Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industrial Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Vocational Rehabilitation Services) Bill 2006 that has been proposed by the government, subject to amendments moved by the shadow minister. I would like to pay tribute to the comments made by the member for Lingiari. He represents an extraordinarily large electorate, an electorate with particular problems in areas of not only disability but also impoverishment. The government would do well to listen to some of the matters he has raised in this debate today.

I want to be on the record as opposing the bill but indicating to the government via this chamber that Labor does not oppose in principle the idea that the provision of this service could be contestable; however, this should be guided by considerations of the public interest and on the condition that appropriate safeguards and quality control mechanisms are in place. The framework being applied by the government here though does not meet these requirements. In particular, the loss of parliamentary oversight of these safeguards is unacceptable.

Since the election of this government in 1996 we have seen a gradual trend away from public accountability in services such as this. We have seen the government contract out services that provide support and succour for people in need. The problem with many of the decisions made by government in this area is that they have not in any way attended to the concerns of the most vulnerable in our community. Labor is strongly committed to welfare reform—that has been said time and again in this debate and in earlier debates on bills such as this—but is very concerned about the Howard government’s punitive approach, exemplified by its Welfare to Work changes. Most of this bill represents a continuation of these changes. It is short on detail and will have many unfortunate consequences for welfare recipients, which has been a feature of the government’s Welfare to Work legislation as a whole.

When people receive Newstart or youth allowance, most have to engage in activity in return for the income support. If needed, some may be required to attend vocational rehabilitation services. At present this service is provided exclusively by the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service. The Howard government has been working towards making rehabilitation services contestable, allowing private providers to tender for contracts. In principle this is supported across the welfare sector but opposed by others, including unions. However, because many private providers are not compliant with provisions of the Disability Services Act, the secretary of DEWR may allow services to be provided by some providers who do not have a certificate of compliance.

There are other areas of the bill to which I want to refer. But, as I have said, Labor does not support this bill in the main, because it does not provide the reforms that are required. It is too punitive. Pensioners who study or train in an approved course can access the pension education supplement; however, recipients of allowances such as Newstart or youth allowance cannot. Under the welfare reform changes, people who move from disability support pension or parenting payment to Newstart or youth allowance were supposed to be able to retain the PES until they completed their current course of study. However, this bill clarifies that people who claimed DSP between 11 May 2005 and 30 June 2006 who qualified for the PES and who moved to an allowance will only be able to continue to access the PES if they no longer qualify for DSP as a result of their first DSP review after 1 July 2006.

The removal of PES for specified recipients reduces support for education for these groups. This is contrary to the government’s indication in 2005 that PES recipients would retain this entitlement for the remainder of their course notwithstanding the welfare changes. Labor has always argued that restricting the PES so that Welfare to Work candidates cannot access it is short-sighted and will do nothing to alleviate skills shortages. The sector agrees that this is a retrograde step and argues that this is inconsistent with the government’s previous commitments. Labor therefore proposes to extend the pension education supplement to all Welfare to Work candidates.

The Welfare to Work changes include changes to compliance such that certain breaches incur a penalty of eight weeks nonpayment of income support. Some people who face this penalty may be able to access financial case management in certain restrictive circumstances. These arrangements are entirely discretionary and are not guaranteed in legislation. While the breaches may be contested through the appeals process, decisions regarding financial case management cannot. This is another fundamental weakness of this legislation. So, as I have indicated to the House, Labor is not opposed to the principles of the idea—

See this speech in context