Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor will be supporting the Social Security and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2006. There is nothing particularly controversial in this omnibus bill. It makes a number of minor and technical amendments to various pieces of social security, family assistance and related legislation. The bill does not propose to introduce any significant new policy and the measures have little or no financial implications for the budget. The bill is intended to resolve anomalies, make technical corrections and refinements and to bring the legislation into line with established policy and practice. It makes changes in the areas of childcare benefit, social security arrangements for temporarily separated couples, income assessment for the low-income health care card and the definition of ‘homelessness’ for social security matters. It also repeals some redundant housing acts and makes various technical changes, many of which are necessitated by the commencement of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. Consequently, as I said, Labor will be supporting the passage of this bill.

The bill makes various amendments to the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 in relation to the childcare benefit. The bill seeks to provide the minister with the power to determine a class of individuals who are taken to have recognised training or study commitments for the purposes of childcare benefit entitlement. Individuals who satisfy the work, training or study test may be eligible for childcare benefit for up to 50 hours per week. Currently the legislation specifies circumstances in which an individual has recognised work, study or training related commitments, and the current legislation also provides the minister with a discretionary power to determine that individuals in a specified class are taken to have work or work related commitments. However, there is currently no power for the minister to make a similar determination in relation to study or training commitments, so the bill will provide this power to the minister and should provide for a less restrictive administration of the study and training test in the calculation of entitlement for childcare benefit. We certainly believe that that is a positive step forward.

The bill will also serve to ensure that childcare benefit is not available for care provided by a schoolteacher as part of a compulsory education program. In general, schools and childcare providers should be considered to be separate entities. However, an increasing number of schools are offering programs which demand attendance outside school hours, and attendance at these programs is supervised by a teacher. This increasing trend necessitates the clarification that childcare benefit eligibility does not extend to parts of the compulsory education program.

The bill also provides that the departmental secretary has the power to determine that an approved childcare service is the sole provider in a particular area, should they be satisfied that the service is likely to close without such a determination. Currently that power rests with the minister and that can involve unnecessary bureaucratic complications. This change should lead to greater administrative efficiency and is more consistent with the role of the secretary in general with regard to childcare benefit eligibility under the family assistance act.

The final major amendment in relation to childcare benefit is that which limits the benefit available for care provided by a registered carer to the fee amount paid. It is currently possible for users of registered care to receive more childcare benefit—that is, more subsidy from the government—than the amount that they pay in childcare fees. That possibility will be removed by this amendment. That is another sensible change.

Another major change made in the bill is to amend the Social Security Act 1991 to include de facto couples in the definition of temporarily separated couples. Temporarily separated couples are eligible for a higher rate of certain supplementary social security and family payments. However, this eligibility is currently limited to legally married couples. Consistent with the treatment of de facto relationships in other areas of social security law, this amendment will ensure that de facto couples, like legally married couples, will benefit from eligibility to a higher rate of benefits such as rent assistance.

Perhaps the most important part of this bill for my purposes as the federal member for Sydney, however, is the part that amends the Social Security Act to include Lord Howe Island within the definition of ‘remote area’ for social security purposes. This will mean that the island’s residents will be eligible for payment of remote area allowance. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not sure whether you have ever been to Lord Howe Island, but Lord Howe Island is a World Heritage listed island. It is extremely beautiful. In fact, there is probably no more beautiful place on the planet than Lord Howe Island. Because of its World Heritage listing, the sensitivity of the environment there and the fact that Lord Howe Island depends on tourism for the bulk of employment on the island, the employment status of individuals there can be quite precarious. Tourism on the island is limited to fewer than 400 beds on any given night, and of course in winter, when the winds blow, most of those tourist beds are not occupied. So there are times when people experience pretty straitened circumstances.

On top of that, because Lord Howe Island is hundreds of kilometres away from either Sydney or Port Macquarie, where supplies are likely to be obtained from, the cost of living on Lord Howe Island is much higher than it is in most other parts of New South Wales. The cost of groceries is very high; the cost of building materials is very high. Even the fact that things like clothing have to be bought by mail-order from the mainland in most circumstances means that the cost of living is very high, and this puts a lot of strain on people on fixed incomes.

There are also a number of other issues that Lord Howe Island faces because of its isolation, including the health services available to islanders and aged care services. People who live on Lord Howe Island want to stay on Lord Howe Island—and who could blame them? But as they age, the services available to them, including home and community care, are under enormous pressure. As is the case in most parts of Australia, there is an ageing population and limited resources to support that ageing population to stay in their own homes.

The young people on Lord Howe Island have the most idyllic lifestyle. They run to school in the morning in their bare feet and attend a fantastic little school, the Lord Howe Island Central School. But issues such as access to the internet and the breadth of their educational experience have to be taken into account, as is the case in any remote area community. The fact that the residents of Lord Howe Island seem to live in paradise does not help when they are struggling to pay the bills, and it does not help when they are wanting to ensure that their children get the best and broadest experience of the world.

I certainly welcome this proposal regarding eligibility of Lord Howe Islanders to additional benefits because of the new definition of Lord Howe Island as a remote area for social security purposes. I am sure the residents of Lord Howe Island will be pleased with this, but I am sure there are a number of measures that the government could implement to improve support for people living on Lord Howe Island. They face all of the same increases in the cost of living associated with fuel increases, for example, as do we here on the mainland. As is the case in any remote community, when the cost of fuel goes up, the cost of living goes up exponentially.

