Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

The minister of course is calling out about these statistics. They are not my statistics; they are the statistics of the Brotherhood of St Laurence and I think that they say something meaningful to us and to this country about pockets of entrenched disadvantage. Because these communities have the highest birth rates, more than 37,000 babies at risk of serious disadvantage were born into just those 21 electorates last year alone. This is something that requires a response. It means that much of the next generation is being born into communities least able to help them escape a life of disadvantage.

Catholic Social Services has found in its most recent report on the distribution of disadvantage in Australia that just 1.7 per cent of postcodes and communities across the country account for more than seven times their share of the major factors that cause intergenerational poverty including: low income, limited computer and internet access, early school leaving, physical and mental disabilities, long-term unemployment, prison admissions and confirmed child maltreatment. The same report estimated that one-third of all communities in my home state of Victoria suffer from low social cohesion. Once again, these are not my conclusions but the conclusions of Catholic Social Services. They describe such communities as ones where there are inadequate levels of community trust and resources, and that lack of trust and resources make it more difficult for individuals and families to overcome the individual and family problems that lead to poverty.

A report released by ACOSS in recent weeks reminds us that we have a sizeable proportion of our community living in poverty. Using the OECD poverty line standard of 50 per cent of median income, the 2004 data tells us that 9.9 per cent of Australians are below the poverty line. If the European Union standard of 60 per cent of median income is used, then that figure doubles to 19.8 per cent of our community.

The Howard government likes to spruik its record, but it needs to take ownership of these statistics as well because they tell us something about those people in contemporary Australia who are doing it tough, who have not been touched by the years of economic prosperity—and we are into our 16th year of economic growth—and for whom more has to be done. It takes more than patting yourself on the back about your record to deliver a vision to address entrenched disadvantage in our communities. Sadly, the contents of the bill before the House today demonstrate that the actual record of the Howard government in dealing with the challenges of inclusion and engagement is not one to be proud of, so it is not surprising that this bill includes the usual random assortment of measures.

I should emphasise that there is one measure here that we strongly support: exempting relatives from participation requirements if they are the primary caregivers of children. On the basis of this measure, we will be supporting the bill. We consider this exemption is long overdue. The child must be directed to live with the person under a parenting order made under the Family Law Act 1975, a state child order or an overseas child order that has been registered under the Family Law Act and the person must be complying with that order. When those relatives are single principal carers, the bill also ensures that access to the highest available rate of payment, the parenting payment single, is available. Relatives who have taken responsibility for the care of children are obviously providing invaluable support to their family and their community and, in turn, we as a nation must support them.

It is worth noting, however, that some community advocates have argued that eligibility for these exemptions should be extended further to include other circumstances where a relative of a child may become a principal carer without court orders being made. Indeed, the approach in this bill contradicts the government’s move towards parenting plans and family relationship centres as alternatives to family courts. It would be worth hearing from the minister how she justifies the narrowness of this exemption and its apparent clash with other aspects of government policy. Nevertheless, this step is quite unlike most of the Howard government’s so-called Welfare to Work agenda, which actually makes it harder for Australians who are struggling to achieve financial independence. Unfortunately, other aspects of the bill continue in that vein.

The Howard government seems intent on making life harder for people with a disability. One measure removes medical officers from the assessment of a person’s capacity to work. This dramatic change was one of the reasons Labor initiated a Senate inquiry into this bill. The Mental Health Council of Australia submitted to the inquiry that taking medical officers out of the assessment ‘could have damaging unintended consequences for the person with mental illness’. The Australian Federation of Disability Organisations was similarly concerned with the implications of this bill, saying that even under existing arrangements:

People whose impairments are not visible have been inappropriately assessed by people with poor knowledge or appreciation of the impact of their condition on their capacity to work, the supports they need to work and the range of work that they can realistically undertake.

Given this current predicament, disability advocates are concerned about the impact of removing the limited remaining role of medical officers from this process. This change—obviously advocated by the Howard government because it is in this bill—seems an inexplicable one.

Labor believes there is a role for medical opinion in the job capacity assessment process. Consequently, when we reach the consideration in detail stage we will move substantive amendments to delete the items from the bill which remove medical officers from the assessment of impairment. When we get to that stage, I think it will be important for government members to understand that, if they vote against those amendments, they will be voting to remove these medical officers from the assessment of capacity to work. What could justify doing that?

The bill also reinforces the role of the job capacity assessment in another way. It replaces the guidelines for making these work capacity assessments, those made by the secretary, with guidelines set out in a legislative instrument by the minister. The secretary will be required to comply with these guidelines, as will the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

While Labor acknowledge and understand the concern that some in the disability community have about what the guidelines will prescribe, we do support the increased ability of parliament to scrutinise the guidelines as a legislative instrument. However, these guidelines have not been released and Labor will watch very closely to ensure that they do not make life harder for people with a disability. Consequently, at the end of my contribution I will be moving a second reading amendment to that effect.

This bill, like all the Welfare to Work bills put forward by this government, does not address this nation’s participation challenges. Clearly, the Howard government do not actually understand the scale of the participation challenge; they simply hope the mining boom will continue forever. Of course, we know that at some time in the future—and may it be a long time away—there will be a time beyond the resources boom for which we should be planning and investing now. Australia needs a long-term approach to workforce participation and welfare reform that tackles the reasons why some people are not working and delivers practical solutions.

As I have indicated, Labor will support this bill, principally because Labor does support exemptions from participation requirements for relatives who care for children, but Labor will move an in-detail amendment dealing with the medical officers issue to which I have referred. Labor will also seek, through the second reading amendment I will now move, for the government to tell the Australian people in a clear way how it is going to deal with the new guidelines of which this bill is the threshold part. With those words, I move:

That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1)

notes the additional parliamentary scrutiny of Legislative Instruments in place of administrative guidelines;

(2)

calls on the Government to listen to the concerns of the disability community regarding the quality and fairness of their Job Capacity Assessment system; and

(3)

calls on the Government to consult with stakeholders, to ensure that these new guidelines do not make life harder for people with a disability and that they have fair and reasonable opportunity to appeal decisions relating to job capacity assessments”.

See this speech in context