Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition supports the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Connecting People with Jobs) Bill 2010. Apart from some of the self-congratulatory assertions in the minister’s second reading speech in the House of Representatives, the speech outlined very well what the government is seeking to achieve. This is one of those bills that, since it is only four pages long, is fairly easy for us in this chamber to decipher, to understand and come to grips with on a relatively quick basis if we are so inclined.

The idea of this legislation is to assist long-term unemployed job seekers living in areas with high unemployment to relocate and take up a full-time job elsewhere. Funds for relocation on a reimbursement basis will be provided for job seekers with assistance for such things as airfares, removalists, temporary accommodation and post-placement support and mentoring. I understand that this is a trial targeted at the long-term unemployed.

We as a coalition have always believed in the concept of mutual obligation, that if a taxpayer is to make a contribution to a citizen for your assistance then there is an obligation for that citizen to acknowledge that to the community at large. As a result, the government is proposing that, if a person fails to stay in employment without a reasonable excuse for six months and has received assistance from the Connecting People with Jobs relocation pilot program, they incur a wait of up to 12 weeks for more assistance.

The coalition had a virtually identical policy when we were last in government. It was condemned by Labor and now they are reintroducing it—a program that we implemented. It was a policy that was hollowly condemned by Labor, and now it is being adopted virtually in its entirety. So you have a government that does not have an agenda of its own and is unable to make the right calls and so, scratching around, once again goes to the coalition to adopt good, sound policy ideas for the future of our country.

I understand this is being sold as a trial, yet we had this scheme while we were in government and it was criticised by Labor as being non-effective. Indeed, when we announced our policies before the last election, I recall that one of the kingmakers—who I am sure Senator Arbib is well acquainted with—one of the faceless men in the Labor Party, Mr Paul Howes, branded this idea. Providing encouragement for the unemployed to move to find work in another area—relocation and retraining to find a job—especially when unemployment is low, is not a new concept, but it did not stop the boss of the Australian Workers’ Union, Paul Howes, branding the idea as ‘crass politics’ and ‘Tony Abbott’s Sarah Palin moment’, which showed how ‘removed his thinking was from the real world of work’. That was said in April this year.

Having said that, Mr Howes has gone strangely quiet on the government actually adopting this as their policy and committing to our policy, which was designed to get people into work. It does seem somewhat incongruous that we pay unemployment benefits to those in high-unemployment areas and yet there are demands for labour in other areas of our great, large country where there is a shortage of employable people. Being able to match the unemployed with the jobs that are available in other parts of the country, especially where people are capable of moving, makes good sense from a social equity point of view and it makes good sense from an economic point of view. Let us keep in mind that the best social security policy any government can deliver to its people is a job through which they can become self-reliant. That is why we as a coalition have supported this concept for some time.

It is good to see the Labor Party coming on board and adopting our policy; it is good to see the Labor Party acknowledging that this is an area that needs to be addressed. Whilst this is a trial I do note that the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations made mention of relocation in its 2006-07 annual report under the section ‘Report on performance: workforce participation’. It was noted that it occurred largely in the construction industry or in the hospitality sector supporting the mining industry in Western Australia. The fact that we have been able to relocate unemployed people to where the jobs are in the past shows that it does work. It also shows, of course, that Labor’s criticism of our action plan that was delivering results in the run-up to the 2007 election was hollow rhetoric—they have now adopted our policy some three years later, having seen the social and economic benefits of our approach in this area.

As I said in commencement, the coalition supports the legislation. I will not bother to repeat the exact detail of the regime, which, I might say, the minister outlined so succinctly in her second reading speech on 21 October 2010 in the other place. The coalition supports the bill and commends it to the Senate.

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

The Greens do not support the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Connecting People with Jobs) Bill 2010 and I will articulate why. During the election the government announced the Connecting People with Jobs trial, which will allow long-term unemployed people—those who have been out of work for 12 months or more—to be eligible for reimbursement of up to $3,000 if they relocate to a metropolitan area for work or up to $6,000 if they relocate to a regional area for work, plus an additional $3,000 if they have dependent children. The trial, as we know, will provide a wage subsidy of $2,500 to employers as an incentive to employ these particular job seekers. The trial will be for two years and is aimed to assist 2,000 people.

I note that the funding for this trial is not new money but money already allocated to the Employment Pathway Fund. This bill allows for job seekers in certain circumstances to have their social security stopped for 12 weeks. The current legislation already provides for an eight-week non-payment period where a job seeker becomes unemployed as a result of a voluntary act or due to misconduct. This bill seeks to extend that period to 12 weeks where the job seeker has been paid relocation assistance. The Greens’ concern and opposition to the eight-week non-payment period is well documented and we have articulated in this place on numerous occasions the impact that that eight-week non-payment period has had on people.

The Greens are supportive of measures to provide incentives for long-term unemployed people to find work, including through assistance with relocation costs. That is not what we have an issue with. We do not understand why we have to have the severe additional penalty contained in this bill. It is needless, in our opinion The Greens do not support the current eight-week non-payment period and we do not, therefore, support its extension to 12 weeks. We believe that the impact that the eight-week non-payment period has had on people has been extremely severe. It has in fact led to people dropping out of the social security system altogether, which has meant that there have actually been rolling eight-week non-payment periods. This occurred more often before the government amendments bringing in a much better Employment Pathway Plan, a much better compliance process, a better examination of other options et cetera. Having said that, we are still concerned about the impact that the eight-week non-payment period has had with, as I said, people dropping out of the system and rolling eight-week non-payment periods, and about the impact on certain groups of people and people in certain locations. We are concerned about the impact this much more extensive process could have.

