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

Unfortunately, the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Vocational Rehabilitation Services) Bill 2006 is a bill that is all about mistakes. It tries to rectify old mistakes and on the way it manages to make a whole lot of new mistakes. It is in fact a grab bag of unrelated measures ranging from the straightforward through to the incompetent. In part it makes some minor changes to social security rules to increase consistency, particularly in respect of recipients of CDEP. In part it deals with the recovery of debts in cases where financial case management has resulted in overpayments. This is fair enough in principle, although there are considerable concerns in relation to implementation.

In part it enables the government to proceed with its plan to open the marketplace for publicly funded vocational rehabilitation services—in fact, a tender process has already begun. Once again we note the remarkable arrogance in the Howard government’s attitude, an arrogance we are used to. And here is another example: the arrogance of opening up the tender before the bill has passed. It is that kind of arrogance that the Howard government exudes after 11 years in office. The principle that rehabilitation services should compete in the market is not necessarily a problem in itself, but the process and lack of safeguards to protect Australians who are at risk is very worrying indeed.

So these measures have a range of impacts. Some measures fix old mistakes. Some measures create new mistakes. But one measure that is completely unjustifiable, that has absolutely no merit, is that which fraudulently claims to be a Welfare to Work measure, and that is a measure to restrict access to the pensioner education supplement. This is the Howard government’s approach to moving people from welfare to work—just put people on lower payments, stop them from getting the training they need and then tell them to get a job; and, if they do, then take back most of what they earn. The Howard government has never explained how reducing access to education and training helps people get a job, and there would be a reason for that: it is not capable of explanation.

Let me be absolutely clear. Labor supports welfare reform that helps people move from welfare to work. Labor is by definition the party of work and the party of working Australians. We believe work is in the best interests of the individual and in the best interests of the community. Communities are healthier, more cohesive and more prosperous when members of the community are gainfully employed and socially engaged. Individuals have a greater sense of self-esteem if they are contributing to their community. Work is one of those essential things which, like family and friends, give us meaning in our lives. So Labor would be very pleased to support an approach to welfare reform that actually tackled the reasons why people were not working and provided practical solutions to increased participation in work. Real welfare reform would provide more reward for effort and support training opportunities for the jobless. After all, a person can only get a job in our society if they have the skills an employer needs. Instead of having this skills based approach, the Howard government’s welfare changes have reduced the financial rewards from work and make it harder for people to get the education or training that they need to get a job.

There is nothing wrong with applying mutual obligation to people who can work. That is exactly what Australians expect. If you get a benefit you should do something in return. But why not harness mutual obligation so that it serves more than a philosophical purpose? Why not help everyone to get more out of mutual obligation? For some people the best form of mutual obligation is the requirement to find a job. Other people start further behind. Some people have an extremely limited education and, correspondingly, limited job prospects in today’s economy. For them mutual obligation should require that in exchange for income support they get themselves in a position where they have the skills an employer needs, and then they should be required to get a job.

This seems such an obvious policy and yet the Howard government simply refuses to implement it. Labor have made it perfectly clear that we share the Australian expectation that people who can work should work, and people who genuinely cannot work should be cared for. Some people, obviously because of caring responsibilities or a disability, may not be able to work at all or may only be able to work part time. It is part of the Australian culture of a fair go that we recognise people’s capacities and care for those who are in this situation. We all know that many people with a disability want to work but find it extraordinarily hard to find an employer who will actually give them a go and take them on. Indeed, the Howard government has done very little to change these negative attitudes towards the disabled in our community.

The truth is that many parents are not working because they cannot get child care, or child care is so expensive that after they have paid for it they may end up worse off than if they were looking after their kids at home. Many people who want to work, particularly mothers whose partners are working, face such high effective marginal tax rates that they would be working more to fill John Howard’s coffers than to provide for their own families.

Most people who are not employed have extremely limited education and training. They lack the skills employers need. Most jobs nowadays require a post-school qualification and, despite Australia having a very low rate of official unemployment, there are still vast numbers of people—around 2.3 million Australians—who want to work or want to work more hours than they currently do. With Australia in such desperate need of more skilled workers and with people being so much better off working than on welfare, it is economically irresponsible and socially dangerous for the Howard government to stop jobless Australians from getting education and training. Instead of actually investing in jobless Australians so that they can build a career for themselves and support the economy, the Howard government is just hoping that the resources boom will provide a permanent source of jobs and prosperity. Skilled migration certainly will not be enough. Too many developed economies are competing for skilled migrants as they combat the diminishing labour supply resulting from the ageing of their populations.

This bill, particularly the clauses related to the pensioner education supplement, continues the Howard government’s failed approach to workforce participation and welfare reform. We would welcome this government introducing a bill that delivers real welfare reform. We know that Australia needs to increase participation and we know that people are better off working than on welfare. We would welcome a bill that delivers real welfare reform but this bill is not it. I will outline the reasons why Labor opposes this bill.

When a person receives Newstart allowance or youth allowance, they will generally have to engage in activity in return for the income support. In some cases they may be required to attend a vocational rehabilitation service. Currently this service is provided by the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, but the Howard government has been working towards making rehabilitation services contestable so that private providers can tender for contracts. As a matter of principle, this has not been strongly justified by the government. Labor is yet to be convinced that increasing competition is in itself going to improve rehabilitation services rather than just increase duplication and bureaucracy while reducing oversight.

The people who use these services are often very much in need. Labor’s priority is to ensure that the people who need these services get the best possible services, whether these services are provided by the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service or by another provider. However, this bill does not contain that guarantee; indeed, quite the opposite applies. Because many private providers are not compliant with the provisions of the Disability Services Act, the Secretary of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations may allow services to be provided by some providers who do not have a certificate of compliance. This has caused considerable concern amongst advocates of people with a disability and mental health advocates, who are concerned that providers may not have the necessary expertise to deal with clients with complex mental health issues.

Another, perhaps greater, concern amongst advocates of people with a disability and mental health advocates is the removal of the requirement that individual rehabilitation programs be approved by the secretary under the Disability Services Act. Currently this approval is delegated to the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service. Clearly, it is inadequate to remove this safeguard in the context of contestability without putting equivalent, alternative safeguards in place. Mr John Mendoza, of the Mental Health Council of Australia, who would be well known to many members of this House because of his passionate advocacy of the cause of those who have a mental illness in our society, has said:

These measures take us in the opposite direction to the international evidence on what works for the employment of people with mental illness.

The Council is concerned that the Government’s proposed changes will impact on the ability of people with mental health problems to gain meaningful employment.

Mr Mendoza went on to say that the government must provide assurances that specific rehabilitation programs are developed for mental health consumers. Unfortunately, the Howard government is not interested in listening to Mr Mendoza’s call, let alone acting on it, and an assurance from the Howard government, as we well know, is not actually worth all that much. Similarly, there is a concern that there is no guarantee that vocational rehabilitation services will be accessible to clients with a range of disabilities. There are also concerns over whether people who have to participate in rehabilitation in order to meet the requirements of their activity agreement have adequate appeal mechanisms if they believe the rehabilitation program is not appropriate for their needs.

The bill reduces parliamentary scrutiny of any guidelines associated with the provision of vocational rehabilitation services. It appears that the government is seeking to avoid any possibility of disallowance that could delay the commencement of these services. With unseemly arrogance, the Howard government, through its Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, has already commenced a purchasing process in relation to these services to commence on 1 July 2007. Yet again the Howard government is treating this parliament with contempt.

There is also some concern that the advice in the explanatory memorandum is that the guidelines relevant to this issue will be subject to disallowance under the Legislative Instruments Act while the amendment procedure is temporarily suspended. However, Labor has received advice that this position is legally unclear. My colleague Senator Wong has written to the Minister for Workforce Participation seeking clarification of this issue, particularly an assurance that the guidelines are subject to disallowance and will remain subject to disallowance during the period of the suspension provided for in this bill.

The Minister for Workforce Participation, when summing up, may seek to clarify this matter for the House. The principle that overpayment should be recovered is of course a sensible one and Labor supports it. Naturally, if someone gets a payment to which they are not entitled, it is unfair on others and harms the integrity of the social security system, so it is fair that such overpayments be repaid. Across the spectrum of government payments there are provisions for the government to recover overpayments that are made. So Labor supports this aspect of the bill. However, there is a major difference between government payments and financial case management. Other payments exist in legislation. They exist as entitlements for people in particular circumstances. Financial case management, on the other hand, is entirely discretionary. Financial case management is in fact a by-product of the Howard government’s extreme compliance regime—a regime that even conservative commentators, such as Andrew Bolt, have described as too harsh.

This regime provides that people who commit certain breaches will lose all their income support for eight weeks. In some cases, this can be for three minor breaches, such as in the case of the pregnant woman in rural New South Wales who was unable to attend a scheduled interview because of morning sickness. It was her third infraction and she lost her payments. In other cases, this penalty applies after just one breach. Looking at the area where this bill and the Howard government’s extreme approach to industrial relations collide, if you are sacked unfairly in a company of fewer than 100, we know you have no ability to argue that you have been dismissed unfairly under the Howard government’s laws. Yet the current compliance regime provides that if you are sacked for what your employer calls misconduct, even if in truth you have been sacked unfairly, you will not get income support for eight weeks. That, of course, is what happens when you combine industrial relations laws with welfare changes.

If this penalty has been applied to you and you have lost your income support for eight weeks, you may be eligible for assistance through financial case management. If the Howard government considers you to be exceptionally vulnerable, exceptionally at risk—that is, to take an example, if you require medication or have vulnerable dependants—you may be able to get some or all of your essential expenses covered. Centrelink may cover costs such as food, rent and utilities, or a charity may do this on Centrelink’s behalf. Generally, these payments are much lower than the income support would have been. But, despite the fact that a great many people are losing their payments for eight weeks under the Howard government’s laws, there is no provision in law for financial case management. It is entirely discretionary.

We know from the last round of Senate estimates that, up to 30 September last year, in the first three months of this regime, 1,921 people had been subject to the eight-week non-payment penalty, but only 120 of those had received financial case management, much fewer than one in 10. While it is entirely reasonable to recover an overpayment—for example, if there was undeclared income or if the income support is restored—there is a serious lack of transparency as to what the entitlement actually was and therefore the extent of any overpayment. The lack of transparency is potentially as bad for taxpayers as it is for income support recipients. There seems to be no real reason why financial case management could not exist in legislation and its entitlements and payments be subject to review and appeal. We call on the government to improve the transparency and fairness so that everyone concerned, the income support recipients, the taxpayers and the administrators, knows where they stand.

Pensioners who study or train in an approved course can access the pensioner education supplement; recipients of allowances such as Newstart or youth allowance cannot. Under the Welfare to Work changes, people who move from the disability support pension or parenting payment to Newstart or youth allowance were supposed to retain their pensioner education supplement until they completed their course of study. This bill breaks that promise.

