David Fawcett (Wakefield, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment Reform) Bill 2007 and related bills. I welcome the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that leadership is required and I welcome the leadership that has been shown by the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs in this area—the strong leadership he has shown to make progress where many governments of all persuasions previously have not managed to do so.

I do not plan to speak at great length about the Northern Territory and the events there, because that has been well canvassed by many members in this place who have talked about the great need for change, the great need to protect children in that environment. What I wish to focus on specifically tonight is the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment Reform) Bill 2007, particularly schedule 1, which deals with the income management regime. The reason I would like to focus on that is that it has a broader application than just the Northern Territory. It affects people all around Australia who fall into a category of requiring assistance.

To illustrate that I bring to the House a couple of examples of families I know in the seat of Wakefield, lest we kid ourselves and believe that these problems are confined to Indigenous communities. There are problems that go to the care for children in all of our communities. There is a family that I am aware of comprising a single mum raising a young boy, with a partner in the home. Due to a number of issues surrounding substance abuse, particularly crystal meth and alcohol, and gambling addictions, essentially pretty much all of the welfare payment this mother receives goes through the poker machines in one day. The conditions in the home have deteriorated to the point where the majority of their furniture and other assets have been hocked off. This has affected the young boy in terms of his whole outlook on life and what is normal. When he goes out with extended family members they report being horrified by his attitude in shops as to whether something should just be nicked to make up for what is not at home. It also has an impact on his schooling, on the willingness of the parent to take the child to school on a regular basis, which has a flow-on effect to this child and his view on the world, his capacity to engage in the world. The really disturbing part is that the mother in this case is in complete denial that there is an issue. There is complete denial about the fact that she has some responsibility or that she in fact has the capacity to make choices that could improve the situation for her and her child. So whilst the abuse is not necessarily of a physical kind, this child is being placed in an extremely precarious position because of the poor choices of the mother.

So where does that lead to down the track? I come to another case, of a man whom I spoke to just last weekend who described to me how, as a young boy and through to a teenager, he was repeatedly physically, psychologically and sexually abused by his father to the point where he ran away from home. Again, many of the issues were the same in terms of drug abuse, alcohol abuse, pornography et cetera.

These issues are not constrained to the Indigenous communities, so I welcome this income management regime, which is not intended to create a nanny state in Australia, a state that seeks to micromanage the Australian community, but which recognises that there is a small subset within our community who, for whatever reasons, have not developed the life skills, the motivation or the ability to manage their own circumstances and the circumstances of those whom they have responsibility for. These measures recognise that there is not only an obligation on behalf of the government to support these people in terms of providing them with the means to live but also an obligation to the broader society to make sure that this money is spent for the purpose for which it is intended.

To go to some of the detail of the income management regime, division 1, ‘Simplified outline’, highlights that an income management regime is being set up for recipients of certain welfare payments. A person may be subject to the income management regime because a child protection officer of the state or territory requires the person to be subject to that regime, the person or the person’s partner has a child who does not meet school enrolment requirements, or the person or person’s partner has a child who has unsatisfactory school attendance. Those are not exhaustive measures of the wellbeing of a child, but they are powerful indicators as to whether a parent is taking their responsibility seriously. It is a little bit like removing the permit system in the Northern Territory, in that, by exposing the child to an environment where there is a broader public review on a day-to-day basis of the behaviour, the attitude and the wellbeing of that child, there is a level of accountability that is inherent. By sending the child to school, there is an independent check and balance that provides the opportunity to review the wellbeing of the child and to provide that duty of care and reporting. So, whilst it is not a perfect measure, school attendance is certainly a powerful measure in assessing whether a child has needs and whether the parent needs some support or management to help get to the point where that child is given the start in life, the life skills and the very substance of the things that they need to grow and flourish in life.

The person who ends up becoming subject to the income management regime will have an income management account. Essentially, amounts will be deducted from the person’s welfare payments and credited to that income management account. The reason for that is obviously to allow for the management. Centrelink is not going to do this immediately there is an issue. There will be periods in which people can verify enrolment or attendance or challenge issues around their suitability as parents. Even if they are found to have, for example, not had the child attending school for whatever the benchmark is—for example, five days in a term—there is an opportunity for them to make good that standard. But, should it be found that that is not the case, they will have up to 100 per cent of their welfare payments put into an income management account.

