Australian Social Security System gets less punishing
By Antony McMullen
Social Justice Officer
Justice and International Mission Unit
Synod of Victoria and Tasmania
There are a lot of people who have mental illness and all sorts of other disadvantages that get in the way of their meeting very complicated and very much more rigorous requirements. And the former government set in place a regime that wouldn’t allow Centrelink to tag a very large number of those people as vulnerable. And so there is no doubt the system has penalised some of the nation’s most vulnerable citizens. And I have to tell you that makes me ashamed to be an Australian.
– David Thompson, Jobs Australia (2008)
The Justice & International Mission Unit has been highlighting problems in relation to the Australian social security system for some time now.
The 2008 media headline, Welfare cut-offs double in 8 months (The Australian 15/04), provided a stark reminder to readers of the “3 strike rule” which has resulted in people - many of whom are Indigenous Australians - being deprived of their social security payments. In 2006-07, the first year of the scheme, called ‘Welfare to Work’, 15,509 non-payment penalties were imposed, and in the following eight months to February 2008, 31,789 more penalties were applied.
In 2007, The Commonwealth Ombudsman found key areas of concern with Welfare to Work regime put in place by the previous Commonwealth Government mid 2006. Ombudsman John McMillan cited a case where a woman’s welfare payment was cancelled because she did not attend an interview, even though it was because she was having chemotherapy for leukaemia and had recently had surgery. Mr McMillan said after his investigation Centrelink acknowledged it should have given her a medical exemption.
In another case a man with severe epilepsy was waiting in line at Centrelink when he suffered a seizure. Paramedics were treating him when his name was called and explained his case, but when the man returned from hospital he had a letter from Centrelink saying his payment had been suspended because he failed to attend an interview.
Also in 2007, The Sydney Morning Herald (24/01) reported that a pregnant woman had her welfare payments cut off for eight weeks but was not given any extra financial help because she was not considered “vulnerable”.
Often, those people who make these ‘mistakes’, struggle to just keep a roof over their head. With the temporary loss of their social security payments, many do not have savings to rely on and less than 6% of people subjected to this penalty have received financial help from Centrelink. Almost 500,000 Australians need to work more hours in order to ensure their financial security, but still, they remain underemployed and can be forced into casualised employment arrangements. The unemployed need support to build their confidence in sourcing gainful employment. Pushing people further in to a life of poverty will not help them find secure jobs.
In 2008, the ABC reported that about 1,000 people a week are losing their social security benefits for two months under the 3 strike rule. Some in the welfare sector have said that about one third of these people have been made homeless as a result of this tough regime.
Signs of hope
There are some signs of hope. Before the 2008 Commonwealth Budget, the Minister for Employment Participation, the Hon. Brendan O’Connor instructed Centrelink and the Job Network to carefully consider jobseekers’ individual circumstances.
Budget papers have now announced changes to processes for the 8 Week No Payment Penalty. The Government has announced a revised process for dealing with participation failures, including:
§ 3 failures will (still) trigger a compliance assessment;
§ people may have their Payment Penalty lifted if they agree to undertake intensive training;
§ job seekers must undertake participation activities as part of an Employment Pathway Plan (failure to do so, without reasonable excuse, will result in the loss of one day’s pay for each day missed under a new ‘no show, no pay’ policy); and,
§ three failures will lead to a comprehensive compliance assessment to determine whether an eight week non-payment penalty is appropriate.
This are very good first steps. However, this policy should be scrapped all together.
In 2007 the Justice & International Mission Unit produced a YouTube presentation (put together by previous JIM staffer Jesse Cain) on this issue, “What Would You Do Without Income for 8 Weeks?” which can be found here.