In relation to the vocational rehabilitation services aspect of the bill, I said that a Howard government assurance was not worth very much. Here, in relation to this issue, we see that proposition proved for us. The bill changes the arrangements for the transitional group of disability support pension recipients—that is, those who were granted disability support pension after the May 2005 Welfare to Work announcement and before the July 2006 implementation date. If they are transferred from the disability support pension to Newstart or youth allowance after a second or subsequent post 1 July 2006 review, they will lose their eligibility for the pensioner education supplement and effectively not be considered part of the transitional group. They will only be able to continue to access the pensioner education supplement if they no longer qualify for a disability support pension as a result of their first disability support review after 1 July 2006. Why would that be the case? Frankly, I have no idea.

Part of the rationale for a compliance system, which I discussed a moment ago, is to limit welfare fraud. But what limits are there on the fraud of the Howard government, which talks of the need to move people from welfare to work and then lays roadblocks along that very path? Labor have consistently argued that restricting the pensioner education supplement to stop Welfare to Work candidates from getting it is short-sighted and against the national interest of meeting skills shortages. Labor take quite a different approach from the government. We believe that those who are jobless and lack skills should be encouraged to gain the skills they need to get a job.

When the bill gets to the consideration in detail stage, I will be moving an amendment that highlights our opposition to this absurd measure. For clarity, I foreshadow that when we reach consideration in detail Labor will have a series of very detailed amendments to this bill, which I will move at that time. As the Leader of the Opposition has said and said again, Australia needs an education revolution. We need to increase participation, and all the evidence shows that if you invest in education and training you increase participation. It is with these concerns, and a genuine commitment to increasing workforce participation, that Labor opposes this bill.

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

The spokesperson for the Australian Labor Party has decried our Welfare to Work program, which is full of encouragement and incentive to help people who want to work find work. What is being said here today is completely the opposite of what I am finding on the ground in my electorate. I am finding that there is a positive outlook and great results occurring in the community. Despite the gloom and doom expressed by the Australian Labor Party from day one when Welfare to Work was first introduced, it is working extremely well on the ground.

The Australian Labor Party has on four occasions attempted to block reforms to give people with disabilities a fair opportunity in life. In 2002 the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Disability Reform) Bill 2002 was introduced but was blocked in the Senate. In 2002 the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Disability Reform) Bill (No. 2) 2002 was blocked in the Senate. In 2002 the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Disability Reform) Bill (No. 2) 2002 [No. 2] was introduced and again blocked in the Senate by the Australian Labor Party.

When the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Vocational Rehabilitation Services) Bill 2006 was introduced the Australian Labor Party spokesperson in the Senate, Senator Wong, said:

More recently, the Howard Government has embarked upon its so-called Welfare to Work changes—

I can detect the cynicism in the words—

However, the policy’s design actually does a lot of damage to that worthy cause—full, as it is, of anomalies and absurdities that must be tackled.

She continued:

But these changes simply apply new activity requirements to particular groups, and dump people onto lower welfare payments. Some people who would have received the Parenting Payment or the Disability Support Pension will instead get the dole—essentially shuffling people onto different Centrelink databases.

She went on to say:

… do we honestly think that getting people to apply for jobs that they are not qualified for will solve the problems …

Nothing could be further from the truth than the expressions of the Australian Labor Party spokesperson in the Senate as she tried to denigrate a most worthy and uplifting program.

One of the reasons why the government needs to take this initiative is the ever-increasing number of disability support pension recipients over the last 15 years. In June 1990 there were 316,700-odd recipients and in June 2005 there were 706,800. So there was more than a doubling in the number of recipients in that 15-year period. Are people getting sicker or more disabled or are their fewer capable teachers in our schools? I believe there is none of that. I think that, with the administrative processes they have adopted, our welfare agencies find it easier to declare people permanently disabled, park them on a disability pension and leave them there. The problem is solved from the administrator’s point of view, but the personal and human problems remain. There are a quarter of a million people parked on a permanent pension with no opportunities, no encouragement and no prospect of making a constructive contribution to our society.

When introducing the minor amendments to this legislation—the Labor Party consider the amendments to be major and they are going to block the bill in the Senate and make speeches about how terrible it all is—the minister said:

The Welfare to Work changes commenced on 1 July 2006. They are the most significant changes to the Australian social security system for at least 50 years. The smooth implementation across policy agencies and service providers is a commendable achievement. While it is still early days since implementation, the most recent labour force data indicate extremely encouraging trends towards the reform’s key goals—namely, increased workforce participation and strong employment rates.

That is what I too have found. The minister did not exaggerate in her comments about the progress of this legislation. To find out what is really happening on the ground—unlike the theoretical approach adopted by some of the social advocates in the Australian Labor Party—I asked one of the providers in my area to give me some notes for this speech today. I thought there would be some balance and some problems and that I would raise them in the House, but what came back to me was an enlightening resume of what has occurred over the last nine months that this program has been in place. One of the groups contracted to conduct Welfare to Work program activities in north-western Sydney is a not-for-profit group called North West Personnel, which is headed by Christine Leddy. Christine Leddy is an outstanding person who runs these programs and has a huge and exceptional track record. What she said was so good and so illustrative of what is actually happening on the ground that I want to read it to the House. The Labor Party need to get a shot of realism in their approach. Just like their argument on Iraq, they are up in the clouds and off with the pixies—there is no realism in what they are saying. I will read, warts and all and without change, what Christine Leddy has written:

North West Personnel works with people with disabilities. They have four sites at Fairfield, Campbelltown, Penrith and Baulkham Hills. These sites cover large areas, not just the suburbs themselves. North West Personnel is working closely with Centrelink and the services that are provided for people to get back into work. The Welfare to Work programme is working very well for North West Personnel, who have worked with over 600 job seekers since 1st July 2006.

Initially, North West Personnel thought there would be a problem working with Centrelink and people that did not want to participate in the program. This has not been a problem at all as Centrelink has been working closely with North West Personnel and these people. They bring the job seeker into the office, talk to them about why they don’t want to find employment, counsel them, motivate them to want to find employment again and then reconnect them with North West Personnel, who get them on the path to finding employment. The model is great and is working very well.

Since 1st July 2006 there has been over 600 people in the program and out of this, 40 people are employed already. This may seem like a small number but when you consider that in July, August and September there was not much involvement due to the programme starting up, the numbers have mainly come since October. In the initial phase of the programme the ideal began, staff were be built up and people needed to become informed about the Welfare to Work program.

The last 8 months have been an educational process for North West Personnel staff especially in how to motivate people who have been unemployed for several years to be work seekers and overcome the barriers, fears and disabilities that have stopped them finding jobs in the past. These could include people who have a disability, a muscle disorder, depression, complications with limitations to where they can work such as asthma, old age and a rang of other medical conditions.

Christine Leddy of North West Personnel is a great advocate for Welfare to Work and its success on the ground. She continues:

North West Personnel work with people using a one of one approach (individual approach) where each person has their own case manager, has constant meetings and face to face contact and overall a lot of support through the process. This is making the most difference to both the job seeker and North West Personnel staff. Comments from job seekers have been “Thank goodness we’re in a service where we’re getting the help that we need” and North West Personnel is committed to giving the help needed and to the process of Welfare to Work.

Now that North West Personnel has worked hard initially they are starting to get more people into the program through referrals from people who have become employed through the program.

So not only are people being referred by Centrelink; now there is starting to be a ‘rolling stone’ effect, as people who have been successfully through the program are encouraging others to join up and participate in it. This is not just in downtown Castle Hill; this is right across Western Sydney, in some of the areas that, under the Australian Labor Party, had horrible records of unemployment. There were absolutely disgusting records of unemployment in areas claimed by the Labor Party to be its heartland. But look at the changes brought about since we have had a change of government and a change of membership in some of those electorates. Christine Leddy goes on:

The Fairfield office has had the most number of referrals out of the four offices. They have had 215 people come in through Centrelink to find employment. Due to the Welfare to Work programme it is possible for North West Personnel to employ people who talk multiple languages instead of using an interpreter. At the Fairfield office there are 8 staff. Of these two speak Arabic, two Vietnamese, two Cambodian, one Chinese and one Italian.

How imaginative and creative is that? She goes on:

The Welfare to work programme has allowed North West Personnel to employ the right people to help these others find work.

North West Personnel case workers have approximately 25 job seekers per consultant as compared to large job network companies who have on average more then 100 job seekers per consultant.

Perhaps that is part of the reason for their success in moving people through quickly and into work. Christine Leddy goes on:

There have not been very many single parents coming through the programme yet but understand that the numbers will escalate some time this year. People on parenting payments that have disabilities will be able to find employment through North West Personnel.

As well as providing motivation and support to job seekers North West Personnel provide these for employers. Employers need reassurance when dealing with older people and with people with disabilities. Employers need to be reassured that the Welfare to Work programme does work and encourage to “give it a go.” They need to be told that the employee may be older, have a disability or not be able to work on a full time basis but they can work part time.

Employers working with North West Personnel are given a lot of support, encouragement and back up. There is not much financial help for employers at the moment and this may not necessarily help but there is a small incentive given. Employers that work with North West Personnel generally employ several people at a time wanting to help more then a single person.

Today I was informed that North West Personnel’s “capped program”—the one that they had just for people with disabilities they were awarded a 4.5/5 star rating by the Department of Employment and Workplace relations based on KPI’s. This programme is the same programme that they are using for their “un-capped programme” of Welfare to Work which now includes people with disabilities going from welfare back to work. This is the same programme but for a “different stream” of people.

North West Personnel wants people to know that there are options available to help them go from Welfare to Work and if they follow the program North West Personnel has in place then they don’t lose their Centrelink benefits while they are searching for employment.

North West Personnel says that Welfare to work has been a great success to them. It has not been successful for every agency using the programme. They have a lot of success as they have a lot of referrals from other people who they have helped since July 2006.

       …         …         …

North West Personnel is now saying “Give us more clients and job seekers—we will help you.” Now that North West Personnel know that they can help people they are very excited about it. They understand that they won’t get everyone off the welfare program but helping many people to go from the welfare program into the workforce.

I conclude my remarks by congratulating the government on a program that, despite the knocking by the Australian Labor Party, is a most excellent and innovative program.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Service Economy, Small Business and Independent Contractors) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Vocational Rehabilitation Services) Bill 2006 rectifies a number of mistakes and in the process makes some grave new errors. I think it is a reflection of a government that is tired and has lost its way. I will explain that remark by reference to the policy contained in this legislation, the pensioner education supplement. I want to concentrate my remarks today on that supplement.

There are parts of this legislation that we support because they rectify past mistakes, and it is certainly worth doing that. But the fact is that a most remarkable, callous, even brutal, measure has managed to pass through the federal cabinet, obviously with barely a whisper. Indeed, the second reading speech, which runs for all of six paragraphs, shows us the contempt with which the government is treating this parliament. Through this legislation the government seeks to deny disability support pensioners who are in the transitional phase, as the government implements its Welfare to Work measures, access to the pensioner education supplement. You would think that the second reading speech at least would provide a defence or an explanation as to what the government is doing. There is no mention of it. There is no mention of any kind of rationale for this policy of denying a group of disability support pensioners access to the pensioner education supplement. So I thought we should have a look at the explanatory memorandum. That does make reference to it:

Items 21 and 28 make it clear that people who claim DSP between 11 May 2005 and 30 June 2006 who were qualified for the pensioner education supplement and who move to newstart or youth allowance, will only be able to continue to access the pensioner education supplement, if they no longer qualified for DSP as a result of their first DSP review after 1 July 2006

As clear as mud! But at the heart of this policy is a callous decision made by the Howard cabinet to deny the pensioner education supplement to a category of disability support pensioners. We ask: why? Why would you do that? Is this just a gratuitous measure, or would it save the Commonwealth a lot of money? If it would in fact save the Commonwealth a lot of money it would be worth considering whether there are net benefits. At least there would be some benefit in saving the Commonwealth money. But I had a look for the financial impact not only of this measure relating to the pensioner education supplement but of the various other measures that are provided for in this legislation, and the explanatory memorandum does explain the financial impact. It says:

The financial impact of the Bill is minimal.