Other changes made by this bill include providing clarification that carer allowance is not payable during imprisonment; the clarification that job seekers in receipt of youth allowance are entitled to the automatic issue of a health care card; and the alignment of the definition of ‘homelessness’ in regard to special benefit payments with the meaning of ‘homelessness’ that applies more broadly for benefits such as youth allowance and disability support pension. As I have indicated, the bill also repeals a number of redundant housing acts, makes other minor amendments, corrects technical anomalies and drafting errors. As I said earlier, Labor will be supporting the bill.

Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Social Security and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2006 contains, as the previous speaker said, a range of measures. On first appearance, it is a composite bill, and we in this place are used to composite bills that cover a whole lot of technical stuff. Sometimes we search through such legislation to find the hidden traps. In this instance, whilst they are not largely significant, the measures that are proposed in this legislation are very significant for a range of people.

The minister’s second reading speech did not enlarge upon the contents of the bill to any great extent, but when one looks at the explanatory memorandum, one finds changes to childcare benefits and other childcare measures. The arrangements regarding two members of a couple temporarily living apart are significant, where there is illness or some other interruption to their lifestyle. Anomalies in the income test for low-income health card carriers are also covered.

I would like to give attention to the area dealing with the larger customer groups, who are recipients of youth allowance and the youth supplement of the disability support pension and, in particular, to pay some attention to the Welfare to Work provisions. There have been a number of comments since 1 July with regard to the effectiveness of the Welfare to Work program. Most of the criticisms have come from some of the usual welfare groups that one would expect to be somewhat antagonistic to this government because they never seem to be able to find anything in the government’s programs that satisfy them. I would like to look through some of those comments and deal with them.

The critics range from ACOSS, of course, and welfare rights centres that say that people in remote areas where there is only one network provider may have extremely difficult problems, be apprehensive about disclosing personal health details and, in that way, be precluded from the opportunity of gaining access to the massive program that is rolling out over four years entitled Welfare to Work—a program, I would remind the House, which is valued at $3.6 billion. It is a massive program of about $1 billion a year to help people on the disability support pension to move into work. Not in every instance will we succeed, but the attempt needs to be made.

I am reminded at this point of a remark of a dear friend who is a recipient of the Order of Australia for his support for people with disabilities and that is John Temple. John Temple suffers from autism and it is quite amazing what he has been able to achieve to help people who are disabled. He complains about people who are the able disabled because John, despite all of his disabilities, has run a business for years. He is a very capable driver of bulldozers and front-end loaders. He can operate any piece of equipment with four wheels with great skill and has been successful in earning a full income for all of his working life. John, by the way, was predicted to die before he was three. He did not speak a word until he was five. He could not walk until he was 13. Despite all of these setbacks, John Temple is a recipient of the Order of Australia, honoured by the Queen and the Australian government for his contribution to society. John becomes quite distressed when people claim that there is no opportunity for them to make a contribution to our society. So the philosophy that John Temple has expressed publicly and privately about the role of the able disabled is something that this government is very determined to pursue to offer people a better way of life.

Some of the complaints that rural areas may be poorly serviced drew me to have a look at the service providers in some of the rural districts of Australia. I looked first of all at Ballarat and found that there is a full page of service providers, ranging from Ballarat Regional Industries Inc. to Interact Australia, Karingal Inc. and Midland Support Services Inc. There is a multiplicity of providers in Ballarat. In a provincial city, one would expect there to be plenty of service providers. I looked also at Bendigo and found that there are nearly two pages of providers in the Bendigo electorate, including Asteria Services, Australian Business Development Centre, Bendigo Access Employment, Drake, Goldfields Employment and Learning Centre, Midland Support Services Inc., and the list goes on. I just plucked a few from what must be a list of at least 20 providers in Bendigo.

The criticism raised by some seeking to denigrate the government’s efforts to give disabled people more satisfying lives and allow them to start up in life again does not seem to stack up against the facts. If one looks at the Capricornia electorate, there are also two pages of providers, including groups such as the Business Success Group; CentaCare; Community Employment Options Incorporated, in north Rockhampton; Jim Ralph Employment Consultancy; Mission Australia; Skill Group Ltd; the Salvation Army; and Waycage Pty Ltd. So there is a range of services available through all electorates of Australia. I know that there are problems with people finding employment in remote areas, but the government is determined to make every effort and to try to provide a better way and a better opportunity for people with disabilities or who are on a disability pension.

I notice the workforce participation minister, Sharman Stone, has said in relation to the expenditure of the $3.6 billion over three years—not $4 billion as I said previously—to help job seekers that this funding will go towards helping the long-term unemployed, mature age people, people with disability and parents on welfare to become financially independent. What could be more uplifting and confidence building than to make people independent of others when they come to provide for their daily needs? Sharman Stone, the minister, went on to say:

Far from being worse off, as ACOSS reports claim, these people will be given every assistance to find a job and move beyond welfare dependency. There has never been a better time to find a job in Australia, with unemployment levels at a 30-year low.

I think that this proposal is going to work well. ACOSS has said that 158,000 people would receive lower payments. That is not true. The Treasurer refuted that on 3 July when he said that everybody would benefit. The Treasurer said there are no people in these cohorts who are worse off today than they were in 1998 in terms of real disposable incomes.

A number of reports have indicated that, during the 1980s and 1990s, generous welfare provisions for the unemployed, especially those with children, meant that couples might have been better off with both being on benefits rather than one earning the minimum wage. I think we have all experienced that. We all know of the resentment that taxpayers feel having to pay high taxes for people whom they think should be out there working. So this is a bit of a restoration of the balance. Yes, there is an encouragement to get out and work and, yes, there is a lot of support if you are willing to give it a go. That is what I think these changes are about. Will we succeed in every case? I have already said no, we will not; some will be extremely difficult. Some will be extremely disabled and will not be able to be assisted, but maybe through wonderful organisations such as Cumberland Industries—

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Melbourne Ports, are you seeking to raise a question?

