The Australian Greens are extremely disappointed by the rushed nature of the inquiry into the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Streamlined Participation Requirements and Other Measures) Bill 2021. This bill encompasses significant changes to employment services, mutual obligations and compliance for income support recipients. These changes should be properly and thoroughly examined given the potential consequences for income support recipients. The changes in the bill will result in a reduction of 130 pages from social security law and have significant impact on hundreds of thousands of people.
Unfortunately, stakeholders were only provided with a few business days to consider the bill and make submissions to the inquiry. This is wholly inadequate for a suite of such significant changes. While there are some positive changes, such as more flexibility and agency in creating a job plan, a number of the proposed changes do raise deep concerns and need more careful consideration.
The Government has failed to adequately explain why this bill needs to be rushed. The rushed nature of this process rings alarm bells and suggests the Government is seeking to avoid proper scrutiny of this legislation.
As pointed out by the National Employment Services Association, the shift toward online servicing under the New Employment Services Model means that the Commonwealth Government is now the largest provider of employment services in Australia. The Greens support more delivery of employment services by Government but the framework for this delivery must be properly established from the beginning. This makes it even more important for the Government to commit to ensuring this bill will be carefully and properly reviewed.
Secretary’s discretion
Schedule 1 of the bill introduces significant changes to job plans, unsuitable work provisions, and mutual obligation exemptions. One of the key issues is the amount of discretion provided to the Secretary in determining the operation of digital servicing, mutual obligations, and job plans.
As a result, it is unclear how aspects of these changes will operate in practice without seeing the associated guidelines and policies. For example, what will the new Points Based Activation System look like? How will the Department of Education, Skills and Employment (the department) determine what combinations of activities can make up a job plan? How will people be notified if they have failed to complete their job plan online? How will people be transferred from digital to face-to-face servicing? How will online servicing support people to disclose personal barriers?
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights noted that it is unclear what information will be given to individuals to ensure they are aware of their ability to choose between digital and face-to-face servicing.
In answer to questions on issues such as these, the Government says these details are yet to be developed, yet they expect the Senate to vote on this bill in the absence of such vital information.
Exemptions from mutual obligation requirements
This bill introduces a single set of mutual obligation exemptions for Parenting Payment, Youth Allowance, Jobseeker Payment and Special Benefit. Under existing legislation, most mutual obligation exemptions contain time limits of 13, 14, or 16 weeks, which can be applied by default. This bill does not require time limits be placed on exemptions, but allows the Secretary to do so if needed. As noted by the Antipoverty Centre:
Removing these maximums is good. In theory, providing more discretion regarding exemption periods should allow more reasonable lengths of time for people who have chronic and permanent health conditions to have relief from participation requirements. Protections should be included to ensure this change does not result in people in employment services being granted shorter exemptions as a matter of course or negotiation.
The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights also explained that removing time limits could serve as a significant safeguard. However, this raises questions about how, and under what guidelines, that discretion will be exercised.
The Australian Greens support the removal of time limits for mutual obligation exemptions. However, we have serious concerns that this is also open to abuse. The Government must ensure that people receiving income support payments are able to easily access exemptions for as long as they need them.
Changing and varying job plans
The Explanatory Memorandum states that people on income support payments will be able to 'adjust their requirements, if appropriate, or report a change in circumstance. This will be able to occur at any time—there will be no rules or time limits on when an employment pathway plan can be varied'.
While there may be no rules or time limits on when a job plan can be varied, section 40V provides the Secretary with the discretion to refuse to vary a person’s job plan. In reality, people on income support payments may not be able to change their job plans as easily and freely as the department would like us to believe.
It is unclear whether people in online servicing will be able to appeal should the Secretary refuse to vary a job plan. As St Vincent de Paul outlines:
The bill is silent on the timeframes involved and it is assumed that the existing approved employment pathway plan remains in place until such time as the review process is complete. This is unsatisfactory mainly because a plan that presents issues for a job seeker is likely to increase the risk of non-compliance and subsequent breaching.
We are concerned that the Explanatory Memorandum is misleading. It appears that job seekers cannot vary their plan as easily as the Explanatory Memorandum suggests or as the department suggested in evidence to the committee. The bill clearly allows the Secretary to determine whether or not job plans can be varied.
Protections for people with partial capacity to work and principal carers
Under existing legislation, people with partial capacity to work and principal carers cannot be forced to work more than 15 hours a week. Section 40R of the bill replaces this safeguard with the following:
Principal carers and people with partial capacity to work
(a)
A person is not required to satisfy the employment pathway plan requirements in respect of a period of 2 weeks if the person:
(i)
is the principal carer of at least one child or has a partial capacity to work; and
(ii)
is engaged for at least 30 hours in that 2-week period in paid work that the Secretary regards as suitable.
We note concerns raised by stakeholders that section 40R may not offer the same protections as existing legislation, as principal carers and people with partial capacity to work could be asked to accept job offers of more than 30 hours a fortnight.
Parenting Payment is being undermined
Parenting Payment is a support payment for single parents raising children who might otherwise be at risk of hardship.
One of the consequences of the 'streamlining' undertaken in this bill is that Parenting Payment is being further entrenched as a participation payment when it comes to job plans, compliance, and employment services. This represents the continuation of a significant policy shift that first started under the introduction of the punitive ParentsNext program.