So why do it? Why didn’t anyone in the cabinet room say to the Prime Minister, as the chair of the cabinet: ‘Why are we doing this? There are no financial implications for the Commonwealth that are worth mentioning, that are even worth attaching a dollar amount to, and yet we’re going to do it—we’re going to take away the pensioner education supplement for a category of disability support pensioners.’

That is what I mean when I talk about the arrogance of this government and the fact that it has passed its use-by date. It should have been the case that at least a couple of cabinet ministers would have read the submission properly, would have read the intent of it and would have raised that simple question: ‘Prime Minister, why are we doing this? If it’s not really going to save the Commonwealth any money, why are we denying the pensioner education supplement to a category of disability support pensioners?’ Obviously the question was never asked. If it had been, surely they would at least have gone to the effort in a six-paragraph second reading speech to explain it. They do not.

Let me make this clear: Labor supports encouraging and assisting people to move from welfare to work. Labor supports the principle of self-reliance, of being able to get a job and hold down a job, which contributes to the self-esteem of Australians. We support individual freedom and self-reliance. With that in mind, we have argued consistently in opposition for meaningful measures to assist that transition from welfare to work. We support reward for effort. We also support the concept of mutual obligation.

The government pretends to the Australian people that the concept of mutual obligation is all its own, as if it were never a principle that guided the policy development of previous Labor governments. But it did. It was a Labor government that activity tested the unemployment benefit, that said to the unemployed: ‘If the Commonwealth is to give financial support to the unemployed then there is an obligation on the unemployed to do something in return—most particularly, to search for a job actively and meaningfully.’ In so many areas Labor applied that principle of mutual obligation. So there is nothing new in that principle. But you do need to support people so they are able to satisfy their end of the bargain—that is, to genuinely seek to move from welfare to work.

The truth of the matter is that those Australians who remain unemployed, and especially those who have been unemployed for a long period of time, have deficiencies, if you like, that are preventing them from successfully entering the labour market. The deficiencies that many of them suffer are related to their education levels and the skills that they possess or, more particularly, that they do not possess. Most jobs nowadays require a post-school qualification. In this parliament over the past four or five years there has been a vigorous debate between the coalition and Labor on the value of an education. The Prime Minister has said repeatedly that one of the great mistakes of the 1970s and 1980s was Labor’s obsession with lifting the proportion of young people who completed high school. Well, Labor did have an obsession with lifting the proportion of young people completing high school and was able to carry that obsession through to actual results.

In 1982, 36 per cent of young Australians went on to their last year of high school. That is called the year 12 retention rate. By 1996 that figure had more than doubled to around 75 per cent. Over the 13-year period of the previous Labor government, policies were consciously put in place designed to lift the proportion of young people going on to their final year of high school and completing it. The Prime Minister says that was a grave mistake. He is on the record as saying he does not know why Labor was so obsessed with lifting the proportion of young people finishing high school. That proportion has barely increased under the coalition government. And that is not an accident because it is active government policy, led by a Prime Minister who does not believe in the value of completing high school.

The problem more recently has been a fall in high school completion rates. When I highlighted this towards the end of last year, the Prime Minister said, ‘What are they going on about? Why are Labor concerned about this?’ Let us have a look at the international evidence. Let us have a look at the most recent report of the OECD, released towards the end of last year—OECD Education at a glance. That report makes it clear that completing high school is now the minimum standard for successful entry and participation in the labour market. That is a very big statement, based on reviewing evidence from all around the world. The new standard to be able to successfully enter and stay in the labour market is the completion of high school.

Not everyone had that opportunity in the past. Not everyone is able to do it now. Many young people do not feel cut out to complete high school. Many young people find that the way classes are arranged and the functioning of a school does not suit them and they cannot cope. That is why it is important that there are a range of different educational opportunities for young people who find it difficult to maintain an interest in years 11 and 12. That is why we have to have alternatives to mainstream high schools. It is an obligation on federal and state governments to ensure that there are alternatives to mainstream high school. My argument, therefore, is that we should be striving for every young person to complete high school or its equivalent through vocational education. Those opportunities do exist in part but there is not a comprehensive program around Australia to ensure that there is an array of alternative education opportunities for people who otherwise cannot cope with mainstream schooling.

That is why I am so angry at this measure. People who are on disability support pensions should be encouraged and supported when they want to improve their level of educational attainment to improve their skill levels. We are dealing here with a category of people who want to enter the labour market, who want to be successful and who are looking for a bit of support. It is not as if this pensioner education supplement gives them thousands and thousands of dollars a year. It is a small amount, yet the Prime Minister and his cabinet have said that they will deny that to a group of disability support pensioners. Why? Because they can and they want to. Labor is calling this government to account for that callous decision.

More than two million Australians, despite the very high levels of employment in this country, want to work or they want to work more hours. There is a lot of capacity there on the part of Australians to enter the labour market or to participate more heavily in it. That capacity will be enhanced if they have the necessary skills, and that is where the pensioner education supplement comes into play. Instead of supporting those people the government is relying heavily on migration. I support, and have always supported, a strong immigration program. Indeed, last year net overseas migration has outstripped natural increase as a source of population growth in this country. I think it is great that we have a strong immigration program. I oppose what the government has done in relation to extending the period of time before a migrant can apply for Australian citizenship from two to four years. I argue that we should be encouraging migrants to make a commitment to this country through a decision to become Australian citizens, not discouraging them through requiring a four-year period before they can apply.

But the truth of the matter is that immigration will not be the cure-all for our shortages of labour in this country. The reason is that in the 21st century there is very intense competition for skilled migrants and indeed for less skilled migrants between countries that are all the subject of population ageing. That includes most of the developed countries of the world. So we will not be able to rely on migration alone to deal with labour and skills shortages. Why not encourage those 2.3 million Australians who either want to work or want to work longer hours? That is what welfare to work should be all about; not just belting people but encouraging them.

This measure relating to the pensioner education supplement is no accident, because it is built on the same philosophy that the government has applied in its so-called Welfare to Work arrangements for sole parents. Let us understand what the government has done to sole parents. It is said that, when their youngest child turns eight, they will lose the sole parent pension and be put onto Newstart, which is $29 a week less. Furthermore, they will lose the pensioner education supplement because that applies to sole parent pension but does not apply to Newstart. In addition, the income-free area under Newstart is smaller than under the sole parent pension. If they do seek work and gain it, then they will lose more cents in the dollar for every dollar they earn compared with the sole parent pension.

So there are a whole range of disincentives put in place by this government in its so-called Welfare to Work measures for sole parents to move from welfare to work. Instead of providing incentives, the government is providing a big stick. The stick gets bigger and the carrot gets smaller. In denying those sole parents the pensioner education supplement, the government is making a conscious decision that it really does not want them, and does not want to encourage them, to develop the skills that are necessary these days to participate in the labour market. Quite a number of sole parents are young girls who have got pregnant at school and have had to leave school to have a baby. Wouldn’t you think the government would then say that there is a really strong imperative to ensure that those young women, after having their babies, are able to resume their education and be supported through the pensioner education supplement? No, the government says, ‘We’re not doing that; we’re going to make sure that you are not eligible for the pensioner education supplement.’

What is a rational response for a sole parent in these circumstances as their youngest child is approaching eight years of age? A rational response is to have another baby. That is the most sensible thing for many young women—not to seek to enter the workforce but to have another baby—because that puts the issue off for another eight years. That way they would not have to confront a cut in their income support payments of $29 a week. They would not have to confront losing much more of every dollar of income earned if they did enter the workforce. They would not have to confront the reality of a smaller income-free area than that which they were able to obtain under the sole parent pension.

That is why Labor describes these measures not as Welfare to Work but as welfare to welfare. The government, through its callous approach to sole parents and to disability support pensioners, is reducing incentives for them to move from welfare to work, and it is essentially because of the brutality of this measure in relation to the sole parent pension that Labor opposes the bill.

I will finish where I began: Labor supports reward for effort. Labor supports self-reliance. Labor supports the self-esteem that goes with getting a job. But, in making those commitments, Labor supports assisting people to move from welfare to work, not whacking them over the head with a big stick, which is what this government is doing—and it should be condemned for its brutality.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the Minister for Workforce Participation, in concluding her fairly short second reading speech on the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Vocational Rehabilitation Services) Bill 2006, said:

The amendments will enhance the smooth operation of the legislation so that job seekers among the targeted disadvantage groups of the Welfare to Work reforms—long-term unemployed people, parents of school age children, mature age Australians and people with disabilities—can continue to be supported and assisted to build their capacity and find work through employment and related services.

When one listens to the contributions made by honourable members opposite, one would think that this government has in some way, shape or form been dilatory in its responsibilities to these people. The reality is that this bill seeks to support the government’s overarching aim to try to ensure that the highest possible proportion of Australian residents who are of working age are, in fact, in the workforce. This bill deals specifically with those of working age who may be perceived to be disadvantaged due to some form of disability or injury. The main provision in the bill is to provide the legislative requirements that will support these people in their desire to return to the workforce.

It really is not in dispute that Australia has a wonderful welfare system that gives support to people in various difficult life situations, but it is important to recognise that the social security safety net ought to be a safety net and not a lifestyle choice. Regrettably, there are some welfare recipients—and I think every honourable member would have heard stories about them—who see the system as being nothing more than that. As a result, the system suffers some level of unnecessary demand which is detrimental to those who genuinely have no other option but to rely on the system, and it also damages Australia’s economy as a whole.

Unfortunately, the welfare system is not and never will be a bottomless pit of money. It is therefore important for the government to make sure that welfare gets through to the needy and not to the greedy. As I said before, it is a safety net and not a lifestyle choice. It is sensible and vital that those who do have some ability to avoid reliance on government handouts are given the support and encouragement to achieve that. The government encourages all Australians to have a job if they are able to. Likewise, fortunately, a significant proportion of those who are unable to work due to injury or disability are eager to get into or return to the workforce to make a contribution to our society, and it is only their condition that currently hampers them.

The bill before the chamber supports those Australians who are keen to get back into the workforce. It is of course in the interest of all Australians to be in the workforce, and it is in the interest of Australians with disabilities who want to get into the workforce to do so. A major aim of the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Vocational Rehabilitation Services) Bill 2006 is to provide further legislative framework that supports and encourages the philosophy that those of working age who are able to work should do so. From mid last year—that is, from the middle of calendar year 2006—the Australian government’s Welfare to Work program announced and started to deliver an extra $192 million over three years for vocational rehabilitation services directed toward those with injuries and disabilities and also those who have participation requirements or part-time activity test requirements.