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the member for Mitchell accept a question?

Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The two cases of the disability support pensioners who have been denied assistance by Centrelink: do you have a comment on them in the light of what you have just said?

Alan Cadman (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the member wishes to provide me with the details of the names, addresses and telephone numbers, I will make sure the minister carefully checks out the precise details. All he has to do is provide me with that information and I guarantee I will do that—as he could himself, of course, but he is game playing here. He could of course take it to the minister and establish the facts himself, but I would be delighted to act as a go-between for him. I guarantee that the minister will give both of us the very best of attention, the most compassionate support, and will willingly assist us in resolving any problems that may exist for people who are currently on a disability pension.

I am fortunate to have somebody who was formerly on a disability pension working in my office. This young man also suffered from a mild form of autism, and he found it very difficult to get a job. In fact, he could not get a job, but he has a brain that just clicks into databases and computers. We were able to establish for Wayne an opportunity—this is a very generous and thoughtful government—with the cocktail of a disability pension and a part payment by a minister. And I encourage members to take into their offices people with disabilities. The minister, the Hon. Gary Nairn, has been very careful in coming up with a way to establish a part payment and a part pension benefit, which ultimately gets people to a point—the point where Wayne is now—where they are on a proper payment and a proper salary. I would like to be able to give Wayne more work in a week than I do, because like all members I feel that an extra staff member would not go astray, but that is not the case at the moment because I only have limited capacity to pay Wayne.

Thanks to the intervention of my colleague from Melbourne Ports, I draw the attention of the House to a statement, on 21 July, by the Melbourne Institute’s deputy director, Mark Wooden, who said that while more long-term unemployed had found work, the outlook continued to be grim for those out of work for a decade or more.  Of course, that is understandable. This is where the effort is going to be put in. This is where the $3.6 billion is going to be directed—in encouraging those people to change. If it is possible to have those regular hours and to establish a regular pattern of conduct of getting out of bed and getting to a place of employment, and if it is possible to make the employment interesting and encourage people to try new things, then I think that in a large number of cases there will be success.

Now I turn to the rise in the number of unemployed fathers caring for children. This is also an interesting phenomenon, and I think that the changes to the Family Law Act are going to help establish a better balance in situations where there has been a family split-up. I know this is a bipartisan issue and I hope that we are successful. I know the parliament hopes that the Attorney-General and the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs will be successful in this process —both of them are carrying responsibilities.

There have been criticisms from advocates who say that cutting payments is going to be a disincentive and will disadvantage people.  I think the balance is about right. I do not really believe that, it is possible to carry on with the high level of support and at the same time expect people to make the choice to go to work. So there needs to be a balance between training and education, and encouragement to pick up a work placement and take advantage of corporations such as Cumberland Industries and North West Personnel, who are the most amazing people.

I will read to you a couple of examples from North West Personnel, which has the best record of any group in the nation for finding jobs and placements for people with a disability. This organisation started off with very low funding. I know that Christine Liddy, who is the director of that organisation, was concerned that they were not being allowed to do enough. But now, with Welfare to Work, their role has expanded and they are going to be able to fulfil what they know they can do to find work for people with a disability.

I want to put on the record the comments made by James Radley, known as ‘Jimmy’. He joined North West Personnel in May 2001. He was asked to fill out a vocational interest profile form, and I will talk about some of the things he highlighted. By the way, human resource directors in large corporations ought to understand that people with disabilities cannot always fill in forms. The first thing they say to people, would you believe, is, ‘Will you fill in this form?’ If a person has a disability, they are not necessarily going to be able to fill in a form, but with a verbal exchange the occupational people within a corporation ought to be able to help them do that. Some of the changes needed involve making businesses understand how they can really match in—hot sync, if you like—with people with disabilities, drawing them into the workplace, providing them with satisfactory employment doing jobs that release other employees to do perhaps more skilled or a greater variety of tasks.

But Jimmy was asked to fill in a form and he was able to do so. Jimmy said:

My goal is to find a job, and to have a feeling of achievement. I know I can make a real difference in my community by making my contribution to it.

He said:

I want to find my place in life, find out where I fit in, and feel a real sense of belonging.

I want to find friends and share a friendship with them. I want to make other people happy.

I want to earn money so that I can live comfortably and be happy and some day am able to travel and see different parts of Australia and the world.

This is a young man with a disability saying, ‘These are my aspirations; these are the things I want to do.’ This is what he said to North West Personnel in 2001. Jimmy went on, saying he wanted:

To become a better person, more competent and recognise my strengths and weaknesses.

I want to build my self confidence and be comfortable around other people. To be accepted by my peers/friends and co-workers. I want to accept people from different cultural backgrounds.

I want to be comfortable making my own decisions and setting goals for myself.

What an admirable range of aspirations for this young disabled person.

Here are some of the things that Jimmy did not like:

Being short makes me feel out of place and different from other people.

He does not like ‘knowing that I have certain limitations that are beyond my control’. He does not like ‘not being able to have my own car or drive’, ‘being dependent on others to take me places’ and ‘inconveniencing others’.

