Mr LLOYD (3:00 PM) —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment Services. Is the minister aware of any reports relating to the breaching of job seekers? What is the government's response to job seekers who do not fulfil their mutual obligation? Does the government intend to alter its approach to job seekers who fail to turn up to appointments and interviews without a reasonable excuse?

Mr BROUGH (Minister for Employment Services) —I thank the Chief Government Whip, the member for Robinson, for his first question in this parliament. I know that he has always had a great interest in employment issues and I know that unemployment has reduced dramatically during his term since 1996 as the member for Robinson on the Central Coast.

At the outset, I should say that this government would like to believe that no member of the Australian public receiving unemployment benefit should ever be breached, because we believe that there should be a situation whereby those who are using the resources of the taxpayer to help them get back to employment should be able to fulfil their obligations. The unfortunate situation arises when people deem that they do not wish to fulfil their obligations and they then unfortunately find themselves breached.

In the recent Pearce report, great play was made on the most vulnerable in our society—those who are homeless, those who perhaps have a drug addiction or some other difficulty which is providing great challenges to them getting back into the work force. This government is very aware of those problems and, from 1 July, we understand that many people will not identify those issues to Centrelink when they apply for unemployment benefit. In fact, why would you? They can often be ashamed of the fact that that may have such a debilitating impact on their applications for work.

However, this information comes out after they have spent a period of time with their Job Network member. We are providing a system whereby those individuals, who are the most vulnerable, can be referred back to Centrelink for a more appropriate course of assistance to get rid of the drug addiction, to fix up the domestic violence issue or the homelessness. Those people should not be in the labour market looking for work. We have to get them into the position where those issues are dealt with before we give them the assistance, and this government is prepared to invest money to do that.

Unfortunately, there are those who would like to abuse the system and there are those opposite who, in this place and in the other place, have made comments, recorded in Hansard, which indicate that they believe people should not be breached. Senator Evans said:

The member for Shortland said:

Perhaps I could outline to the parliament some cases that have been provided from our community work coordinators, those who run Work for the Dole and Job Network members, of people who have presented that have been breached.

The SPEAKER —The member for Shortland! The chair has exercised a great deal of tolerance that is simply being abused by you.

Mr BROUGH —Stephen is a representative case. He is 28 and lives in Melbourne. He started his six-month placement on Work for the Dole in February 2001 and attended the occupational health and safety session on the first day. He did not attend the project again. When contacted, Stephen said he thought the one-day session was all he had to do. For this reason, he was not breached but the rules were re-explained to him—I think a fair and reasonable thing to do. Stephen still did not attend. There were repeated contacts and warnings over several months, but Stephen continued to be absent. He was breached twice in this time until, because of his continued non-attendance, Centrelink imposed a third breach. This breach meant that Stephen's payments stopped in May 2001. I wonder whether those opposite think that that is an inappropriate behaviour on behalf of this government.

Then there is the case of Bruce. Bruce is 20 and lives in Adelaide. He did not attend his Work for the Dole interview although he had been sent two separate letters giving him his appointment times and a contact telephone number in case those times were not suitable. When he was asked why he did not attend, he said that he was too busy. He was told that he had to attend the Work for the Dole interview or a participation report would be lodged with Centrelink. Bruce agreed to the appointment time. He attended the interview and complained about having to attend. He said that it had cost him $150 to keep his appointment. When asked what he meant, Bruce said that he couldn't be at the interview because he was at work. That is right; he could not be at a Work for the Dole interview because he was at work, and he is on Work for the Dole because he is receiving taxpayer-funded dole payments—but he thought that that was reasonable. It seemed that Bruce was working regularly but had not reported his income to Centrelink. Centrelink was advised and Bruce was breached.

I will give you one other example. This is John—

Opposition members interjecting—

Mr BROUGH —The interjections from members opposite quite clearly demonstrate that those on this side respect the taxpayers who are providing assistance to the unemployed and those opposite have no respect for the taxpayers or the services—

Mr Swan —On a point of order, Mr Speaker—

The SPEAKER —As the member for Lilley knows, I will recognise him when I have an opportunity to hear him. The member for Lilley.

Mr Swan —Under standing order 76, I find it offensive for the minister to suggest that we would support anyone who was rorting the system. When will you bring this minister back to the question and make him relevant?

The SPEAKER —The minister's answer is relevant to the question.

Mr Swan —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I find what the minister is saying offensive and I ask you to ask him to desist.

The SPEAKER —I have indicated that I believe the minister's answer is entirely in order.

Mr BROUGH —Just to put the member for Lilley's conscience at rest, perhaps he would like to explain to the House why Senator Denman said in the Senate Hansard of 23 August:

Perhaps that would put succinctly the feeling of those opposite about this government's commitment to ensuring the public purse is well spent. Let me give you this final example: John. He explained at his initial Work for the Dole interview that he was not well and that he could not—

Mr Swan —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are 600,000 unemployed people in this country. Are we to go through every case? This is tedious repetition.

The SPEAKER —The member for Lilley does not have a valid point of order. The member for Lilley will resume his seat.

Mr BROUGH —John explained at his initial Work for the Dole interview that he was not well and could not take part in the program. He said that he had a doctor's certificate about his illness and he gave it to his supervisor. The certificate described the patient's medical problem as `ovarian condition'—John had an ovarian condition! This, and the appearance of the medical certificate, raised doubts about whether it really did belong to John. John was told that he had to take part in Work for the Dole unless a medical certificate that he actually owned about his own illness prevented him. John did not obtain a medical certificate and did not return to the project as he had promised. A report was provided to Centrelink and John was breached.

This government believes that we should have a fair but firm policy in relation to the commitments that we provide and the obligations we have to this nation's unemployed. We expect reciprocal obligations from those who take money from the public purse. Job Network and Work for the Dole are about assisting people back into work. This government will never apologise for throwing the book at those who do not do what is expected and required of them by the public.

Mr Swan —I ask that the minister table the notes from which he was reading.

The SPEAKER —Was the minister referring to confidential documents?

Mr BROUGH —Yes.

The SPEAKER —He was reading from confidential documents.