In line with the Welfare to Work philosophy, this bill enables the introduction from July 2007 of a contestable vocational rehabilitation services market. In this scenario, rehabilitation services previously handled by the government unit CRS Australia will be administered and delivered by an independent provider. That generally speaking is an excellent idea.

The bill modifies the Disability Services Act 1986 to safeguard support services and assistance for those seeking work. Under the act in its current form there is a requirement for rehabilitation services that are customised for an individual to receive formal approval through the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations or through CRS Australia. This bill introduces a change that widens the powers of the secretary to delegate to help streamline this approvals process.

Besides the changes to the Disability Services Act 1986, this bill also makes certain amendments to the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. To work successfully, the Welfare to Work changes require modifications to legislation governing the pensioner education supplement and the mobility allowance debt calculation provisions. Other changes include modifications to the way income calculations are done for those who receive payments under a Community Development Employment Project scheme. These changes will reflect increased rates of Newstart and youth allowances which came in from 1 July last year and will also clarify the way income is calculated for couples, one of whom is a CDEP payment recipient.

The bill before the chamber also introduces minor changes such as modified terminologies, allows debts from financial case managements to be deducted from welfare benefits and also clarifies the intended treatment of indexation decisions. The Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Vocational Rehabilitation Services) Bill 2006 is another valuable tool in encouraging and assisting those who need encouragement and assistance, and I am very pleased to commend it to the House.

Duncan Kerr (Denison, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Vocational Rehabilitation Services) Bill 2006 has a number of intended beneficial consequences. I do not seek to criticise the motivation behind the legislation but I do want to put on record a couple of cautionary remarks. The first is a general one in relation to the increasing practice of Commonwealth services to be rendered—in the language of the day—contestable. Whilst in some instances this has proved to be beneficial, in a number of areas it has led to the prime provider becoming essentially a residual service for those who fall outside the capacity of the service providers in the private sector to make money from or, if there is a fee-for-service arrangement, who cannot meet the fee-for-service costs.

This always needs to be watched because the ‘residualisation’, or the shrinking, of the public sector to a role which provides a very frayed safety net to those who are least well off in the community is a challenge that an incoming Labor administration will have to face in a large number of different areas. It will not be easy to address. Even the current administration should give some thought to it and make certain that it does not disadvantage those who are least well off in our community.

The second point I make is that the regime that currently applies to those who receive disability payments has been modified to a degree that excludes a very large number of Australians whom most of us in this House would regard as fitting the requirement for receiving disability payment. I will give an instance of a constituent of mine who faced a real set of difficulties in this regard. I will not give the name of the constituent, but the background facts are well known to the Commonwealth because it was the subject of repeated litigation—I suppose that is the right word—in front of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and the AAT. It was ultimately resolved in a way which permitted a disability payment, but let me give you the background.

My constituent was a bricklayer and had had no other profession since his youth. He had been increasingly afflicted by rheumatoid arthritis. His hands became crabbed and he basically could not undertake any significant work in his area of professional expertise. He had no educational background that suggested he might have some alternative employment opportunities.

In the ordinary course of events, as his disability increased over time and there was professional medical advice from specialists that his disability would continue to increase such that not only his hands but his whole body would be affected, he would have gone through the normal Welfare to Work system. But in the intervening period he suffered cancer. His cancer was life threatening and led to his having a series of operations and being bedridden. On top of that, he then suffered massive heart attacks. When he applied for a disability pension, it was only the recognised disability—that is, his rheumatoid arthritis—that could be taken into account because none of his treating doctors could honestly say that it was impossible that his cancer would not resolve itself within two years time. Of course, the probabilities of that occurring were very slight. His health had continued to deteriorate, he was in great pain, he was effectively immobilised, he was bedridden and he then suffered heart attacks. In any realistic scenario, he was incapable of work for an indefinite, protracted period. Given that he had reached his late 50s, that he had no education and that his only trade was now denied him because of his rheumatoid arthritis, it seemed the smart thing to do was to enable him to go onto a disability pension.

But there was this long, protracted process where the real disability that he suffered—that is, cancer and a weak heart afflicted by a number of heart attacks—could not be taken into account, so the arguments were simply about the progression of his rheumatoid arthritis. So we had this fairyland, Alice in Wonderland discussion as if my constituent were an otherwise well man suffering rheumatoid arthritis. He was continually, at least for the initial period, being required to turn up for all the interviews and what have you relating to his obligations under the unemployment Newstart arrangements as if he were employable.

Eventually some sanity prevailed and there was a reduction in the number of times he had to fill in these forms—or, rather, his wife filled them in on his behalf because he had become incapable of doing that; he could not do it himself. We had this absurd situation where a man who was facing the prospect of death, fearful that he might not live any time longer at all, bedridden, with no real prospect of resuming work, was denied disability benefit. I imagine that if it has happened in this instance—I was eventually successful in having my constituent permitted to receive disability benefits backdated for a significant period of time—it must have happened many other times to people who are less able to access their parliamentarians or other assistance to remedy the circumstances in which they find themselves. The consequences for such people are quite severe. Firstly, the payments they get are lower when they are not eligible for disability benefits. More importantly, if they lose the capacity to respond to some of the demands that are placed on them in those circumstances, they risk the prospect of being removed entirely from receipt of any benefit.

So I think we have to have a pretty hard look at the way in which the present scheduling arrangements that recognise only certain disabilities—and permit benefits to be paid in respect of only those that will certainly persist for a period greater than two years—and look realistically at the whole person. Everywhere else we talk about approaching human needs in a holistic way, so we ought to approach in the same holistic way the human needs of people who suffer massive disabilities.

It was such a silly situation. His wife really couldn’t understand it. I remember going before the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. Very well meaning members of the tribunal were asking his wife—because he could not turn up; she was advocating for him with my assistance—about his rheumatism, because that was the basis on which they could grant disability benefit. She just couldn’t get it: she couldn’t understand why they were asking questions about his rheumatism. For her his rheumatism had become almost the most minor of her concerns. She was worried about him dying of cancer. She was worried about him lying in bed stricken with pain, with his stomach bloated, and suffering heart attacks. That is what she was worried about. That is why she thought he should get a disability pension.

The tribunal rejected the claim because, even with my assistance, she could not bring herself to focus on the reality that she needed to address this: ‘Imagine that he’s really well. How has his rheumatism developed and how would that prevent him re-entering the workforce?’ Ultimately, it was accepted that his rheumatism had developed to such a degree—and it had; he was incapable of work—that at that age effectively he was incapable of undergoing a retraining regime and that he was simply bedridden. So this imagination that he was an otherwise well person but suffering from an accepted disability, while ignoring the fact that he also suffered from cancer and had been a victim of heart attacks, created an unrealistic framework as to the disposition of his application.

I would urge the government to have a bit of a look at these things. I know that every member of this House, on both sides, had those circumstances been brought to their attention, would have done exactly as I did and tried to find an individual solution for that individual case. I do not think any officer of the Commonwealth who was on the other side of these particular matters acted other than honourably. They did everything they could within the framework of the regulations and the laws to find a solution. Ultimately, a solution was found, but it took a great deal of time and it was difficult. The reason it was difficult was the unrealistic and harsh way in which the framework is established so that it does not look at all the needs of a person in those circumstances and instead looks at the artifice that is the way the regulations are written and are required to be applied.

Those are some of the concerns that I wanted to put on record about this legislation. There was the general concern about the outsourcing of community programs and the risk of residualisation. I concede that, in this area, we will have to suck it and see. The measures will proceed, and I hope that they do achieve the government’s intended effect of making it more convenient for those who have suffered disabilities to find a vocational rehabilitation service of their choice that suits them, but I have some hesitation about the general thrust of the way in which the Commonwealth disposes of core responsibilities these days to the private sector. We need to think through how we make certain that we do not leave great holes in the safety net that those programs are meant to provide because there is no commercial return for certain clients or because those clients do not have the financial resources to pay for services themselves. With those remarks, I am happy to approach this matter in the same manner as the shadow minister.

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Having heard the previous Labor speaker but one, I am now absolutely convinced that the federal Labor Party still genuinely believes in socialism. The shadow minister, the member for Rankin, really ought to know better, especially since he has a PhD in economics. In this country, we want to encourage people who are on welfare to get off it. It is not in their interest to stay on welfare and it is not in the national interest of this country. This government certainly takes the preferable policy position of trying to encourage Australians who are able to work to get off welfare and to make a contribution to the economy and to their own lifestyle and self-esteem. If anyone believes that the Labor Party with a new leader is any different to the old Labor Party, I am very sorry to say that they will be terribly disappointed.

Recently, I was asked why I thought the Howard government had had the privilege of being elected on four successive occasions. I thought about it and the two words that came to mind were ‘political courage’. This government has the courage to make decisions. This government has the capacity to make the difficult calls. This government has implemented policy which, quite frankly, has been very unpopular but really has been in the national interest. The shame of it all is that the Labor Party, throughout its decade in opposition, has known deep in its heart that it was taking the wrong position and that the coalition government was taking the right position. It still refused in a very churlish fashion to support the initiatives and policies that the Howard government was implementing.

Nothing was more significant than the decision of the Howard government to introduce sweeping taxation reforms, which included a very contentious GST. But we all know that that was in the national interest, and Queensland Labor Premier Peter Beattie was the very first to sign on the dotted line. The GST now brings in excess of $7 billion into the coffers of the Queensland Labor government. Unfortunately, they are squandering it—

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, I rise on a point of order. This debate is about the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Vocational Rehabilitation Services) Bill 2006. The member seems to be talking about taxation matters and the GST. I would ask you to draw his comments back to the provisions of the bill.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The honourable member will address the bill.

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very much going to address the issues of the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Vocational Rehabilitation Services) Bill 2006 but, with all due respect to the Labor member opposite, this is another example of a Labor member getting up to interrupt a government speaker on matters that they do not want to hear about. Taxation is very relevant—

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I took a point of order, you made a ruling and that is within the forms of the House; it is not a contempt of the House. Any criticism of my action or yours is a reflection—

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

Order! The member for Ryan may continue on the matter before the House.

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great honour to speak in this chamber as the member for Ryan, and I will continue to address issues in this parliament that are of great relevance and significance to the interests of not only this country but also the people of Ryan. When I say those words, they are not something that the opposition should contend.

This is a bill specifically about Welfare to Work, but it contains very relevant matters of taxation and economics—matters that go to the heart of people’s lifestyles. All of that is important, and I take issue with the Chief Opposition Whip for trying to stop me speaking about these issues. I am very enthusiastically going to speak on this bill because it is a courageous bill and it is doing the right thing for this country. I know it is not popular in some circles and, of course, it is not popular with the opposition, but this is a very important bill. The Howard government is about providing welfare to the community and to worthy recipients when they are genuinely in need of it and not about making a blanket welfare policy whereby anyone who wants welfare should automatically get it. We subscribe to the view of a hand-up, not a handout.