Why did he really want a job? He wanted a job to gain satisfaction. He wanted a job to be able to learn new things and acquire new skills, to really make a difference and a contribution to his community and to get to work with and know people. If you are isolated and disabled, you do not know people and you do not work with people. He wanted to earn money. He wanted to buy nice clothes and dress smartly. What a good thing this is. He wanted to be able to travel. He wanted to be able to buy a car. He wanted to become independent. He wanted to improve his self-confidence and prove that he was not a failure. He said, ‘I can achieve anything if I set my mind to it.’ What a splendid young man. He wanted to be able to ‘pay my bills and learn to budget’ and to be a team member and feel secure. He had great work ethics. He is a good communicator—he has openness. By October 2004, what had Jimmy achieved? He had achieved a great deal by working—(Time expired)

Kelvin Thomson (Wills, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Public Accountability and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Social Security and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2006 is an omnibus bill which makes minor and technical amendments to family assistance and social security legislation. No new policy initiatives or changes to existing policy are enacted by this bill. The opposition supports this bill, the purpose of which is to make minor and technical amendments to social security and family assistance legislation to remove anomalies, repeal provisions which are redundant and clarify a number of aspects of the legislation which are not in line with the government’s current policy. The most significant of these are amendments to the child-care benefit provisions—for example, to ensure that care provided as part of a compulsory education program at a school does not qualify for child-care benefit and to ensure that the amount of child-care benefit paid for a particular period does not exceed the amount actually paid for approved care in that period.

The bill also provides for the inclusion of de facto couples in the definition of ‘temporarily separated couple’ for the purposes of certain supplementary payments available to couples who are temporarily separated to bring the eligibility requirements for certain supplementary payments into line with other social security and family assistance payments, which of course do recognise de facto couples.

The bill includes residents of Lord Howe Island in the eligibility criteria for remote area allowance. I will ask a question on that issue a little later. The bill clarifies that carer allowance is not payable during periods of imprisonment. It also clarifies the rules regarding low-income and automatic issue health care cards for youth allowance recipients. It clarifies that youth allowance job seekers are entitled to an automatic issue health care card. It involves the repeal of a series of redundant housing acts and the alignment of the definition of ‘homelessness’ for the purposes of special benefit payments, with the meaning of ‘homelessness’ applying more broadly, such as for youth allowance and young disability support pensions.

As I have noted, the bill makes a number of minor changes to child-care administration specifically, giving the minister the power to determine a class of individuals who are taken to have recognised training commitments or study commitments. This is an extension of the existing power the minister has to determine by legislative instrument that individuals in a particular class have recognised work or work related commitments. The classes are not exclusive and are intended to clarify that persons in a certain category are deemed compliant with the work, study or training test which must be satisfied in order for an individual to claim maximum hours of subsidised child care.

Secondly, the bill clarifies that child-care benefit is not available in respect of care provided as part of a compulsory education program. This provision is intended to clarify existing child-care policy which is that child-care benefit cannot be claimed for care given by a teacher as part of a compulsory school program. Generally, a school and an approved child-care service are separate entities. However, there are an increasing number of schools offering programs with compulsory attendance outside of school hours, supervised by teachers, which should not be classified as child care and attract either child-care benefit or the 30 per cent tax offset.

The bill also gives the departmental secretary the power to determine that an approved child-care service is a sole provider in a particular area if the secretary is satisfied that the service would be likely to close if such a determination were not made. Currently, the minister has this power. The amendment substitutes ‘the minister’ with ‘the secretary’.

The bill also limits child-care benefit for care provided by a registered carer to the fee amount paid. This is an obvious point, but the potential currently exists for users of registered care to be paid more child-care benefit than they pay in child-care fees. The amendment appropriately removes this possibility.

I mentioned Lord Howe Island earlier and the issue of remote area allowance. Lord Howe Island is included in special tax zone A and should also be included within the social security definition of ‘remote area’ so that residents can attract remote area allowance as part of their social security payments. The bill makes this inclusion clear by amending the definition in subsection 14(1) of the Social Security Act. The query that arose in my mind when I looked at this part of the bill was whether Lord Howe Island residents had been getting the remote area allowance up till now or not. Is the law changing to reflect the current practice or is in fact the practice being changed? I would appreciate the minister being able to provide a response to that in his summing up remarks.

The amendments remove anomalies and clarify the legislation in line with established policy. They make technical corrections and refinements. For example, child-care benefit for registered care is limited to the fee paid. Child-care benefit is precluded from care provided as part of a compulsory education program. The concept of a temporarily separated couple who attract a higher rate of some supplementary payments such as rent assistance and remote area allowance can include a temporarily separated de facto couple. The correct range of Commonwealth payments are taken into account as income for the low-income health care card, and the meaning of ‘homelessness’ for the purposes of special benefit is aligned with the meaning of ‘homelessness’ that applies more broadly, such as for youth allowance. Certain redundant housing acts are repealed and necessary technical corrections are made, including many that are consequential to the commencement of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. The bill is stated to have negligible financial impact. The member for Mitchell in his remarks referred to the impact of the government’s Welfare to Work changes—

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

I was indicating that it was my intention to follow up some of the comments made by the member for Mitchell on this bill in relation to the government’s Welfare to Work proposals. Unlike the member for Mitchell, I do not have a rosy view about what the end product of the Welfare to Work proposals will ultimately be. Indeed, I think its principal impact is that many people who are disabled and many single mothers will be put on to allowances rather than pensions and that they will experience a cut in their incomes. That will be the most immediate and lasting impact, and that is really all that the government is managing to achieve—a cut in their pay.

It strikes me as ironic, when we have debates on things like Welfare to Work and incentives generally, that it appears to be the view of the Liberal Party in relation to incentives that people at the top end of the income scales need more money to act as an incentive for them to work harder. We see this with the pay packets of Sol Trujillo and others. I remember people saying, ‘It’s bad enough that I have to come here to work; do you expect me to work as well?’ Some of the bonus payments and the arrangements for some of our chief executives seem to be structured in that way. They get millions of dollars and, if they in fact do their job, they get millions of dollars extra. But the incentive structure means more money for them, whereas at the bottom end of the income ranges people are told by the Liberal Party and those opposite, ‘Really, the way to give you incentives is to pay you less.’

