Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Yes, I do strongly hold the same views as the member for Canberra. I would like to congratulate her on an excellent contribution to the debate and for highlighting all those issues that I intend to highlight, maybe in a different way but, nevertheless, it is very much the same in the Shortland electorate as in the Canberra electorate. It is probably a little bit worse because it is probably a little bit harder for people who are unemployed in the Shortland electorate and looking for work.

I have been a long-term advocate of helping people move from unemployment to work. I actually worked in that space in a former life. I know how difficult it is to bring about that change. It might seem a very simple answer to the problem—if you cut people's money off they have to work—but there are a few other things that come into play. There need to be jobs, and people need to have skills to work in the jobs that are available.

Unfortunately, the legislation before us today is all stick and no carrot. It is all about punishing people. It is not about facilitating their movement from unemployment into work. This legislation tightens the rules for job seekers who refuse a job. In an area like Shortland, if a person who lives in Swansea is asked to work in Maitland the impost is very great. It would mean catching a number of buses and a train, and many hours travelling. If a person without a car and living on the Central Coast were to seek employment in another area of the Central Coast or even Sydney or Newcastle it would mean a minimum of 1½ hours to travel a very short distance, because transport is very spasmodic and not of a very high standard. There is basically one bus in and one bus out in the morning, and one bus in and one bus out in the evening. People have to get to the hub and then travel some distance. So for somebody living in a place like Gwandalan it might take an hour and a half to get to a railway station.

There needs to be an understanding that people who are unemployed need support in a number of areas so that they are able to obtain a job and maintain a job. This legislation punishes people who are unemployed. This legislation makes it harder because there is no longer an opportunity for Centrelink to waive a preclusion period for non-compliance. Currently, Centrelink can do that. And there are many reasons why a person may not have attended a job interview or missed an appointment. I will give you one example. A woman came to me back when the Howard government was in power. She worked part time and received part Newstart payments. An appointment was arranged for her but it coincided with a day that she worked. She was faced with the prospect of either refusing to go to work or attending the appointment. So she contacted the agency and said, 'I can't come to the appointment today. I have a job; I'm working.' That was fine. They next time the agency called her in the same thing happened. That resulted in her Newstart payments being cut. We were able to talk to Centrelink and negotiate. Centrelink understood that there was a sound reason for her not having attended the appointment. They were able to waive her preclusion from Newstart. That cannot happen now. This punitive piece of legislation is going to make it impossible for people that are unemployed to manage their work commitments as well as meet the requirements that this government is putting in place.

For those people who do not have any work and who are looking at going from full-time unemployment to part-time or full-time work, it is even worse. As I mentioned at the beginning of my contribution to this debate, this legislation is all about penalties; it is not about facilitating a move to employment. There is nothing in the legislation about helping people develop the skills they need to get a job. The answer that this government has is either work for the dole or work for the Green Army. Where is the training component in that? How will a mutual obligation put in place by this Abbott government do anything towards helping a person get a job? If you are unemployed the one thing that you need is a job. To get a job you need skills. To get skills you need assistance along the way. This government is saying, 'You either work—you jump through our hoops—or you get no financial assistance at all.' To be quite frank with you, that is not good enough.

Coupled with this harsh approach to Newstart and compliance is the lack of support for people. The government are getting rid of Youth Connections and all the pre-employment programs that have helped people to become work ready. They are even getting rid of simple things like the Job Guide—which people used to research jobs—and other resources that people can use to obtain employment and information about work. That is all gone.

As well, this government is looking at putting a GP tax in place. What alternatives does a person, who is unemployed and precluded from receiving any sort of Newstart payment, have if they become ill?

They are getting no money. If they want to go to the doctor they have to come up with $7—'Not much,' I hear the members on the other side of this parliament saying, but it is a heck of a lot if you have no money at all. Those on the other side of this House stand condemned for the harsh nature of their budget, for the cuts they are putting in place and for their attack on unemployed Australians as well as their attack on pensioners, the sick, families and every section of our society in Australia that looks to government for support.

To be quite honest, the one thing this government has done is increase the number of people who contact my office complaining about government. This budget was supposed to be the answer to everything. I say: people are coming into my office regularly to complain about the government's budget. They are emailing me regularly to complain about the government's budget. They are coming up and talking to me when I have my regular mobile offices, complaining about the government's budget. Along with complaining about the government's budget, they are complaining about the harsh treatment of people who look to government for support.

I know there are some good people on the other side of this parliament. I know there are people in the government who must really be upset about this attack on the most vulnerable people in our society. I know that they must feel the pain that their constituents are feeling. I know that my electorate office is no different to the electorate offices of government members. I am sure that they are being contacted by their constituents complaining about the harsh nature of the budget as well about the harsh nature of changes contained in this legislation and similar legislation.

This legislation is unconscionable. It is cruel, it is hard, it is harsh and it attacks those people who are most vulnerable. There are a number of reasons that a person may not meet the compliance rules or fail to meet an appointment. I gave the example earlier of the woman who was working, but there are many, many others. They could have a family member who is ill. They could have other commitments. People, for a number of reasons—

Mr Zappia interjecting—

Yes, family commitments, as the member for Makin mentions. There can also be deaths in the family. One constituent came to see me—the member for Makin reminds me of this—who missed an appointment because they had to attend their father's funeral. Centrelink waived the preclusion period but will no longer be able do that under this legislation.

Also, a major problem that exists is the fact that a number of people who miss appointments miss them because they have problems with literacy and numeracy. I do not see this government moving to address that issue in any shape or form in the legislation before us. It will increase the reliance that people have on charities. Local welfare agencies such as the Smith Family, St Vincent de Paul and the Salvation Army are all organisations that give 100 per cent in Shortland electorate. They are all organisations that constantly struggle for donations to be able to support the growing number of people—the army of people—visiting them. That army will increase in size once this legislation becomes law.

Along with that, you have the churches. A number of churches within Shortland electorate are now running kitchens where they provide meals, groceries and support to families that just cannot make ends meet. This is already a problem and will become bigger and bigger. These measures are arbitrary and unfair. In an area like Shortland, there have been slowdowns in the mining industry and major construction, with the assault that this government has made on the manufacturing industry and the shipbuilding industry. A number of people living within the Shortland electorate work in those areas. This says to me that, with this draconian legislation, this government is forcing more people into a situation where they will need to rely on charities for support.

What should happen? The government should be trying to facilitate every means possible for people who are unemployed to re-engage. They should be working with job service providers to ensure that people who are unemployed get the skills they need. They should do everything they can to help them develop their skills, rather than just punishing them. There needs to be much more of a carrot approach than a stick approach. There needs to be an approach where the government take people with them—where they actually identify the reason they are unemployed and then try to work to resolve the problem, rather than punishing them and being cruel and harsh in the way that they are in this legislation.

See this speech in context