This package was introduced in the 2005-2006 budget. The Welfare to Work reforms take Australia’s welfare system into the 21st century. Rather than emphasising passive welfare, the reforms recognise the change in the character and nature of the employment market in Australia. A flexible labour market and low unemployment mean that being employed does not necessarily mean being in full-time work. The rise of shift and part-time work, for example, means that single mothers do not have to stay at home while their children are at school. Disabled Australians, whose disability might prevent them from working full time, can still be an important and productive part of the workforce. It is in their interests and it is also in the interests of the wider Australian community.

This $3.6 billion, four-year package contains initiatives to assist single mothers, disabled Australians and the long-term unemployed to re-enter the workforce. To help parents make the transition to work, $47 million is being invested to implement the new Employment Preparation Service through the Job Network, which is currently helping parents to update their skills and undertake short-term appropriate training. The government has also committed $50 million to encourage employers to take on more people with disabilities, including $29 million for workplace modifications. An additional 102,500 employment assistance and rehabilitation places are provided to help people with disabilities.

In exchange for this investment, sole parents are now expected to look for part-time work once their youngest child turns six. People who cannot work 15 hours per week because of a disability will still be eligible for the disability support pension. However, people who can work 15 hours to 29 hours per week will receive Newstart allowance and be required to seek work of 15 hours per week. All unemployed people applying for income support will be required to make contact with an employment service provider and satisfy activity tests to receive payment.

The Welfare to Work reforms implemented from July 2006 were, of course, very much opposed by the Labor opposition, but I want to echo the sentiments of a very popular and successful American President, Ronald Reagan, who said:

We should measure welfare’s success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added.

I commend those sentiments to everybody in this chamber because they are timely and instructive.

We are about encouraging Australians who are in a position to seek employment and in a position to make a contribution to the economy—and to their own self-esteem—to take up those opportunities and options. Since July last year, 172,219 people have been assessed under the reforms to see if they are fit to work and 128,574, or 74.6 per cent, have been referred to job agencies. Of the single parents expected to look for part-time work under the Welfare to Work reforms, 1,580 have found jobs. In total, 3,724 single parents were transferred from the parenting payments category to partial unemployment benefits. The employment rate for sole parents with dependent children rose by three per cent to a record high of 52.3 per cent—well above the 42.8 per cent recorded when the Howard government came to office in 1996.

I also want to touch on Indigenous Australians and how they have benefited. They are one of the most disadvantaged sections of our community and we must do all we can to give them opportunities and options to participate in and benefit from the economic prosperity of this country. Between July and September, 1,482 Indigenous Australians moved from Community Development Employment Projects into paid work, compared with a mere 731 in the same period in 2005—a more than 50 per cent increase. I am sure that every Australian of goodwill will take heart from those figures. I know that the community minded and patriotic Australians in the Ryan electorate who want all Australians to prosper and reach their potential will be absolutely thrilled that such significant progress has been made in the area of Indigenous employment projects.

According to the latest ABS figures, long-term unemployment fell for the 11th consecutive month and in December 2006 it fell to 85,000, its lowest level in more than 20 years. So long-term unemployment under the Howard government remains at 72.5 per cent below the peak of 329,800 recorded in 1993 when the Labor Party was in office.

These reforms are doing a significant amount to change the culture of passive welfare in this country. We need to change the mindset and the thinking in this country so that those people who are able to work take positive steps to seek employment. We are not in the business of recklessly and mindlessly trying to sabotage people’s circumstances. Where they are in a position to work, we encourage them to work. I do not understand why any Australian in a position to make a contribution to the development of this country and its economic prosperity would not want to work. Of course, we are all very different and that is why the government sometimes has to take public policy positions that are in the overall interests of the country.

In the six months since the Welfare to Work regime began, 4,653 people have had payments cut off eight weeks after receiving the three strikes. A strike includes things such as refusing to take up suitable employment, leaving suitable employment with no reasonable excuse, engineering your own dismissal or attending work for mere payment without activity. So there is a very positive sign in those figures.

In the face of these results, along with, as we all know, a 30-year low unemployment rate of 4½ per cent and an increase in the workforce participation rate from 63.5 per cent to 64.8 per cent, it is clear that there is only one party in this country that has the economic skills, the credentials and the experience to govern our nation, and that is of course the Liberal and National parties in coalition, led by Prime Minister Howard. The opposition Labor Party has absolutely no credibility, and I hope very much that the people of Australia will think very seriously about the shocking record of the Labor Party when they were in office and how they took us not just to the cusp of bankruptcy but indeed into bankruptcy, leaving all Australians with a $96 billion debt. As a taxpayer of this country I did not appreciate that and I know that most Australians would not want to confront a collective $96 billion debt, nor their children and grandchildren.

I know that the Labor Party does not like to hear these figures, but $96 billion is a very important figure. We do not want one single Australian to forget that, whether they are sitting on this side of the parliament or the other side, whether they are listening on the radio or they are in the gallery watching and hearing this presentation. We do not want to let them forget the $96 billion figure. In fact, I should remind myself that associated with the $96 billion debt for this government were some $9 billion of interest payments. It just amazes me to think what $9 billion of interest payments could have gone to in terms of services in our country. I am sure that the people of Ryan would have lots of ideas about how to spend $9 billion of taxpayers’ money.

I want to go back to the welfare issue and refer to comments by the Labor senator from South Australia, Senator Wong. Her description of this legislation was that the government’s policies, ideas and initiatives were ‘excessive’. I think that people who work very hard—like the Ryan constituents who day in, day out go to work, pay their taxes, volunteer in the community and make contributions to this country’s development—would find such comments highly inappropriate and indeed very wrong. They work hard, pay their taxes and expect other Australians who are in a position to work to take steps to seek a job and to take up employment. And that lies at the heart of it: they expect Australians who have the capacity to make a contribution to make a contribution.

There is nothing complicated about this. It seems to me that the members opposite, especially those with some claim to economic knowledge and experience and with fancy degrees and PhDs and so forth, should really look at this. Why would any government or any member of this parliament say to an Australian who has the capacity to seek work, ‘No, you shouldn’t seek work. It’s fine. Just receive taxpayers’ money. Don’t worry about seeking work. We will pay you. The hardworking people of the Ryan electorate will happily continue to give you money, so just cruise along, you strapping young blokes living in Byron Bay and going surfing. We do not want to interfere with your lifestyle. Keep on surfing and enjoying the lifestyle that you are enjoying, and the hardworking mums and dads of the Ryan electorate who day in and day out go to work will fund your lifestyle’? Quite frankly, that is unacceptable to me both as a member of this government and as a taxpayer in this country, and it is certainly not acceptable to the overwhelming number of the people of Ryan who continue to have confidence in me as a local member, or to the Howard government.

I should not forget to mention some other very important statistics, which I know that members opposite, including the member for Blaxland, would enjoy hearing. Let me put on the record this figure of $87.1 billion in social security and welfare payments that the Australian taxpayer contributes to their fellow Australians. I have mentioned this figure in parliament before and I want to mention it again because it is very relevant. I certainly will be letting the people of Ryan know about this. This $87.1 billion in social security and welfare payments translates to $4,286 for every man, woman and child in this country. To put it another way, it translates to $2,761 every minute. So, in my 20 minutes here, some $50,000 of taxpayers’ money will have been paid out to Australians receiving social security and welfare benefits. That is relevant because people who receive those benefits should be fully entitled to receive them. Not one single person who receives a benefit who is not entitled to receive it should receive it. But if you are entitled to receive it then this government and Australian taxpayers think that it is absolutely appropriate.

In my concluding remarks, I will say—and I was only getting started; I have so much more to say here—we know that the Labor Party is going to try to hoodwink the good people of Ryan into believing that the Labor Party is the one with the capacity to manage this economy.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope you are doing a better job than John Moore did!

Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I see that the member for Blaxland is listening intently. I hope he reminds his constituents that in this country in 30 years we have not had figures such as the 4½ per cent unemployment that we have now. I think that those 30 years might even stretch to the time when the member for Blaxland’s predecessor was sitting in this parliament as Prime Minister, so he, of all members in this parliament, ought to know better. His predecessor presided over an economy and a nation that had too many people unemployed—a million Australians out of work.

I want to conclude by encouraging all Australians who might not have seen the movie The Pursuit of Happyness to go and see it. Over the break, I had the opportunity with my wife, nephew and niece to see this movie starring Will Smith and his young son. It was very striking because it showed me that people want the opportunity to pursue a job. The circumstances that the movie portrayed were remarkable. It really hit home. I think most Australians would share the values and the ideals of this government—that all Australians who are in a position to work should work because it not only contributes to the economic prosperity of their country and their community but also gives them self-esteem. (Time expired)

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to follow the member for Ryan, who is doing a hell of a lot of a better job than John Moore did when he was the member Ryan. That is my opinion. As Minister for Defence that bloke used to get up and say, ‘The government’s position is well known.’ He had a relaxed attitude to these matters; the fact was that he thought that it was almost beyond him in terms of what he had to do. Michael is working and trying hard. I understand that but, gee, sometimes he goes over the top. Thank you very much for the manner in which you have conducted this debate on what is in itself a relatively narrow bill, the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Vocational Rehabilitation Services) Bill 2006. You have so widened the debate that I can talk about just about anything!

Certainly, I can talk about my economic experience working in an electorate office: it was for the bloke who ran the joint at the time as Treasurer and then as Prime Minister. I can also reflect on the current Prime Minister when he was the Treasurer, when there were in the order of a million people unemployed as a result of the 1982-83 recession. Malcolm Fraser might have been the Prime Minister, but the Treasurer of the day could not bring himself to tell the truth prior to the election as to what the deficit was going to be in that year. He was asked in the week before the election and he said, ‘Oh, in the order of $4 billion.’ The day before the election, he admitted to about $6 billion. He had had direct advice from the Treasury before he said $4 billion, before he said $6 billion, that it was in the order of $9.6 billion. Uncorrected for inflation over that period of time, it is exactly the interest payment you were talking about. In fact, it is a little bit higher.

I will tell you, as I told the current Treasurer—who has no understanding or does not want to have any understanding of the situation—that you are talking about $96 billion worth of Labor debt as if it were from one single year. In the 1982-83 budget year, the member for Bennelong was responsible for lying to the Australian people about what the deficit was going to be prior to the election and doing it in a deliberate fashion in order to try to save the government. That amount of money, in current dollar terms, is in the order of $42 billion, about half of the $96 billion, and that was only one year’s worth of deficit from the member for Bennelong as Treasurer. There is not one single year in the history of the Commonwealth when a conservative government has brought in a surplus budget. You can go right the way up to when Labor came to power in 1983. Following Phil Lynch, the member for Bennelong was the Treasurer for very many years. He was the Treasurer when they did a whole range of things. There was money under beds and all sorts of problems—

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The speaker has received quite a bit of latitude and might return to the bill.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker; I would have to say that you are wrong in that regard.

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

No, I am not. You are reflecting upon the chair.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I am contesting what you are saying.

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

You should do that via a motion.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not have to do that via a motion, I am sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker.

