Member’s letter to Doug Cameron

To:      Senator Doug Cameron

PO Box 322
Springwood, NSW, 2777

 

Dear Mr. Cameron

I write to you to highlight my concerns regarding the proposed legislation contained in the: Social Security Legislation Amendment (Further Strengthening Job Seeker Compliance) Bill 2015. I have had firsthand experience both as an unemployed person and therefore a client of Job Service Providers and also as an employee working within the ‘employment industry’ thus witnessing the conflict that can result between the adherence to the terms of a government contract versus the actual delivery of real services to the unemployed.

However, I would first like to congratulate you on your eloquent yet forceful defense, both past and present regarding the rights of Australian workers against the attacks of those that would see a diminution of wages and conditions. I believe that you yourself were once a Fitter by trade, although I am not sure of this. But if you were in fact once a ‘tradie’, I wonder if you have ever been an unemployed tradie; or worse yet, an unemployed ‘non-tradie’ by that I mean a person with few marketable skills. Would Labor advocate for the unemployed as it does so for everyday workers? So far Labor has not.

It would seem likely that with the relentless shrinkage of Australian manufacturing, an industry sector heavily reliant on the ‘tradie’ or skilled worker, that even the tradesman will no longer be relatively immune to the ravages of prolonged unemployment. This means that, more and more, the term ‘Aussie Battler’ might be applied to someone standing in the dole queue. I notice that, while not taking part in the overt vilification of the unemployed like those opposite you, Labor have failed to counter such vilification. It is not hard to think of examples regarding the introduction of harsh new laws once vilification of a minority has occurred. Advocating for the unemployed, or for that matter, asylum seekers or other vilified minorities might have a political cost, yet by remaining silent for so long and allowing such perceptions to become more normalized in the electorate, this cost might be a problem of your own making; a lack of leadership perhaps.

Anyway, I don’t mean to be overly critical. Your passion regarding the fair treatment of those less fortunate or simply those battling to make ends meet is unquestioned. For example I read your recent speech regarding this proposed legislation and take comfort that you recognise explicitly that Job Service Providers can sometimes (I would say often) act in ways that may not be entirely scrupulous. I have numerous firsthand accounts of such behavior, for example around October 2015 an elderly gentleman was presented to me who seemed to be in some obvious distress. He said his Job Services Provider (JSP) had told him that he would lose his payment if he did not open a ‘My Gov’ account, and that he would need to arrange to have an email address to do this. The fact that he was in his late 50’s and had never owned or used a computer was, according to him, discounted by the JSP. Just the tip of the iceberg I’m sure.

I myself have been threatened with sanction by my JSP for not entering into a ‘Job Plan’ that contained a term that I attend Work for the Dole. The threats and bullying continued for some days even though the Job Plan itself tuned out to be unlawful because I had significant part time work at the time. (Subsection 607B (1)(a) Of the Social Security Act 1991prohibites this). I suspect that the JSP may have been using the Job Plan as a tool to punish me for not revealing to them who my employer was.

Also, on the 11/12/15 I was told I by my JSP I would need to do an activity for 50 hours per fortnight and that I might not have much choice over which activity I undertook. This turned out to be untrue for various reasons, however, if I was to be more easily intimidated then I may very well have given up paid part time work just to fulfill the JSP’s requirements.

On the 12/1/15 I was told by my JSP that I would need to sign up to a ‘My Gov’ account or lose my payments. Moreover, this signing up, which is itself a voluntary act, was presented explicitly as the ‘Purpose of the Appointment’ thus, under this proposed legislation, potentially making it an enforceable requirement and this of course begs the question: just what else can be presented as the ‘Purpose of the Appointment’?

Your speech in the Senate, as well as recognizing that Job Service providers can act improperly and that definitions of ‘inappropriate behavior’ in this context of fining job seekers a significant portion of their income may be problematic, you also advocate for the replacement of what is currently termed a ‘Connection Failure’ with the more punitive ‘No Show No Pay Failure’. The reason you give is that it allows for a more immediate association between a breach and the prescribed consequence for that breach. This is undoubtedly sound psychological theory assuming that a breach has actually occurred. The only problem is, by my experience and in fact by your own stated belief in your speech recognising the possible dubious behavior of JSP’s, it is likely that if a jobseeker wants to find out if a breach or Failure has actually occurred it is often necessary to initiate the formal appeal process, this is something a vulnerable and intimidated job seeker is unlikely to do.

Therefore it is disappointing to me that this appears to be overlooked by Labor and that you are likely to give these privately owned Employment Service Providers and their employees of unknown qualification the power to effectively inflict heavy fines upon those less fortunate. You may argue of course that Centerlink will check before they impose any penalty. But is this really the case? Or if so how rigorous will that check be?

For example on the 29th of September 2014 I did not attend a scheduled appointment with my JSP on that day at 3.15 pm, I was not able notify them in this case that I would not be attending the appointment. During that period I did not receive any installment of Newstart Allowance due to income earned through employment. The JSP then reported this nonattendance to Centerlink.

On the 29th of September 2014, that same day Centerlink decided to impose a Connection Failure on myself in accordance with Section 42E of the Social Security Administration Act 1999, and record it on what they call my ‘Newstart Allowance record’. This decision, as it turned out, was contrary to Section 42 E of the Social Security Administration act 1999 (which requires a non-zero installment of a participation payment for the period), and was subsequently set aside by the SSAT at the time. However in spite of this being explicit in the law, Centerlink did not pick this up.

Therefore it is in light of the above that I would respectfully ask that The Australian Labor Party consider or reconsider the following:

 

  • That all possible advocacy be given by the Labor Party on behalf of those unemployed (and other vilified minorities) so that the process of vilification carried out by ‘others’ can begin to be undone over time within the community.

 

  • That consideration be given to opposing this Bill in its entirety.

 

  • That consideration be given to the question of whether the best interests of vulnerable minorities, whoever they may be, is best dealt with by a private sector with enhanced powers to punish.

 

I thank you for your time.