We see this in the way that the government has approached Welfare to Work, in that it proposes to cut payments for people who are disabled and for single mothers. This acts in tandem with its Work Choices changes and with its quadrupling of the skilled migration program. All of those things are acting to put downward pressure on wages and make it harder for people at the bottom.

In relation to how the Welfare to Work changes are actually working, my colleague the member for Melbourne Ports asked the member for Mitchell a question about the two cases which have been raised in the House by Kim Wilkie, the member for Swan, in the last week or so. He made revelations concerning the way Centrelink had treated a leukaemia sufferer in his electorate, 16-year-old Matthew Pearce. Those revelations about how a leukaemia sufferer had been treated were quite disturbing. His disability support payment had been rejected, and there were also expectations concerning his attendance at Centrelink, notwithstanding his state of health. After this matter was drawn to the attention of the Minister for Human Services, there was intervention which led to Matthew Pearce receiving the disability support pension.

The difficulty with this arrangement is that we have thousands of people who require disability support payments or who may be eligible for them, and the government needs to have the right policies and procedures in place. It should not be necessary for people to have to raise these matters in parliament or on current affairs programs in order to secure justice.

Indeed, after the member for Swan raised the case of Matthew Pearce, he was contacted by another constituent of his, Brenda Hendricks. Ms Hendricks was diagnosed in February this year with a highly aggressive, incurable brain tumour. I understand the tumour is rare and highly malignant, which was obviously a terrible thing to experience and to be told about. Her initial contact with Centrelink involved them informing her that she was ineligible for the disability support pension but might be entitled to a Newstart incapacitated allowance. She followed all the instructions but informed Centrelink that she was unable to visit the Victoria Park office as she was still recovering from major brain surgy. She was then told, on this initial contact, that it was not necessary for her to attend an in-person eligibility assessment and that it could be conducted entirely over the phone. Subsequently, she was contacted by Centrelink and asked to attend in person to sign all the paperwork and to complete a follow-up interview. Centrelink insisted that she attend in person, even when they were advised of the severity of her condition. They assured her that by prebooking an appointment time she would not have to wait. Despite these undertakings, she had to wait for almost an hour. She was offered an apology and told that Centrelink were unaware of the severity of her condition. In fact, Ms Hendricks had informed them on four separate occasions.

She was then informed that she would have to lodge a fortnightly claim form, and she objected to this. They said, ‘Well, you can report every three months provided the form is accompanied by a doctor’s certificate.’ After this, Centrelink began sending her letters threatening to recover payments as she had not lodged the fortnightly claim forms—that is, the forms that she had been told she would not have to lodge. The work capacity assessor was surprised by the severity of her condition and that she had been requested to be assessed. She was told at that meeting that the assessor would state in her report that Ms Hendricks was unfit to work for at least six to 12 months. Two weeks later she was informed that an appointment had been made for her to meet with Centacare to create a resume for her, to go through possible job options and to enrol her on Job Search. She was distressed by this appointment being made for three reasons: first, she had been promised by the assessor that she would be considered unable to work for six to 12 months; second, she had informed Centrelink that she would not be able to attend in-person meetings because of the severity of her condition; and, third, her own situation—as she is a qualified psychologist, if she were not ill, she would not need any assistance in getting a job. This situation distressed her. It added to the difficulties she was experiencing dealing with her condition and the undergoing of treatment. She broke down in her oncologist’s office. The hospital welfare officer was called in to assist her and, with the assistance of the hospital welfare officer, she successfully applied for the disability support pension on the basis that her condition was deemed permanent.

A month later, after she began receiving the disability support payments, she was again contacted by Centrelink and informed that another interview had been set up for her with Centacare, the job placement provider, and that if she did not attend her payments would be suspended and Centrelink would proceed to retrieve all previous payments. She contacted Centrelink to reiterate her circumstances and was informed that under the new Welfare to Work laws, which had come into effect on 1 July, she must attend the meeting. The meeting had been scheduled for 26 June, so she said that the legislation did not yet apply. In tears, she phoned the hospital’s welfare officer, who at least managed to get the appointment cancelled. She is highly confused as to why she had been asked to attend such a meeting, given her condition and indeed given the fact that the legislation applies only to people who had been in receipt of payments for more than two years, while she had been receiving them for only less than a month.

Frankly, this simply is not good enough. It smacks of a lack of compassion. It smacks of a failure to seek to understand people’s personal circumstances and to deal with people who apply for disability support in a humane and caring way. It is the responsibility of the minister to get these things right. We see that the minister has been given additional responsibilities in workplace relations. Frankly, there are so many issues being raised in relation to Centrelink and the other areas of the minister’s portfolio that he needs to get his day job sorted before he is given additional responsibilities. These cases are a matter of great concern to the opposition and we will certainly be raising them with the government, both publicly and privately, to seek to ensure that the new Welfare to Work laws do not have an unjust, harsh and unfair impact on people who are entitled to and deserving of our support.

Louise Markus (Greenway, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2006.This is a bill designed to do minor housekeeping, to tidy up anomalies, to clarify and make some technical corrections and refinements. It is a bill that introduces no significant new policy and has negligible or no financial impact. This is indeed the bill’s virtue. This bill brings order and correction where required and, despite the assumption it has negligible or no financial impact, the effect of this bill is to save the taxpayers money.