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

You will return to the bill.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will return to the bill in the same manner that the member for—

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

You will return to the bill.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will return to the bill in the same manner that the member—

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

You will return to the bill or receive the consequences.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will return to the bill in the same manner that the member for Ryan did and he—

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

You will return to the bill.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All right. This is unusual conduct. As a member of the Speaker’s panel, I understand the dimensions of speaking to a bill. With regard to these vocational services and what is being done, the point is that it is what any government does as part of its economic role in running the country. The point is very clear. While the member made the point that so much money had been wasted, the reality is that there is a context for everything that we do.

In this vocational context, there is a simple line that you can put underneath it. All of the debate that I have heard here, both from the member for Ryan and from others on the government side, has a single point and focus, which is to back up what the government intend to do in this area and to make themselves seem as hard as possible. The line coming back from any person concerned about the impact on those people who do not deserve it, in relation to disability services or vocational rehabilitation, is to say, ‘O you hard hearts, you cruel men of Rome!’ Because the target here is not just those people who should not be on disability services or should not be up for vocational rehabilitation; it is about everybody who is on social welfare who is not entitled to be.

The member for Ryan quite rightly said, in terms of the government’s approach to this, that $87 billion worth of expenditure on social welfare and other services is a hell of a lot of money. He used the example of very healthy people running around in board shorts, who should be working and all the rest of it, and argued that the Hawke-Keating government did nothing in relation to this. From Rickard Road in Bankstown, when I was working for the Treasurer of the time, I did my bit in making sure that the crackdown in relation to disability services and vocational rehabilitation under a Labor government was as strong as it could be. The reason I did that was that I actually listened to the people in our electorate who said that there were people who were exploiting the system. There was an absolute recognition that, unless you targeted the money that was available for disability services and pension services generally to the people who were entitled to it, you were doing down the people who needed help.

There are always people in the Australian community, from the top to the bottom, who are willing to exploit the system. There are always people willing to go over the top, people willing to extract something from Commonwealth services, people willing to do whatever they can. There is a history of such cases. We have seen barristers and others decide not to do what they were supposed to do and pay the relevant taxes they had to pay. We have seen it with company collapses. There are a whole range of cases where enormous amounts of money have been taken from the Commonwealth—money that the Commonwealth could have used for good purposes. But one thing that is very hard for some people to understand is that that can happen at the bottom of the pile as well.

When the former member for Batman, Brian Howe, was Minister for Social Security, he conducted a major study under Professor Bettina Cass into the social security system in Australia. A part of that study related to disability services and vocational education and the problem of people who might be able to work not doing so. I directly took these points up with Mr Howe in Canberra. His initial response was quite simple—that, in this area, all I was telling him was purely anecdotal and could not be given any weight.

The reality is that action was taken by the Treasurer, the former member for Blaxland, Paul Keating, to clean up the disability services area and crack down on people taking the dole who should not have it. The example the member for Ryan used was boardriders on the North Coast without jobs. It demonstrates that if you actually listen to the word on the street, to what people are saying, people who use their eyes and ears, you can affect government policy to have a good outcome for all the people who need targeted assistance. When we first brought in the special teams on the North Coast, we had between 35 per cent and 40 per cent of people who were on benefits totally knocked off benefits. They were getting benefits and they should not have been. The money saved went to people who should have received it.

Some people said: ‘That’s because it’s the North Coast. They’ve got the beaches and all of that stuff.’ When those teams were directed to the Central Coast, 30 to 35 per cent of people on benefits were knocked off benefits. In areas where you would expect there to be a problem, it was wiped out. In Bankstown and other major metropolitan areas of Sydney, there were substantial numbers of people who had been rorting their benefits who lost them—and they should have. If they were working a day job or a night job and taking a Commonwealth benefit as well, they were defrauding the people of the Commonwealth of Australia and doing down the people who really needed the benefit.

If you look at the particulars of this bill, who are they really directed at? The people on disability services and the numbers in Australia are legion. There are a whole range of expectations around this, but the fundamental mistake to make is to assume that most of the people on disability are there simply because they want to be there, because they want to get out of work or because it is an easy way to avoid it and they are bludging off everyone else, and that you could crack down on them in enormous numbers. There is always that potential. Our government took direct action. Treasurer Keating took action because of the position he was in, and he also understood what I said and what his constituents said. He recognised that you can only help those people most in need who are dependent upon social welfare payments—the age pension or other pensions, benefits and entitlements allowable—if you crack down hard on rorters. That is the duty of any Commonwealth government. But part of the problem is actually cracking through what is in people’s heads to start with in order to understand the dimensions of the problem and then deal with it properly.

There is another element here as well. This is where I go to the point about the hard hearts and cruel men of Rome. The person I am about to speak about is dead. That person, Mervyn Dassouki, was a branch member of mine. Merv was a Muslim who had come from overseas and who married a lady from Yugoslavia. He arrived on a Friday and started working on the Monday at Kirby’s in Revesby, just over in the electorate of Banks. Merv was there for 28 years as an active employee in the tooling and machining area. Merv was a guy who worked really hard. Merv had a problem with his heart and he was hospitalised as a result. He went onto benefits for some time and was about to go back to work. He was working in his backyard, he was up a tree doing some pruning, and he fell out of the tree. He ended up in a wheelchair for the rest of his life.

It was impossible for him to go back to work. He had to have assistance with his breathing. He had multiple complications as a result of it. He was angry with himself and angry with the world. He was someone who had given so much, and wanted to continue to do so, who ended up in a position where he not only had to receive but also could not properly control his life anymore. He suffered enormous pain, until 10 years after the accident he finally succumbed to his multiple difficulties. That is at the core of my response in terms of the ‘You hard hearts, you cruel men of Rome.’

There is no desire on the part of the government as a whole, because they are using it in propagandistic terms, to really look at this and ask: are there people who are really in need? There are a lot of people in that circumstance. The vast proportion of people who are on disability pensions did not choose to be there in the first place. They are people who were working—who were part of our effective workforce, paying their taxes and contributing—and who then had an accident. Merv did not draw down a pension because he did not need to.

And it happened to one Colin Jacobsen from the electorate next to mine. He is a bloke born in Panania and otherwise known as Col Joye from Col Joye and the Joy Boys. He fell out of a tree at his house in Hunters Hill. Col was well off, although that changed in the period after his fall, until he brought himself back. It took a tremendous amount of work to get himself back into performing, because of the dimensions of what he suffered. That is another case of someone who has given a lifetime of work and effort. He was lucky enough to be able to come back.

A third example—this lady is dead as well—is Eileen McCarthy. She had enormous courage. She was actively working. It shows how simple it is and what needs to be kept in mind when we are dealing with a bill that looks like it is simply a way for the government to kick people receiving disability services—and kick them hard. But there is an implication here. It is the same as the line between sanity and madness: you never know when it can happen to you. Whether you are a deputy speaker, a member speaking in this House or someone who is working here, no-one can tell when they might end up on the receiving end and be in need of disability services.

That happened to Eileen McCarthy. She walked out the back door of her house in Greenacre. It had two steps to the ground. She missed the step and went off the side. She landed on her heels and a jolt went straight up her spine. It was four or five hours before her husband and children came home. She had remained there in that state; initially she was unconscious. She was in terrible circumstances when I went to see her in the Coast Hospital. She was initially quadriplegic but came back to being paraplegic because she had one arm and one leg that worked. She was left with one arm that was virtually useless and she had continuing problems with one leg. She was in hospital trying to rehabilitate for over five months. Through dint of her own courage she got back to a position where she could drive a car again and she was looking to go back to work. This was someone who did not want to be on disability services—the kind of case that is real. The complications from the injuries she suffered ended up killing her as well. These two people, Merv Dassouki and Eileen McCarthy, were amongst the hardest workers I have known. For them the short step between normality and disability was just a whisper.

I have a brother, Sean, who was quadriplegic but came back to being paraplegic. After 15 weeks he was deaf, dumb and blind and, as far as we knew, he had no mental function. They wanted to turn off his support mechanisms about two hours after he had gone into the hospital. Sean came back from that. He is still paraplegic; he cannot walk properly. He was born in 1960. At 17 his life was dramatically transformed. Sean cannot go into the normal workforce. He has done voluntary work but he is in such a condition that he is unable to do that. Sean went from hospital to the Koorabel rehabilitation centre. I was working at school. After work I spent most of the rest of the night with him for the 12 months that he was in there learning how to walk and how to function again. I saw the disabled people in Koorabel trying to come back—like the people who have the education services that are being targeted by this bill. I saw the trauma for them and for their families. There is an enormous cost for the community but there is also an enormous cost for those people—people who had otherwise led normal lives until they slipped, with a simple step, into a parallel universe that is dark and difficult and nasty. Unless you really understand it, you cannot run disability services in Australia and you certainly cannot run education programs. But worse than Koorabel was the double storey building up the hill from Koorabel that housed people who were in large part brain dead as a result of motor car or motorcycle accidents—people who had survived the accident and were being kept alive but would spend the rest of their lives in a vegetative state or something similar.

There are disabled people who work their way back because of the better interventions that we now have. But the government would have us believe that the vast majority of disabled people are con merchants and con artists who want to do everyone down and that the campaign it will seek to run against them this year is fully merited. This bill is the spearhead of that campaign and it is the spearhead of the denigration of anyone with a disability.

I think of Merv Dassouki, Eileen McCarthy and my brother’s situation. I know real people who did real work, took one step the wrong way and ended up with their lives entirely destroyed. If you adopt the approach of being hard hearts—cruel men of Rome—and encompass these people in that campaign as well, you should be condemned from now to eternity. It is right and proper to weed out the people who want to bludge on the social security system and defraud the Commonwealth—and we did that when we were in government. I will not cop a piece of the argument by the member for Ryan and others that we were not hard in relation to this, because I was a deliberate and central part of doing so. (Time expired)

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Community Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I want to speak frankly about welfare dependency and the policies that we need to get more Indigenous Australians into jobs and into business. We all know what welfare dependency does: it takes away people’s dignity and it certainly takes away their sense of purpose. This is the case in both Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. So any government that cares about people will do all it can to foster people’s capacity to participate in work and to gain purpose through work. There are many issues for any Commonwealth government to address, but first of all I want to touch on some facts. On average, Indigenous Australians are more than three times more likely than non-Indigenous Australians to be out of work. And it is not just about location, because Indigenous people living in the poorest neighbourhoods of our cities are still more likely to be unemployed than their non-Indigenous neighbours.

A study last year by the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research highlighted this point using 2001 census results. It found that:

… the Elizabeth area of North Adelaide had one of the nation’s highest urban unemployment rates for non-Indigenous people at 21 per cent. Among Indigenous residents of Elizabeth, however, the unemployment rate was 34 per cent. In Macquarie Fields in Sydney, non-Indigenous unemployment was 11 per cent compared to 30 per cent for Indigenous residents. In Brisbane, Inala recorded a very high level of non-Indigenous unemployment at 19 per cent, yet the Indigenous unemployment rate of the suburb was 35 per cent.

The study also found that the rate of upward mobility amongst Indigenous people in our cities had not improved. The ingredients of poor education, poverty, racism and being socially marginalised pose significant barriers to Indigenous young people in our cities. The situation is, however, worse in remote areas, where, according to ABS labour force data, unemployment continues to get worse in real and relative terms.

