

42SA Discretion not to report non-compliance

        (1)    An employment service provider may exercise a discretion not to report to the Secretary that a person has failed to comply with an obligation in relation to a participation payment if the employment service provider considers, on reasonable grounds, that compliance action under this Division is not the best means of securing re-engagement and is counter-productive to the person obtaining employment.

        (2)    For the purposes of this section, an employment service provider is a provider of employment services contracted by the Commonwealth.

This amendment provides discretion for employment service providers. This amendment, we believe, is one that is consistent with the government’s stated policy. It was discussed during the Senate inquiry. The government made it clear that employment service providers will have discretion in providing participation reports to Centrelink. That was clear during the discussion.

At the moment, however, that discretion is included in the contracts process with employment service providers. We do not believe that is an appropriate place for that discretion to be. We believe it should be in the actual bill, the same way as the Senate has now acknowledged and included provisions for discretion of Centrelink. We believe that should be in the bill. That discretion for employment service providers should be part of legislation. The government, as I understand it, are very clear that they do have that—if my understanding is wrong, I would really like them to clarify that! We believe that this is a very important provision and that it is not appropriate that that mechanism be delivered through a contract process. It should be in the legislation.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have been reasonable; in this instance we will not be unreasonable and will explain why we will not support it. The government believes that the appropriate instrument for regulating an employment service provider is in the government’s contract with the employment service provider. The discretion, as articulated in the amendment, is contained in the contract: the appropriate place for it to be. It exists, but it exists in the contract. We will not be supporting your amendment.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The difficulty I have with that is if, for example, you change your mind or do not want a particular employment service provider to have discretion. There is then no guarantee that that discretion will be given to service providers. My concern is that, where discretion is purely provided in a contract, there is no legislative base for it. There is no requirement for that discretion. We have now given Centrelink discretion, which we are really pleased about, but discretion does not have to be given to others. It is not in the legislation; it is not even in the legislative instrument. It is in a contract to that service provider. This is very important for all the reasons that we were talking about before. I am a bit perplexed as to why the government supports the discretion for Centrelink—support which I am pleased about—but does not ensure that the discretion for the employment service providers has a legislative base as well.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Think of it this way: a contract is how you manage the providers and the outcomes. If there is to be an identified change, there is a variation to the contract that the parties agree to, so there is full knowledge of these types of things. It is a way of ensuring that the contract is the central part of it. The legislation does not provide the framework. The contract is the system that provides what the service provider has to meet. It provides what the government expects the service provider to do. If contract negotiations are required, they will take place. If there are eventualities or circumstances that arise, they are dealt with by the parties through contract negotiations. If there is a requirement for a variation, contract negotiations will again be the outcome. You have to think of it as being based around the contract. That is the ‘instrument’. We call it that, but it is a contract. The detail is in the contract. The parties will manage the contract.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand what the government is saying, though I disagree with it. I do think it needs to be given a legislative base, but I seek a commitment from the government that it absolutely fully intends that in all contracts—both current contracts and future contracts—with service providers discretion will be provided.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is our intent, if I can put it that way. I am not in a position to guarantee it, but I can say that it is our intention. Centrelink will, of course, always retain the discretion about these things, but let me say that the contract is a central part of the instrument that the parties will adhere to, be bound by and voluntarily commit themselves to. That will then regulate the arrangements between the parties—that is what the contract is there for. But, in terms of Centrelink’s discretion, it is still there for the types of arrangements that will occur.

Question negatived.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (23), (26), (27) and (1) on sheet 5655 revised 2.

(23)  Schedule 1, item 1, page 17 (after line 4), at the end of section 42U, add:

Homelessness

        (3)    A determination under subsection (1) must provide that, in deciding whether a person has a reasonable excuse for the matters listed in that subsection, the Secretary must take into account whether the person is homeless or is at risk of becoming homeless and, if so, whether that circumstances has affected the person’s capacity to meet the person’s obligations under this Division.

Note:   homeless has a meaning affected by section 19DA.

(26)  Schedule 4, page 61 (after line 4), before item 1, insert:

1A  After section 19D

Insert:

19DA Homelessness

        (1)    For the purposes of the social security law, homelessness and homeless have meanings affected by this section.

        (2)    The following are objectives of the social security law:

             (a)    the need to give people a sustainable pathway out of homelessness; and

             (b)    the need to minimise the risk of people becoming homeless.