Two of the measures in this bill relate to childcare benefits. This is an area where there has been some confusion and uncertainty and, in some cases, debts have been incurred resulting in Centrelink overpayment. This bill seeks to eliminate that confusion and uncertainty and to ensure that childcare beneficiaries who use registered care for their children cannot be paid a childcare benefit that exceeds the actual fee they paid for that care.

In the electorate of Greenway we had 2,600 approved childcare places in 2005—an increase of 44 per cent from 2001. In the electorate of Greenway we have an estimated 29,966 parents who are employed and there are an estimated 13,459 families where both parents work. There are approximately 3,200 single parents working full time or part time. Child care is critically important to all these parents and families. For those people, this bill will align the childcare benefit paid for registered childcare services for their children with the existing limit on childcare benefits for care provided by an approved childcare service. The effect of this alignment is to ensure that people are not overpaid and not paid more in childcare benefits than the cost of that child care. This is one of the benefits of this bill. It removes any loophole for overpayment and removes inconsistency or uncertainty. I am sure that people using childcare services will appreciate the certainty that this bill will bring.

This bill will also introduce a new rule which will again provide additional consistency. Further amendments make it clear that care provided by an approved childcare service will not attract a childcare benefit if the care is provided as part of a compulsory education program. This is consistent with the existing situation for care provided by a registered carer. A childcare benefit for any type of care should not be available when children are in the care of their teachers as part of their normal schooling. In other words, if the care is provided as part of a compulsory education program, childcare benefits should not be available while children are in the care of their teachers as part of their normal education. This is reasonable, logical and very practical. It ensures that the childcare benefit is targeted as originally intended and it is obvious that savings will be made by tidying up this technicality.

The bill also provides a measure of certainty for de facto couples in the definition of temporarily separated couples. No-one likes to see relationships broken up but, as someone who worked extensively with families and with couples to ensure that they worked together to resolve their conflicts and wherever possible stay together, there are reasons and circumstances where separation is unavoidable and at times necessary.

What happens to couples receiving benefits when they separate? What about those day-to-day decisions that affect each partner when they find themselves having to look after themselves as individuals or themselves and their children without the assistance of a partner? There are issues like rent assistance and remote area allowance that have to be attended to. As in all structured administrations, there are rules and there are definitions to fit those rules that determine whether a person is eligible for payment at one level or at a higher level.

This bill ensures that those people are not left out of the loop and their needs are met. By providing a definition of a temporarily separated couple, this bill ensures that de facto couples are eligible for the same high rates of some supplementary payments as legally married couples. Not only should the bill be acknowledged for its technical efficiency but it should also be supported for its fairness. Other social security issues tidied up by this bill include a reinstatement of a rule that a social security pension or benefit is income under the low-income health care card income test. This rule was inadvertently repealed from legislation in 2001. Reinstating this rule ensures that applications for a low-income health care card are assessed accurately. Included in this provision are two veterans’ entitlements payments, the Defence Force income support allowance and the income support supplement, which are considered income for the purposes of the card.

In the parliament, we place great importance and value on the words we use and the effect those words have on the wider Australian community. A misplaced or omitted word can be the dividing line between someone who is eligible for a benefit and someone who is not. This bill contains a further amendment that corrects an inequity in the social security law. It does so by aligning the definition of homelessness that currently applies for a special benefit with a similar definition that applies for the larger groups of youth allowance and young disability support pension recipients. To put it another way, the word ‘homelessness’ in this amendment now carries a greater import than existed previously. Alignment of the word ‘homelessness’ will remove—

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to ask a question of the member for Greenway.

Bob McMullan (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the honourable member for Greenway willing to give way?

Louise Markus (Greenway, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I am.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Greenway is talking about homelessness. I wonder whether she could give me an idea of the strategies that the government has in place to address homelessness.

Louise Markus (Greenway, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Look, there are many things. We have many programs, such as the SAAP program for people with disabilities that provides supported accommodation. There is also additional funding with youth packages—for example, the JPET program under DEWR. There are also a number of programs under the community services portfolio, such as Reconnect, which is funding for services that assist young people where they could be at risk of homelessness or are already homeless and are disengaged from education and from their family. These programs work very effectively to reconnect young people—who are, or who are at risk of, experiencing homelessness—with their family, with the education process and often with work.

Let me return to my points here. The alignment of the word ‘homelessness’ will remove inequity between eligible groups and cast a much wider net, thus providing both a more streamlined administrative process and access to benefits to a broader range of people. An equally important role for this bill is in line with the government’s commitment to reduce red tape and streamline government processes. This bill delivers on that commitment in repealing seven acts relating to housing that are no longer operational. Such action maintains the statute books when acts become redundant, an important and often overlooked part of the legislative process.

The remaining measures in the bill are technical corrections and refinements. Many are consequential to the commencement of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 and reflect the new concepts and arrangements established by that act. This bill will achieve the necessary procedural and equity changes to improve administration, clarify benefits and eligibility and tidy up the statute books.

If I may, I will make a few comments with regard to some of the comments made by the opposition earlier about Welfare to Work and Work Choices. I have worked extensively with people that have been dependent on welfare and with many single parents over a 25-year period, and in my experience the Welfare to Work measures do indeed provide opportunities for single parents and those with disabilities who can work to increase their income and improve their lifestyle by gaining employment—contrary to the opposition, who claim that the measures will reduce their payments. Provisions such as the two-year period after their last child returns to school give them an opportunity over those two years to train and gain skills before returning to work. This recognises the need that these single parents have to upskill themselves so they can step into the workforce. It is also ensuring that at a time of low unemployment and high vacancy rates people that have been either on single parent payment or on disability support payment have every opportunity to take advantage of this strong economic climate.

