Thread by @kristin8X

The MOs Bill is back & the government's desperate to get it done before an election.

You can't put lipstick on a pig.

ACOSS are pushing for some changes that will mean small improvements, but fundamentally this bill is bad & should be opposed.

Here's why to #RejectTheMOsBill👇

https://twitter.com/ACOSS/status/1508354396903833602

Don't lock in a bad system. We hope if Labor win government there's a chance for meaningful change. If this bill passes then any opportunity to work on substantive improvements will be significantly diminished. They've extended jobactive before & can do so again #RejectTheMOsBill

Changes that make savings from social security & unemployed people should be opposed.

The effect of changes in this bill will save $860 million in employment services over the forward estimates & another $191 million in payments recouped due to payment backdating changes.

They'll spend $197 million to expand Work for the Dole. As anyone whose done it knows, WftD is designed to remove workplace protections. The Secretary of a government department shouldn't have power to create new "work-like" programs – it should be reserved for parliament. #AWFTD

New WftD requirement … what do I even say. People will have to do a 2-month WftD activity after 6 months in "enhanced services", as well as the existing 6-month WftD activity at 12 months. Then repeat this every year. Average time on JobSeeker is 5.5 years – that’s a lot of WftD

One of the changes that looks likely to succeed is the removal of payment backdating changes that would mean people who struggle the most to use online systems, or those who seek to ensure their job plan suits their circumstances, would lose the most money.

The department estimated each year roughly 10,000 people will be without an income support payment for 26 days or more & more than 100,000 others will lose out too. The worst off will lose at least $1,100 of their payment.

Back to WftD for a tick – from the new legislative instrument: “enhancements ... were informed by feedback from WftD Host Organisations, jobactive Providers & peak bodies representing providers.” – ie the people responsible for safety violations & abuse. legislation.gov.au/Details/F2022L…

The bill introduces an "incentive" for people to relocate for a job. We asked the department how this will interact with existing provisions to penalise people who relocate to certain areas, which aren't being removed. They literally said they didn’t know. They wrote the bill...

We have no faith these “incentives” will be communicated to people in a way that protects them from the risk of their payment being cut if they move to the wrong area. It recently happened to @JeremyPoxon when he moved from a town of 3000 people to a city:

https://twitter.com/kristin8X/status/1479310647016013824?s=20&t=G7zWCInpl6K7IKUgbBlorA

@JeremyPoxon The department called Jeremy after he posted about this because he has a lot of twitter followers. Not really an option for most people affected by this absurd rule that takes away people's control over their life.

@JeremyPoxon One of the things I'm most distressed by – the creation 2nd class citizens in employment services. Right now, people are categorised based on their "barriers to work". But this doesn't really change your basic requirements, it just changes how much the job agency gets paid.

@JeremyPoxon "More employable" people will have the option of being online only – no job agency. Those deemed "less employable" will be forced to deal with job agencies & likely have more intensive requirements, creating an environment that's even more open to abuse than the current one.

@JeremyPoxon We know who's likely to get contracts for this program: major existing providers/worst offenders are likely to be rewarded with contracts to deliver “enhanced services". People better equipped to advocate for themselves will be protected, those on payments longest will be hurt.

@JeremyPoxon If the government really wanted to help people and operate a market-based system, “enhanced services” would be fully opt-in. Allow people to determine whether they prefer online or in-person employment services, regardless of their assessed barriers to employment.

@JeremyPoxon So, how will a digital vs "enhanced" services sorting hat work?

You'll be put in online or face-to-face based on a computer decision. There are risks from biased algorithm design to system accessibility. The government doesn't produce accessible, easy-to-use, mobile-friendly IT.

@JeremyPoxon Lack of access to internet and devices that work with the assessment system will also cause problems, particularly for people who have been on low incomes. Disabled people, older people & people with lower education are most likely to be disadvantaged by the online assessment.

@JeremyPoxon Due to the reputation of job agencies we believe people will try to answer questions in a way that gets them into digital services to avoid abuse. Some advocates are worried this means those who need support may not get it, however we believe it is rational for people to do this.

@JeremyPoxon Once a person is in digital services, points-based activation means if you don't understand how the points work, or make an error entering activities, you risk cutting your own payment. Mistakes cause about ¼ of suspensions now – by people whose job it is to know the system.

@JeremyPoxon About ½ the ~1 million people in employment services with compulsory requirements are disabled (jobactive & DES). In December 2021 there were 390,000 on unemployment payments with partial capacity to work.

@JeremyPoxon On JobSeeker & Youth Allowance Other the most prevalent disabilities are psychosocial (164k) & musculo/skeletal and connective tissue (118k). There are 12k with intellectual/learning disabilities, 9k with a respiratory condition, 12k endocrine/immune system conditions.

@JeremyPoxon In the #AWFTD survey, of the people who've responded so far, 59% said they are being put at higher risk of COVID because of activities they have to do to get their payment, and virtually no job agencies or other organisations hosting compulsory activities provided PPE.

@JeremyPoxon People in DES are already being moved back to jobactive without warning. We expect another sharp rise in how many disabled people are in mainstream employment services, because that's how Boston Consulting Group said the government could save $ in Disability Employment Services.

@JeremyPoxon Disabled people are highly likely to be placed in “enhanced services”, exposing them to the same job agencies & activities that currently exacerbate & create disabilities. On current figures enhanced services will effectively become a de facto disability employment service.

@JeremyPoxon It's unclear how much of the New Employment Services Model can be implemented if this bill doesn't pass. There are conflicting views among advocates & government. But we know the government has a contingency plan ready in case the bill does not pass.

@JeremyPoxon Some people are worried that if the MOs Bill doesn't pass it could hurt folks if the change from jobactive to NESM is derailed.

We have pretty straightforward proposals about how to protect people from losing their payment if there's chaos in the department.

@JeremyPoxon A month of penalties being suspended absolutely won't cut it.

Past transitions have been a disaster & there's no reason to expect this time will be better, even if the bill does pass. DSS & DESE need to minimise disruption to payments regardless of the outcome.

@JeremyPoxon A 'mutual' obligations penalty suspension should be 3 months at the bare minimum – again, whether the bill passes or not.

The government needs to proactively communicate all changes with participants MUCH more effectively than in the past & we're willing to help them do it.

@JeremyPoxon We need to learn the lessons of the past. The government's rhetoric is the same every time – the new model will stop abuse & actually help people – but it's always worse.

We need to fight this every inch of the way & demand better, not tidy up the edges & hope for the best.

@JeremyPoxon [apologies to pigs who are generally lovely creatures and do not deserve to be brought down by association with this bill and the disgusting 'mutual' obligations system]