Of course, it is never good enough to just focus on the problems. I certainly do not intend to get swept up in the history or culture wars debates about remote communities. What I want to do today and to continue to do in this portfolio is talk about personal regard and responsibility, why it is important and what else is needed for Indigenous Australians to become economic equals.

Labor certainly has the policy mind to understand the way that social order, education, economic participation, health and culture are linked. We also know that, when it comes to Indigenous welfare and employment, we cannot afford to take an apologist approach. We cannot and we will not be making policy that makes white people feel good, whether they are white people from the bureaucracy or the left or the right of politics. What we want to do is develop policy that works. It will be an approach based on experience and looking at what is achieving results, not an ideological approach—pragmatic and local, certainly not a Canberra blueprint. Sometimes, I have no doubt, it will need to be unconventional.

We will take a fair approach to welfare that hinges on personal responsibility as much as it hinges on investment in an individual’s capability. I certainly agree with Noel Pearson when he says that too often the approach in welfare is to make excuses and absolve people from personal responsibility. But, equally, Labor will not be indulging in the ‘blame the victim’ chorus of social conservatives. We are talking about Indigenous empowerment, not victimhood; responsibility, not excuses. Professor Larissa Behrendt from the Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning in Sydney has said:

It was paternalism that condemned generations of our people to poverty and welfare dependency.

Half of the Indigenous population is under 25 years of age. Population growth is even higher in remote areas, particularly in the Top End of Australia. Labor wants to do one thing in particular, and that is to encourage our Indigenous young people who have gone off the track to stop and choose the path that will win them social and economic power, self-esteem and respect through education and work. We know, from the high-quality research done by the likes of the Dusseldorp Skill Forum, that the best way to keep our young people on track is to keep them engaged in education and training. If young people—and this of course is true for Indigenous and non-Indigenous young people—leave school early they are going to require considerable investment in mentoring, possibly wage subsidies, on-the-job training and specific efforts to get them back into education. All of these things are required to come together to defeat the destructive habits and low expectations that unfortunately typify people who leave school early. As I say, that is true in both the Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities.

Governments also have a responsibility to make sure that the disincentives in our social security and tax systems are addressed, as is the way in which they intersect with the CDEP system for Indigenous Australians. We want to encourage the decision to study and to work, not the reverse. That means looking at all of these major payment systems, whether it is social security, CDEP or the tax system, to make sure that they encourage people to work and that they do not have serious disincentives that discourage people.

We know it is also true that many Indigenous Australians carry out work while on CDEP payments that in any white community would actually be properly paid for—work such as long day care, driving a school bus, natural resource management, rubbish collection, and the list goes on. These issues need to be brought into the equation to address the serious levels of unemployment.

Last year, Senator Penny Wong, Labor’s shadow minister for workforce participation, released a discussion paper which she called ‘Reward for effort’, which explains how Labor will bring obligation and opportunity together. We intend to put the ‘mutual’ back into mutual obligation by making sure that people who have participation requirements also have training or study opportunities for them to get ahead, and to foster their independence. We intend to back it up with measures designed to give financial backing to those who will benefit from an investment in their skills.

But of course these ingredients for reform are not going to be enough for remote regions where labour markets are limited. In many remote parts of Australia, there simply are not the jobs. In some places, we know, there are jobs, and I will touch on some very good examples of that in a minute. Unfortunately many of the Indigenous people in these regions do not have the skills to take on those jobs. It is also the case, as I have just mentioned, that there are a number of jobs being undertaken by CDEP recipients which, in other communities, would be properly paid for.

We are all very aware in Australia that our current prosperity has been forged on the back of a minerals boom. That is happening literally in the backyards of many Indigenous Australians. Sixty per cent of mines in Australia neighbour an Indigenous community. Recently, a Rio Tinto report into the Pilbara region found that in 2004-05 the Pilbara produced $12.9 billion worth of exports, of which $53 million went back into the Pilbara. That is less than half of one per cent that went back to local government and local people.

It is true, I think, that all governments over the last few decades have been sporadic spenders, whether it is on employment support, regional development—you name it. It is as if governments of all persuasions have been administering an emergency relief budget rather than governing for the future. I want to quote one of Labor’s recently elected Indigenous members of parliament, Ben Wyatt, from the Western Australian state parliament:

If we continue down the path that all governments have gone in respect to Indigenous affairs, in respect of our regions, we are, in effect, accepting the ultimate demise of our regions and simply applying a palliative economic drug to ease the pain on the way to the economic grave.

He also argued:

... bringing to remote Aboriginal communities the real market forces of job search after years and years of palliative economics will bring ... nothing but disaster.

Like him, I do not think there is any point in throwing money at Job Network in remote areas if there are no jobs to fill or if people do not have the skills to fill them.

Labor accepts the argument of National Indigenous Council members that government can act as an enabler of the goal of getting Indigenous people into work. In September last year NIC member Wesley Aird said, ‘Economic development is not happening fast enough.’ Another NIC member and the Chairman of Indigenous Business Australia, Joseph Elu, stated that he was tired of the lip-service being paid to economic development by business and the government. He said:

There’s all sorts of things like ‘We will endeavour to employ indigenous people in the mining sector, blah, blah,’ but there’s no actual targets.

A couple of months later there were threats of mass resignation from National Indigenous Council members over this issue. So I think all of these commentators would agree that we must go beyond the palliative economics of the past that have become the norm for these Indigenous regions. It does seem that the current government has an ideological allergy to stimulating economic growth in remote Indigenous regions. It seems content to leave these regions to free market forces—a neglect that is just not tenable.

What we really need to do is look at some of the ideas that are being put forward in a very positive way. Noel Pearson and Warren Mundine have advocated the idea of regional economies that have a partially mobile, transient workforce. Part of the workforce would be employed in enterprise and service delivery in the home region while others in the workforce would seek employment elsewhere and return regularly, investing back into that region. The Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, the Desert Knowledge Cooperative Research Centre, land councils and forums like the Kimberley Appropriate Economics Roundtable have done excellent work on untapped potential in remote regions. This potential encompasses the arts, tourism, land and sea management, carbon trading, construction, and the pastoral and mining industries. Just last Friday the economist Jon Altman submitted to the Senate inquiry into Australia’s Indigenous visual arts and crafts sector that, with the right support, the Indigenous arts industry could grow three times in size. Right now there are an estimated 45,000 Indigenous artists throughout Australia.

One of the issues that is very topical at the moment is carbon trading, but I wonder how many people know that some of Australia’s pioneers in this field are an Indigenous mob in western Arnhem Land. The potential for greenhouse gas abatement contracts is immense for traditional owners with large tracts of land and skills in resource management.

Another very important issue is the promise of native title in terms of jobs and economic development. Unfortunately, this promise has not been delivered to our Indigenous people because native title representative bodies have not been adequately resourced to do so. This is despite repeated calls from both industry, particularly the mining industry, and the National Native Title Council. Recent research from Griffith University showed that half of the agreements analysed were either ‘basket cases that should never have been entered into’ or had delivered pitiful returns. So more than a decade of native title law has been a major disappointment to many Indigenous Australians. Their dividends from the minerals boom have been few and far between. Noel Pearson commented on this issue in the latest Weekend Australian. He wrote:

... the present situation is that the terms upon which mining takes place in Australia wreak more burden than benefit to indigenous peoples, most of whom live in the dust of development.

He continued:

... the federal Government has continued to legislate to weaken the indigenous position ... They are now proposing another round of amendments that further threaten the capacity of indigenous people to deal with developers.

We saw that legislation debated in the parliament this week. It is very clear to Labor that this government is not committed to Indigenous Australians getting jobs, getting their businesses going, making sure that they can take advantage of all the opportunities that exist both in the cities and in remote and regional Australia. In particular, the government seems to have locked the promise of native title in a bureaucratic void.

Indigenous Australians want to be able to improve their standard of living through economic development and work. I intend to embark shortly on a study tour of successful Indigenous projects and enterprises happening in urban, regional and remote areas around Australia. A number of these projects are about Indigenous Australians getting their businesses working and getting Indigenous people into employment. It is happening, and if we get the opportunity, we intend to make that success the basis for our action in government. We will be guided by what works. Our whole approach in Indigenous affairs will be to see what works, to scale up the projects that are working and to encourage them, and to do the things that are the responsibility of the federal government by making sure the social security and tax systems do not get in the way of Indigenous people’s desire to work and by providing the skills and training that people need to get the jobs they so urgently desire.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The main provisions of the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Vocational Rehabilitation Services) Bill 2006 and the premise upon which it is based can only be described as flawed. The Minister for Workforce Participation, in her second reading speech in December last year, was more than willing to gloss over many of the, quite frankly, mixed bag of changes that will take place as a result of the passage of this legislation. Once again, while presenting a picture of choice, the Howard government is actually eroding opportunity. That is what choice really means to this government: an erosion of opportunity. Choice is presented as the Holy Grail and nirvana by members opposite but, when you start examining the details and the various changes and what they mean for individuals, you realise that the introduction of the Howard government vision of choice generally means that some people will end up with less. Labor’s concern over the content of this bill and our genuine commitment to increasing workforce participation are why we oppose this bill and have moved the amendment that is before the House.

Moving people from welfare to work is a worthy objective which I, for one, and no doubt every member of this House, support. Employment provides people with the opportunity not only to build a stronger financial and economic platform for themselves and their families but also to strengthen their self-esteem and their social networks as an individual. Communities also benefit when members are gainfully employed and socially engaged. They are just matters of commonsense. Labor is strongly committed to welfare reform but has a deep concern about the approach being adopted by the Howard government. Simply moving someone from one form of welfare to a lower form of welfare in order to provide some twisted version of an incentive to find employment is an approach wrapped in an ideology governed by theoretical constructs that does not give recognition to the difficulties people face in securing employment.

The Minister for Workforce Participation in her second reading speech focused on the introduction of competition and the contestability of the provision of vocational rehabilitation services. Currently, someone in receipt of Newstart allowance or a youth allowance who is required to engage in activities in return for income support may be required to attend vocational rehabilitation services. Presently, this service is provided by the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service. Under the amendments in this bill those services will become contestable and consequently will be able to be provided by private sector providers. It is important that a change like this is done properly and that appropriate safeguards are introduced into the system so that contestability does not result in further disadvantage to those who are already finding it difficult to find employment. For example, many private rehabilitation service providers are not compliant with the Disability Services Act, but under these provisions the Secretary of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations may allow some services to be provided by providers who do not hold compliance certificates. There is concern that there is no guarantee that vocational rehabilitation services will be available, ready and accessible to clients with a range of disabilities. This has the potential to further marginalise people trying to access the workforce who most need those services.

The minister was noticeably silent on the changes proposed to the pensioner education supplement. Given that she failed to mention this change in her second reading speech, I can only assume that this rates among what she describes as ‘minor and technical amendments’ and consequently she felt there was no need to provide an explanation of the rationale for this, which actually amounts to another broken promise. The pensioner education supplement is an important allowance for pensioners who study or train in an approved course. Under the government’s Welfare to Work changes, people who move from the disability support pension to Newstart or to youth allowance are supposed to retain the supplement until they complete their course of study. The amendments in this bill are aimed at nothing more than restricting access to the supplement and consequently reducing the pool available for people to up-skill in order to prepare for work. I regularly have people contact me in absolute frustration at the fact that they cannot even get a little bit of financial assistance to undertake training that they consider so necessary to gain employment in the fields that they choose.