Regardless of circumstances, three months is a long time for people to go without any financial support. We are concerned about the punitive compliance measures proposed to keep people in jobs, particularly when the incentives in this measure are aimed at those who have been out of work for 12 months or more. People who have been out of work for 12 months or more have significant employment barriers, and we are concerned that a significant employment barrier may be a reason why somebody may leave a job once they have started it. Some of those barriers, which may not have been addressed while those people were on income support, may not be acknowledged and may be a contributing factor to their unemployment.

I would also note in passing that we have some concerns that the funding for counselling through the JSA process will stop and that that counselling service will then stop, so that people will not even be able to access that type of service. In fact, we are concerned that the 12-week non-payment period may actually put people off accessing this incentive in the first place.

Voluntarily leaving a job can occur for a variety of reasons—including because of bullying, lack of support or personal circumstances—that we do not believe justify such a severe penalty. This is so particularly when you also take into account that people may be relocating a significant way from their current residence into regional areas and may not get the support they need to stay in a job—particularly, as I said, when we are aiming these incentives at those who have been out of work for a significant period of time. I am concerned that the support services that may be needed to keep people in employment, particularly in regional and more remote areas, may not be available.

We do support attempts by the government to assist people to relocate for work. As I have said, that is because we think that we need to be offering these sorts of incentives to encourage and support people back into the workforce. But just giving financial support is not necessarily addressing what are, for some people, very significant barriers to employment. While we support the attempts by government to assist people to relocate for work, we simply cannot support the provisions of this bill and what we think is the needless increase in the non-payment period.

An eight-week non-payment period, when you have no other source of income, is already a significant deterrent, in our opinion. Indeed, as I have said in this place many times, we believe that eight weeks is too severe—let alone going to 12 weeks. If we have to have a non-payment period, we believe the current, eight-week, period is enough of a deterrent. As I have already said, we have concerns about even the current period.

This bill is, in fact, not about connecting people with jobs; it is about punishing people who are in need of support. We believe we should be focusing our efforts on actually addressing the question: what are the barriers to long-term employment? We believe we should be putting a lot more into ensuring that the people who are in this program are supported to stay in work and into addressing some of the issues that may influence their ability to stay in jobs that they relocate for.

So we do not support this bill. We think it is unnecessarily harsh. We do not support the eight-week non-payment period, as I have said. Just in case people out there have not got that message: we do not like it. We believe is a significant barrier in itself and, therefore, unnecessary. We also believe, as I said, that it is counterproductive and does not consider adequately enough the reasons for which people may leave work. As I said, it may in fact act as a disincentive if people realise that they may then have a 12-week non-payment period. I realise that the two major parties agree on this bill, but we do not support it. We do support the incentives process in this approach, but we do not support the severe penalty that is introduced in this bill.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Housing and Homelessness) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senators Abetz and Siewert for their comments in the debate on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Connecting People with Jobs) Bill 2010. However, I reject Senator Abetz’s comments regarding the government’s agenda. The government has had an extremely strong agenda in terms of employment participation. The stimulus for nation building and jobs was targeted at keeping people in employment: 200,000 jobs were supported and protected by the stimulus package while, at the same time, workers, who otherwise may have lost their jobs, were kept in employment and could keep food on their tables and roofs over their families’ heads. That is what the government stands for.

This bill is a key component of the government’s Connecting People with Jobs trial. It aims to improve labour mobility and support for long-term unemployed job seekers. The Connecting People with Jobs trial will commence on 1 January 2011. It will provide support for long-term unemployed job seekers living in areas with high unemployment rates and keep them connected with jobs in other parts of Australia. Job seekers who relocate to take up an ongoing full-time position or apprenticeship will be reimbursed up to $9,000 for relocation expenses and other needed supports. Under the trial, job seekers will be eligible for reimbursement of up to $3,000 for relocating to a metropolitan area or $6,000 for moving to fill a job in a regional area. They may be eligible for an additional $3,000 if they are relocating with their family.

Relocation, as we know, often has high costs, especially when it involves moving interstate or even across the country. These job seekers will have sought employment in their current location for at least 12 months but may have lacked the resources to move to take up employment further afield. As part of Labor’s election commitment, employers will also be eligible for a wage subsidy of $2,500 to create an upfront incentive for taking on these job seekers. This is in recognition of the additional support and assistance individuals will need in the early stages of their employment in the new location. While this trial will encourage the long-term unemployed to relocate to take up a job, this bill seeks to create an incentive for individuals to stay in their new location and to keep them in sustainable employment. Specifically, the bill seeks to strengthen associated compliance measures for job seekers who have been assisted to relocate to a job under the trial by extending to 12 weeks the period of nonpayment of income support, should a relocating job seeker leave the job within the first six months as a result of a voluntary act or of misconduct.

We know that job seekers were previously subject to an eight-week non-payment period. In relation to Senator Siewert’s comments can I just say that under the trial, if a job seeker leaves their relocation employment without good cause within the first six months, the standard non-payment period will be increased from eight weeks to 12 weeks. The important point is that this will happen if they leave ‘without good cause’. Job seekers will of course have an opportunity to explain their situation to Centrelink.

The national unemployment rate currently sits at 5.4 per cent, which is down from 5.7 per cent a year ago. However, the truth is that the employment situation varies across the country. In the modern age there is a need for greater labour mobility—that is something we all accept—and relocating part of the workforce to meet employer demand is an effective measure of achieving this. The Connecting People With Jobs trial will enhance the flexibility of the labour market by encouraging additional relocation activity to help better match labour supply with demand. The funds for relocation will provide job seekers with assistance for things such as airfares, removals, temporary accommodation, post-placement support and mentoring. I think that is very important: it is not just about the relocation expenses; it is also about post-placement support and mentoring. It will also provide employers with the workers they need to grow their businesses and ensure that people have sustainable employment into the future.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.