The other option is if a written notice has been received from the state child protection authority requesting that a person be placed in income management following a child having been found at risk of neglect. This is an area where I would encourage the state governments to work with us to make sure that their state departments who look after child welfare issues are adequately resourced. In the example I described before, the extended family have for some time seen the train smash coming. They have spoken with the school, they have spoken with Centrelink and they have spoken with the state welfare authorities. But nobody at this stage has been able to take action because none of the thresholds have actually been crossed. So I welcome the wording that talks about a child having been found at risk of neglect. So, rather than waiting until the damage is well and truly done, we can start to work with people when those warning signs are very clearly there and those people have been engaged in a meaningful and constructive way with both state and federal authorities. We will be able to hold them to account and give them the opportunity to explain the situation, to develop or change their ways or, if need be, to come under this management regime so that the children are given the chance of a change in their circumstances rather than waiting until the damage is done and is identifiable before any of these measures can be taken.

All of the advances, lump sums, baby bonuses et cetera are going to be managed. I believe that is a welcome development. The welfare payments will be placed in a person’s income management account. This account will essentially be public moneys, but not for the use of the government. It will not alter the tax liabilities or the child support liabilities et cetera of people. Individuals will not lose any of their entitlements. They will get regular statements of credits and debits and balances. They will also need to meet with Centrelink to discuss their needs and their patterns of expenditure. This requirement for consultation recognises that, whilst everybody has core needs, there are differing circumstances that must be met. These funds will be applied to the known priority needs of each person, their partner, their children and other dependants. The priority needs will include things like food and clothing, housing, health, child care and development, education and training, employment and transport and even things like funerals. Centrelink will not be able to unreasonably refuse access to funds for other purposes if all of these other priority needs have been met. But there will be certain excluded goods, such as tobacco, alcohol, gambling and pornography.

On that point, whilst I welcome the measures in the Northern Territory to ban X-rated, 18-plus pornography going into those communities, I think it is interesting to note that, since the 1980s, that material has been banned around Australia in other states. If we believe that damage is being done in the Northern Territory through this material—and given the weight of evidence around the world about the impact of pornography on people, both adults and children—I think it would be appropriate to look at completely banning that material in Australia. I would welcome further moves from the government to have a common alignment across all the states and territories in terms of that material.

Turning to the management of the actual finances, the bill will provide flexibility and methods to meet people’s priority needs, whether this is through things like vouchers or stored-value cards, expense payments or payments to various account types—for example, stores, debit cards or bank accounts. It also provides some option for discretional cash, subject to the involvement of the people managing the account and a legislative instrument. Individuals will have standard appeal rights in relation to their income. Importantly, also, the bill recognises that there are a number of different circumstances, and it makes exceptions, for example, for people who have no requirement under the state law for their children to be at school. For example, somebody who chooses to home school their child and has that approved by the relevant state authority will obviously be exempted from these requirements.

These things are not happening in isolation. I welcome in particular, both nationally and in Wakefield, the input of groups such as the family relationship centres, which are seeking to be not only a gateway into the family law system where families are not coping or have decided to separate but also, importantly, a gateway to a broad network of resources to help young couples, young parents and couples who have been married for some time to gain support to make good relationships even stronger and better. I encourage people who are service providers in the family relationship centre network to look at how they could also offer services to help people who find themselves in a situation requiring this kind of intervention on behalf of the government.

We also need the cooperation of the states. I am aware that there is already some concern from education departments and some schools about the provision of attendance and enrolment data. I believe it is important, if we are to truly protect these children from the sorts of consequences we have talked about, that we see cooperation. There has been a lot of talk recently about the fact that the Australian government needs to be cooperating with the states. On just about every measure that you care to name, whether it is roads, water or disability—issues such as these interventions; there has been a whole range of areas—the Commonwealth has invited interaction with the states so that we can work with them. Interventions generally only come when we get to the point where the need is so pressing and the cooperation has not been forthcoming. But here is an opportunity for us to work together in the best interests of children. So I would welcome measures by the state governments to make sure that we can get those enrolment and attendance figures from the schools and that adequate resourcing is placed into their departments looking after families and children so that, where extended families, schools or other concerned appropriate people make reports about the welfare of the child and the children who are identified as being at risk of neglect, early intervention can occur, as opposed to waiting until it is far too late in the child’s life experience.

I support this bill, which is one of a number of bills in this measure, which not only addresses the issues in the Northern Territory with our Indigenous communities but also specifically seeks to address similar problems that affect many of our communities across Australia. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context