        (3)    When assessing the social security entitlements and social security benefits of any person, in circumstances in which the Secretary is required to consider the residential status of the person, hardship provisions which may relate to the person’s circumstances or the ability of the person to meet obligations imposed by the social security law, the Secretary must have regard to the objectives set out in subsection (2).

        (4)    In applying a definition of homelessness, the Secretary must have regard to the following categories of homelessness, drawn from the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Australian Census Analytic Program document, Counting the Homeless:

             (a)    primary homelessness, which accords with the common sense assumption that homelessness is the same as ‘rooflessness’ and includes all people without conventional accommodation, such as people living on the streets, sleeping in parks, squatting in derelict buildings, or using cars or railway carriages for temporary shelter;

             (b)    secondary homelessness, which includes people who move frequently from one form of temporary shelter to another and includes people staying in emergency or transitional accommodation, including hostels for the homeless, night shelters and refuges, and also including people residing temporarily with other households because they have no accommodation of their own;

             (c)    tertiary homelessness, which refers to people who live in boarding houses on a medium- to long-term basis, operationally defined as 13 weeks or longer, whose accommodation situation is below the minimum community standard.

(27)  Page 67 (after line 33), at the end of the bill, add:

Social Security (Reasonable Excuse) (DEWR) Determination 2006

15  Paragraph 4(2)(a)

Omit the paragraph, substitute:

             (a)    the fact that the person is homeless or is at risk of becoming homeless at the time that the failure or refusal occurred;

(1)    Clause 3, page 2 (lines 7 to 11), omit the clause, substitute:

3 Schedule(s)

        (1)    Each Act, and each determination, that is specified in a Schedule to this Act is amended or repealed as set out in the applicable items in the Schedule concerned, and any other item in a Schedule to this Act has effect according to its terms.

        (2)    The amendment of any determination under subsection (1) does not prevent the determination, as so amended, being amended or repealed by the Secretary.

These amendments relate to inserting a definition of homelessness into the Social Security Act that is based on the ABS census definition of cultural homelessness. They also provide for the determination made with respect to a reasonable excuse in reference to this definition of homelessness and amend the current determination to that effect.

We believe the current definition of homelessness in the determination is completely inadequate. This series of amendments ensures that homelessness has a recognised place in social security law. The issue came up during the Senate inquiry a number of times. There was a slipperiness around the definition of homelessness and the way it was applied previously. We heard an example where someone was homeless but had a regular homeless address—in other words, it was known where the person was sleeping out of doors. They were classed as not coming under the definition of homeless because they could be contacted. That is an absolutely ridiculous interpretation of homelessness. This interpretation was not brought about by the current government—I definitely acknowledge that—it was put in place by the previous government, but this example highlighted very clearly why we need a clear, consistent definition of homelessness. So the Greens are seeking to include it in this legislation and then make a series of amendments that would reflect that definition.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that we are not supporting the Greens’ position; however, we are ensuring—and I think this is the appropriate point—that the relevant legislative instrument and policy guidelines are broadened to capture those who would be classified as homeless according to the ABS definition. More importantly, that will be available for consultation as well.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for that. I do not thank him for not supporting the amendment, but I do thank him for the clarification. Minister, could you be clear about what instrument you are using to determine the definition. Is it going to be—and I am sorry if I missed this—consistent with the ABS definition?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The legislative instrument is the one I have been referring to today that we are currently working on. The instrument and policy guidelines will be available and we would like to see their passage through the parliament by April—I will put in a plug for that. I expect that they will go through the consultative process; I am advised that is right. In terms of the issue around the ABS definition, the guidelines within the legislative instrument will be broadened to capture those who would be classified as homeless according to the ABS definition.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the minister’s clarification. I was not sure if the mechanism he was referring to was the legislative instrument, so I appreciate the clarification. Thank you.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Temporary Chairman, I would like to put on record that the coalition does not support these amendments.

Question negatived.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Temporary Chairman, I signal my intention to withdraw amendment (25) on sheet 5655 revised 2. Senator Xenophon will be moving an amendment very similar, so the Greens will withdraw theirs in favour of Senator Xenophon’s amendment.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (1) as amended on sheet 5710:

(1)    Page 17 (after line 31), at the end of Part 1 of Schedule 1, add:

Subdivision G—Review

42ZA Review of impact of compliance regime

        (1)    The Minister must cause an independent review of the impact of the amendments made by this Division to be undertaken as soon as possible after 30 June 2010.