The Australian Greens have serious concerns about this policy shift and a new provision allowing the health and education of a child to be included in a Parenting Payment recipient’s job plan. There is no reason why the health and education of a child is relevant to a Parenting Payment recipient’s job plan or income support payment. As noted by the Council of Single Mothers and their Children:
It is an unreasonable intrusion of the government into the lives of people who, for whatever reason, are currently economically vulnerable and require the support of our social security system, as most people do at some time in their lives.
We agree this is an unreasonable intrusion into the lives of single parents and is unacceptable.
Changes to definition of suitable work
Subsection 40X introduces a new provision that paid work is not unsuitable because it is not the person’s preferred type of work or preferred level of pay. This new provision disempowers people on income support by taking away their choice and control about accepting paid work. St Vincent de Paul called this measure 'unfair, punitive and exploitative'.
Furthermore, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights explained that the definitions of unsuitable work do not consider the fact that:
Some workplaces are unsafe for particular people, not necessarily because of some characteristic inherent in the work itself, but because of the other people who work there, or whom the role would require the person to engage with. This may especially be the case for women, people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, or Lesbian, Gay, Transgender, Queer and Intersex people.
The Australian Greens reject the new provisions around unsuitable work and call on the Government to ensure job plans and the threat of mutual obligations do not result in unsafe work environments for people looking for work.
Delays to income support payments
One of the worst parts of this bill is Schedule 8 which will delay payment for an estimated 144 000 people using digital employment services. This schedule will mean people engaging with online servicing will only receive income support payments after signing their job plan online. In contrast, those undertaking face-to-face servicing will receive their first income support payment from the date they attend an initial appointment with their provider.
There are serious problems in linking the start date with a person signing their online job plan. Firstly, there are concerns that it could place pressure on job seekers to accept a job plan that is not suitable to their circumstances. They will not have the 48 hours 'think time' offered to people undertaking
face-to-face servicing. Secondly, it could discourage job seekers from taking the time to understand and exercise their rights when they know that their job plan is linked to their payment.
The department estimates that the average amount of income foregone in 2022–23 will be $457 for people receiving Jobseeker Payment and $346 for people receiving Youth Allowance. This is a significant amount of money.
For people who have lost work, it means the difference between secure housing, having food on the table, and being able to pay your bills. As noted by the Australian Council of Social Service:
The proposed deferral of the first income support payments until people using online services sign on to a job plan would needlessly cause financial hardship and pressure people to accept inappropriate automated plans.
The Australian Greens strongly support calls for the removal of Schedule 8 from the bill.
What about the rest of the New Employment Services Model?
The Government has already made significant savings from moving employment services to an online model. While this bill provides the legislative authority for online servicing, it fails to set out the Government’s vision for the New Employment Services Model.
It is clear from evidence provided to the inquiry that the changes in this bill do not fully implement recommendations from the Employment Services Expert Advisory Panel report, I Want to Work: Employment Services 2020. As noted by Anglicare Australia:
This bill is ostensibly a response to the Panel’s work, yet it only cherry-picks from the Panel’s recommendations. The Government appears to have ignored the Panel’s findings on compliance and penalties.
The Australian Greens are disappointed that the Government is attempting to sell this bill as reform, when in reality, people on income support payments will continue to be penalised. Mutual obligation requirements and the Targeted Compliance Framework will continue to underpin our employment services system, despite evidence demonstrating that breaching people does not help them find work.
Further, the so called savings generated from the move to online servicing will be generated from penalising unemployed people further.
We are deeply concerned that the Government is not investing more into the employment services system. Australia is significantly underinvesting in our employment service system. The data shows that we invest at significantly lower levels than other OECD countries. There is no indication of how much money the Government will put into face-to-face servicing under the
New Employment Services Model. It is clear that we need more funding and support for specialist providers who support the most vulnerable job seekers.
The Australian Greens are calling on the Government to provide more time for parties to consider the substantial changes made in this bill. These are important changes and should not be rushed through Parliament without proper scrutiny.
The Australian Greens do not support the passage of this bill and make the following recommendations.
Recommendation
No one in online servicing should be pressured into signing a job plan without adequate 'think time' and the start of a person’s income support payment should not be linked to the signing of a job plan.
Recommendation
The ability to vary a job plan must be made clear.
Recommendation
Single parents on Parenting Payment should not be subject to mutual obligations or required to complete a job plan and ParentsNext should be abandoned.
Recommendation
People with partial capacity to work, or principal carers, cannot be forced to work more than 15 hours a week.
Recommendation
A consultation process be undertaken on the guidelines and policies that will accompany the changes made in this bill.
Recommendation
Government should work with the sector to implement a digital services ethics code for the employment services system ensuring the digital rights of people using online services.
Recommendation
Guarantee people participating in employment programs, like Work for the Dole and Youth Jobs Path, will be afforded basic workplace protections.
Recommendation
Fully implement the New Employment Services Model proposed by the Expert Panel in consultation with users, peak bodies and experts.
Recommendation
Abolish the Targeted Compliance Framework and mutual obligation requirements.
Senator Mehreen FaruqiSenator Rachel Siewert
MemberParticipating Member