I also wish to note that we cannot stand still at this point in time, when we have a strong economy with low unemployment rates—which have, incidentally, dropped since the introduction of the Work Choices legislation. This reform is essential to ensure that the record economic growth over the last 10 years does continue into the next decade and that the situation for young people particularly is improved. So it is important that we continue to make the necessary decisions to ensure that the prosperity, the low unemployment rate and the growth in jobs continue into the next decade. In conclusion, I am pleased to speak on this bill and commend it to the House.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2006, and in doing so I would like to highlight a few issues that are very important to people in Australia. Firstly, I will quickly go through the issues that are dealt with in this bill. The opposition, of course, will be supporting this legislation. It contains no new policy initiatives or changes to existing policies and, as such, it is purely a bill that has some minor and technical amendments to social security and family assistance legislation. It is aimed at removing anomalies, repealing provisions that are redundant and clarifying some aspects of the legislation which are not in line with the current government’s policy. Most significantly, there are amendments to the childcare benefits provision, to ensure that care provided as part of a compulsory education program at school does not qualify for childcare benefits—or CCB, as I will refer to it from now on—and to ensure that the amount of CCB paid for a particular period does not exceed the amount actually paid for approved care in that period.

The bill also includes de facto couples in the definition of ‘temporarily separated couples’ for the purpose of certain supplementary payments available to couples who are temporarily separated, to bring the eligibility requirements for certain supplementary payments in line with other social security and family assistance payments, which recognise de facto couples.

Other measures involve the inclusion of residents of Lord Howe Island in the eligibility criteria for remote area allowance; clarification that carer allowance is not payable during imprisonment; clarification of the rules regarding the low-income and automatic issue health care cards for youth allowance recipients, in order to clarify that youth allowance job seekers are entitled to an automatic issue health care card; the repeal of a series of redundant housing acts; and the alignment of the definition of ‘homelessness’ for the purpose of special benefits with the meaning of ‘homelessness’ which applies more broadly, such as for youth allowance and young disability support pension recipients. The bill makes a range of other minor amendments to technical anomalies and drafting errors in the legislation.

Obviously, over a period of time, legislation needs to be amended because of policy changes, but the thing that always concerns me when we come back to this place is when we make amendments that rectify mistakes. That happens so many times. I do not know how many times I have spoken in debates when we have had to revisit legislation because of errors that occurred in the original drafting. So I put those words on the record very strongly. I think that is something on which the government maybe has to work a little harder.

In relation to the clarification of childcare benefits and the fact that childcare benefits are not available in respect of care provided as part of a compulsory education program, I think it is important to note that the provision also is intended to clarify existing childcare policy, which is that the CCB cannot be claimed for care given by a teacher or as part of a compulsory school program. I have many concerns about the CCB payment and child care generally. Unfortunately, like most members of the House, I am sure, I have been contacted by numerous constituents who have had a great deal of problems in accessing child care. There are lengthy waiting lists for placement of children in child care. This is very sad, given the pressures that people are under today in balancing their work and family obligations.

I have had staff in my office ring all the childcare centres in particular areas, trying to arrange for access to childcare centres for children. It is particularly difficult in the under-two age group. There is a very severe shortage of places available for that age group of children. In one particularly sad case I had a little while ago, a single father with four children had his job placed in jeopardy because he could not access child care. Whilst the government made more money available in the budget for child care, they made it available in the area where it was not needed. I reiterate that, for parents in the electorate of Shortland, it has been a real problem.

The Labor Party has a strategy to address this. The strategy looks at cutting duplication and lifting the standards in childcare centres. It proposes to take away TAFE fees for childcare trainees. It supports wage rises and the secondment of childcare workers to work in childcare policy areas in government departments. All of these proposals broaden the experience of those people working in child care. I think it is very sad that childcare workers are some of the lowest paid workers in Australia, given that they have the responsibility for our most treasured possessions. Not only is there a shortage of childcare places—and I can document that within my electorate and provide evidence to the minister—but also there is a chronic shortage of workers.

When speaking to young people in their last years at school, one of the areas that they say they would like to work in is child care. Once they experience how hard it is to live on the wages they receive they become disillusioned and move away from an area they are passionate about. We really need to look at this. The fact is that child care is not very affordable. I have had women in particular contact my office and say that they are working two days a week just to pay their childcare fees. They have to decide whether or not it is worthwhile continuing to do so.

These are issues that truly need to be addressed. If they are not addressed we will miss an opportunity to help families at a time when there is a lot of pressure on them—when both parents return to the workforce and when single parents are caught by the new Welfare to Work legislation and have to return to work. We should be doing everything we can to make it easier for those people. It is absolutely vital that child care is affordable. It is vital that parents can be satisfied that the quality of the child care their children receive is beyond reproach. It is vital for families to know this, because having a workforce that is skilled, confident and able to focus on what it is required helps build our national economy. The cost of child care, coupled with the increase in interest rates, is placing a strain on a number of families.

Previous speakers have raised the issue of Welfare to Work and some of the problems that have been experienced in their electorates. The shadow minister for human services mentioned a couple of issues. I would like to reiterate the cases of a few people, which I have raised previously in this House. There was one lady who applied for disability support pension. It took us about four months to finally have that pension granted to her. This woman had had a series of breast cancer operations and was in the final stages. We have a very good relationship with our local Centrelink office and they were prepared to work with us. They worked with us all the way along. But we found that the legislation was very cumbersome and it was very difficult to get the payment in place. Finally, the woman was granted the disability support pension but, unfortunately, it was far too late. I value that woman’s privacy so I will not mention her name in the House. But I must make the minister aware that decisions like this cause real hardship and a great deal of pain.