        (2)    The review must report on:

             (a)    the effectiveness of the compliance regime in:

                   (i)    meeting job seeking requirements;

                  (ii)    reducing financial hardship;

                 (iii)    reducing compliance costs for job seekers, employment services providers and the Government; and

                 (iv)    using the ‘no show, no pay’ provision to increase compliance with job seeking requirements;

(b)   the impact on vulnerable job seekers including Indigenous job people;

             (c)    the impact of the compliance regime on employment participation and long-term unemployment;

             (d)    the number of complaints made with the departmental hotline, Social Security Appeals Tribunal or Ombudsman’s office in relation to the new arrangements;

             (e)    the gaps between federal policy and state service provision for persons with non-vocational special needs or barriers;

              (f)    the adequacy of non-vocational support services in regional areas;

             (g)    the effectiveness of training for and consistency of understanding of Centrelink staff, employment providers and departmental contract managers in the new arrangements;

             (h)    the adequacy of information and education provided to new and existing clients about the new system;

              (i)    the adequacy of resourcing for Centrelink to implement the new arrangements and deal with related complaints;

              (j)    the effectiveness and use of criteria such as hardship, vulnerability and reasonable exclusion within Comprehensive Compliance Assessments; and

(k) any other related matter.

        (3)    The review must be conducted by an independent panel, chaired by a person with expertise in social security and employment services matters.

        (4)    The Minister must provide the panel with adequate resources to undertake the review.

        (5)    The panel must give the Minister a written report of the review, and the Minister must cause a copy of the report to be made public and tabled in each House of the Parliament by 30 September 2010.

This relates to a review of the impact of the compliance regime. It is self-explanatory. I think it would be fair to say that I have communicated openly with the government, the Greens and the opposition in relation to this. It will ensure that, after a period of 12 months, there will be scope for a review to be conducted within three months by an independent panel chaired by a person with expertise in social security and employment services matters. I think this covers the concerns that have been raised in the course of this debate both by the coalition and particularly by the Greens in relation to the issue of vulnerable job seekers, including Indigenous people. The government is putting through significant reforms. Let’s see how they work and let’s have the independent review. If the independent review says that they are working fine, there is no need to consider this further, but I think it would be a valuable exercise to have such an independent review to cover the areas of concern that various non-government senators have had in relation to how this legislation will work.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government wholeheartedly supports the idea of a review. It is one of the areas that in opposition we have argued for. Reviews are necessary and they provide a worthwhile check to see how matters are going. We have concerns. It is not unusual to express that. Looking at the breadth of 2(e), it is a review regarding the impact of the compliance regime. Clause 2(e) says:

the gaps between federal policy and state service provision for persons with non-vocational special needs or barriers;

And 2(f) says:

the adequacy of non-vocational support services in regional areas;

As I have said, insofar as they seem to only have tenuous links to the compliance system, we also have concerns about how some of these matters will actually be able to be measured. Nonetheless, a review is a matter that the government will support, notwithstanding the concerns that I have raised.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition also supports a review, for slightly different reasons than those of the government and perhaps some of the other parties, but I look for what we have in common. First amongst this is that we all agree that this is truly significant legislation. Some of us believe it goes too far and others believe it does not go far enough, but a review would provide evidence about the success and efficacy or otherwise of some of the measures that are going forward. To have a review after 12 months, particularly in the current economic climate, would be particularly timely given that there appears to be a deteriorating economic outlook, as forecast by the government through Treasury. To have an independent panel assess the effectiveness of the changes to this legislation would be a very positive step. It is something that the coalition supports. We hope that the review will support the coalition’s position on the amendments and the problems that we have identified with this legislation. Of course, if it shows that there are other issues that need to be addressed, we will consider those on their merits at the time.

Judith Troeth (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Senator Xenophon’s amendment, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

The Temporary Chairman:

We move on to the question that items (2) to (5) and (8) and (9) of schedule 4 stand as printed.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I neglected to inform the Senate that when I withdrew amendment (1) standing in my name I also wanted to withdraw this amendment on behalf of the opposition.

The Temporary Chairman:

That is fine.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.