Another gentleman I worked with, who was of Italian origin, was assessed for the disability support pension. It was established that he had more than the 20 points needed to be granted the disability support pension. He was totally illiterate—he could not read or write. Throughout his working life he had always held very physical positions. He came to every interview with his wife. His wife prepared all the written information that was needed and helped him present his case. He was knocked back for the disability support pension. It was said that, whilst he qualified on grounds of level of disability, it was felt that he could work. He had previously been through rehabilitation and it had not worked. Recently he went to see CRS Australia and they felt they could not help him.

I wrote to the minister and, unfortunately, the decision stood that he would not be granted the disability support pension. I think there is another angle to this as well. It is all very well to say that this person, with a high level of disability, could re-enter the workforce with proper training, but I believe that he could jeopardise the safety of the people with whom he is working because of the level of his disability. My question is: what level of responsibility would the Commonwealth have for this person who has been assessed at a level suitable to be granted the disability support pension? I think that is something that the government really needs to think about.

The end of the story is that this man is an Italian. He could not return to work. His application for the disability support pension was refused by the ARO. I thought he had a very strong case for the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. He could not handle it. He could not continue going through it. He was very stressed. He suffered from depression as well as from the physical problems that he had. He has returned to Italy with his family. They still have their house in my electorate, but he could not afford to live in Australia. That is a very sad situation. We have lost a family with two young children—a family that could contribute to the future of Australia.

There are two other issues from recent times I would like to raise. One is on the carer’s payment and a particularly nasty case that I have raised in the parliament before where an elderly woman—I think she was 10 months short of being eligible for the aged pension—was caring for her mother. Her mother lived in a little mining settlement just outside of Swansea in Catherine Hill Bay. It is an absolutely stunning area that has become very popular. The little mining cottage that once you would be lucky to get $50,000 for is now selling for $2 million. Her house was sold for $2 million. The money was put into the hands of the protective commissioner. The woman’s mother had very severe dementia and she was looking after her 24 hours a day in the house. Because she was short of the period, she could not access any money from Centrelink. She would get some money for the care of her mother, but she was not getting any money for her own support from the protective commissioner. So here we had somebody who was thrust into abject poverty simply because of the way the policy was interpreted.

I know of another very sad case about a woman who was hit by a car, her husband was killed and she is now a quadriplegic. Her daughter gave up her job to look after her. They are paying $50,000 a year in fees for nurses to come in and look after the mother and do the nursing and personal care. The daughter looks after her mother the rest of the time. She has been told that she is not eligible for a carer’s payment any longer because her mother should be paying her. The money will not last five years. I think it is a very harsh regime in which people are being treated very badly.

The final issue is the interpretation in relation to Austudy. I have had a number of cases come through my office recently involving people training in areas where there is a skills deficit—doctors, nurses, pharmacists. I raised this last week in the chamber. A doctor became ill. He had two years off, which exceeded the period of training, and has now been told he is ineligible for Austudy. I believe that something needs to be done around the edges so that is not interpreted in the harsh, mandatory fashion it is at the moment. My Centrelink office is very caring towards these people, but when you have legislation in place that says, ‘This is what you can do and this is what you can’t do,’ you cannot get around it.

Last Saturday I met with a woman studying to be a pharmacist. After you do a science degree you must do a two-year pharmacy degree—what they call a master’s degree. The first year is covered by Austudy and the second year is not. Without doing that, she cannot and will not become a pharmacist. I think that needs to be looked at. It is not like doing a master’s degree in the true sense; rather, it is about training people up to work in an area of skills shortage. Also, a man within my electorate who lives with his aged grandmother has exceeded his training to become a nurse by six months. That six months will mean that he will not receive any Austudy payment; he must go out and look for work. What that means to that man is that he will not be able to complete his studies.

I think members on both sides of this House really want to see people like those three succeed and be able to go out there and work in our community. I am not criticising the government; I am asking them to revisit that and look at trying to get around these anomalies. I am also asking the government to look at the people who are being caught by these Welfare to Work changes. They are real people. They are hurt. They are really hurt and it is having an enormous impact on their lives. Do not ignore them, do not think they are all bludgers, do not think that they are out there to rip off the system—they are not. They are really good people who are being hurt. I ask the minister to look at it in his policy considerations.

Mal Brough (Longman, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all those members who have spoken on the Social Security and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2006 . This bill makes a number of minor amendments to improve the effectiveness of social security in general and also family assistance and related legislation. The amendments remove anomalies, clarify the legislation in line with the established policy and make technical corrections and refinements. The bill introduces no significant new policy and has no or negligible financial impact. Some examples of what the measures in this bill will do are: limit childcare benefit for registered care to the fee paid—in other words, so that people cannot receive more back than they have actually paid; preclude childcare benefit for care provided as part of a compulsory education program; include de facto couples in the definition of temporarily separated couples; correct a range of Commonwealth payments taken into account as income for the low-income health care card; align the meaning of homelessness for special benefit with the meaning of homelessness that applies more broadly in the legislation; and repeal certain redundant housing acts. This bill is repealing seven acts relating to housing that are no longer operational. This just helps maintain the statute books when acts become redundant.

During the debate the member for Wills asked whether, in relation to the measure to extend remote area allowance to residents of Lord Howe Island, those residents have already been paid that allowance or whether this is a new policy. I wish to clarify for the member for Wills that the answer is yes, Lord Howe Island residents have generally been paid remote area allowance. What this amendment does is to make sure that the legislation fully supports this well-established policy.

Most of the remaining measures are technical corrections and refinements. Many of these measures are consequential on the commencement of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 and reflect the new concepts and arrangements established by that act. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message received from His Excellency the Governor-General recommending appropriation.

Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.