These are generally individuals who want to upgrade their skills and get back into the workforce, but there is always another hurdle that is put in front of them as they try to make themselves more employable. They are often unable to afford the courses that they need to undertake, because their income support payments will simply not support such education. While the minister may consider this a minor difficulty, it is yet another example of this government’s unwillingness to invest in people and in skills development and education so that individuals are equipped to meet the demands of the modern-day employer.

We all know that if you do not have the skills you do not get the job. All this government is doing with these arrangements is making getting a job that much more difficult. Following the passage of this bill I expect I will hear from more frustrated people seeking a little financial support, but by that stage they will be effectively locked out and marginalised from the labour market.

There is no doubt in my mind that the government’s approach of getting people into the labour market and back into employment is not working. As I commented earlier, this government’s approach is driven by a theoretical construct of the labour market that does not reflect reality. Common sense will tell you that, in order to get people to act in a particular way, there needs to be an incentive. Simply running around chanting ‘welfare to work’ and ‘mutual obligation’ will not produce an increase in employment. Those who are classed as hard to employ need more assistance than that provided by cutting their payments in an effort to force them to find employment to provide for their families. That is using the incentive of starvation to force people into work. I think the approach has to be a little more structured than that, certainly when you consider that many of those trying to access the workforce are single mothers, who need the infrastructure support of child care for their children in the form of before and after school care. These people need real assistance; they do not need to have their allowances cut and have that used as the stick to force them to work. That is what the government’s legislation does. Consider also those who have left school early and need assistance with training to get a job. Their readiness for employment will depend on what constructive assistance they can get to make them job ready and attractive to a contemporary employer.

In January this year, the Productivity Commission released a report which highlighted the changing nature of the Australian labour market and the importance of education in lifting male workforce participation rates. The Productivity Commission reported that there had been a fourfold increase in the rate of male disengagement from the labour force. It is clear from the evidence that men who are not working or who are looking for work typically lack work skills that are relevant in the new economy or they have a disability. This begs the question: how can the government believe that lowering welfare payments, reducing access to the pensioner education supplement and opening up vocational rehabilitation to non-compliant private providers without adequate protection access for the disabled is going to help people back into work when all the evidence points to the importance of providing skills? The answer, of course, is that what the government is doing is not going to help them back into the workforce; it is simply going to ensure that people are moved from one form of welfare onto a lower form of welfare.

Labor believes in all Australians reaching their potential, because that is what is good for the individual, good for the economy and good for the community. That is why we need a suite of policies that will properly help people to gain the skills necessary to enter the workforce. Furthermore, Australia’s ageing population is one of the greatest economic problems we face, and it is going to be more important than ever that we get as many people working as possible. With an ageing population, it is important for people to not only access skills but be reskilled to be able to participate in the modern-day workforce. Therefore, this is not a matter of simply saying that the only way to assist people is to use an economic stick to hit them over the head with, when they are unable to compete in the workforce because of their lack of developed skills. That is the issue we need to address.

When considering the impact of Welfare to Work changes and debating the merits of various policies to increase workforce participation, it is necessary to examine the labour force statistics. It is not possible to examine labour force statistics without commenting on the government’s interpretation of those statistics and the myths that it is trying to perpetuate as a consequence. While job creation is more than welcome, this government is making an effort to perpetrate the biggest con job of them all—the biggest con job that it has tried in the 10 years of its office.

Many have commented that the unemployment figures mask the reality of many individual and community based issues that we as local members experience. That is true. I do not have a problem with the technical definitions of employment and unemployment or with the methodology used to determine the labour force statistics; I do have a problem with the government using these statistics to conclude that Australia has already reached full employment. To conclude that Australia has reached full employment on the basis that the national unemployment rate has dropped below five percent is clearly misleading.

Bear in mind that the statistics consider people to be employed if they work as little as one paid hour per week. On that logic, if everybody between the ages of 15 and 65 participating in the labour force worked for only one hour per week then we would have a zero rate of unemployment. That is clearly ridiculous, but it is the statistic that this government relies upon to say that we have reached full employment. It is notional and, through its generality, it masks the impact that it has throughout various sectors of the community. It is not a real statistic to be looked at if one paid hour per week justifies someone not being considered unemployed. If people take comfort in those figures, they are living in cuckoo land. If the whole nation were working one paid hour per week, we would have a zero rate of unemployment. For all sorts of reasons, not everyone can be employed at any one point in time—and we know that.

As I mentioned earlier, the government is attempting to pull the wool over our eyes when it comes to unemployment. Currently we have the Treasurer, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and others continuing to tell us that the unemployment rate is a product of the introduction of Work Choices. That is a ridiculous suggestion. The current rate of unemployment is not as a result of Work Choices; it stems from the resources boom, and members opposite quite clearly know that. We heard that yesterday in question time when the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations indicated that the government does not create jobs; businesses do. If the government really believes that, why is it trying to walk on both sides of the street and attempting to attribute employment growth to Work Choices? The government has been doing that day in, day out with every dorothy dixer that is thrown up to the minister by members opposite. It is attributing any adjustment to unemployment solely to the introduction of Work Choices, and yet yesterday the same minister admitted that the government does not create jobs; businesses do. This is just another example of this government taking credit for all the good news but trying to blame someone—indeed anyone—for the bad news.

The other myth that this government is attempting to perpetrate is that, because the unemployment rate is low, everything is rosy for those who work and for those looking for work. A national unemployment rate of less than five per cent means that there are plenty of opportunities. When I look around various electorates, and at mine in particular, and look at skills that are being sourced by employers, I know that there are very strong pockets of disadvantage. I am sure the seat of Werriwa is not alone in this, and I am sure it is not only members on this side of the House who have that experience. Significantly higher levels of unemployment are masked when considering the national aggregate and averages, and that is without looking at levels of youth unemployment. We need to address these communities within our various electorates to come up with a real solution.

I cannot support the government’s position in this legislation. It is simply seeking to move people from one form of welfare to a lower form of welfare. It is based on a philosophy of using the stick over the back of the head, and quite frankly it is not doing anything to look at the skills necessary for people to adjust— (Time expired)

Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise in this House to speak to what I believe is yet another misguided piece of welfare legislation proposed by this government, the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Vocational Rehabilitation Services) Bill 2006. This legislation will further restrict the availability of the pensioner education supplement for some welfare recipients and enable the recovery of debts incurred through financial case management. It will also make some changes to the way in which income is assessed for certain CDEP recipients. Finally, it will allow for the government to put rehabilitation services out to tender—a process this government has arrogantly already begun before this legislation has passed through this place.

Welfare to Work is an issue that I am extremely passionate about. Many of you in this place know that I have spoken about it many times, both here in the chamber and in my community. This bill shows that after 11 long years those opposite are still focused on punishing welfare recipients, particularly those on the disability support pension. This bill shows yet again that this government just does not understand the needs of people with disabilities and their carers. The government’s focus seems to be more about putting additional obstacles in the way of disabled people and moving them from one welfare queue to another.

Labor believes that those in our community who can work should work. Those people with disabilities should be cared for and assisted by government to reach their full potential in life, including in the workplace. But this government has not put in place any steps to assist these people with a good, solid transition from welfare to work. Rather than punishing people, we should be training them. After all, a person can only get a job if their skills are in demand. Sadly, many people with a disability are being denied the opportunity to get the skills that employers require.

The Welfare to Work package of bills that we saw come through this place in recent times has had a huge impact on the lives of people with a disability in my electorate. When the last raft of changes came into effect mid last year, my electorate office received many calls from people with disabilities who are on DSP, or from their carers. I can recount a particular case, one of many. In this instance it is the case of a young disabled man who wants to work. He works part-time in the hospitality industry, and he wanted to work more hours. For him work does not provide just an income. For him and many others similar to him, work provides an enhanced sense of self-worth, independence, social inclusion and social acceptance. Despite all of the obstacles and extraordinary challenges he faces in his life, he simply wants to get on with the job. For his elderly mother, her son’s work provides some hope for his quality of life into the future, long after she is unable to continue as his primary carer, long after her passing.

This fine young man was offered more hours at his workplace. He wanted to work, so he accepted the additional hours. He then went off his payment because he did not want to be a burden on the government purse. After some months, however, he and his employer found that he just could not cope with those extra hours. It was simply too much for him. He had to reapply for his DSP but he found that he now came under the new Welfare to Work rules. His activity test dropped to 15 hours per week. He is faced with spending the rest of his life, virtually, on the dole. Won’t that be great for his self-esteem in the long term! How will his special needs be catered for on the dole? The short answer is that they will not be. At that point he came to our office. After the involvement of my office and the actions of local Centrelink managers, we managed to have him ‘grandfathered’ under the old provisions. We managed to prevent him from being disadvantaged by this government’s draconian Welfare to Work legislation and by that terrible transition from the old system—you would be virtually forgotten by this government under that system now—and the new system. Sadly, we could not save others in a similar way from the disastrous impacts of those laws.

Many of the provisions in this bill, I believe, are equally misguided. Whilst I fully support the ability of the government to recover welfare overpayments—of course I do—a review and appeal mechanism must be in place. I believe that the government has deliberately omitted review and appeal procedures for debts incurred under financial case management. We have often heard over the past few months the Prime Minister say in this place, ‘What do you expect us to do—let these debts go?’ Of course we do not. But we also believe in a fair, proper and transparent process.

My electorate office deals with more complaints and more inquiries about Centrelink than any other government agency. I am sure many members’ offices are very similar to mine in that regard. As part of the advocacy services that we supply, we organise appeals on behalf of Centrelink customers. We have a pretty good success rate in relative terms. Time and again I have seen debts that have been raised against welfare recipients waived or reduced by thousands of dollars because, upon proper review, it has been found that the person complied with all Centrelink requirements and acted in good faith. The mistake was not theirs and they should not have been punished for it.

But don’t take my word for that: when the Australian National Audit Office completed a review of Centrelink cases last year, they found that in 30 per cent of cases Centrelink had in fact made an error. Almost one in three people walking into their local Centrelink office may have mistakes made in their cases. Through this bill, those opposite want to deny them any right of review and appeal if their overpayment is the result of the financial case management system. This is an outrage.

I want to also put on the record right now that I defend the overwhelming majority of workers in Centrelink. It is not an easy workplace when you consider their workload level, the heavy burden of duty that they carry, the continuous changes that they have to keep up to date with and the stress of dealing with customers in some cases. I am not having a go at Centrelink workers. As for those who make a mistake, we all make mistakes, including me. My point is that Centrelink is a government agency working under government direction. I am pretty safe and secure in saying that many Centrelink workers sometimes do not like the job they have to carry out, but they are there to do it.

I want to now talk about the provisions in the bill relating to the outsourcing of rehabilitation services. I have no objection to these services being provided by the private sector, providing that service levels are not diminished. I find three elements of these provisions most disturbing. The first is that it will be the Secretary of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations who will approve private sector providers. I would like to know what level of expertise the secretary has in assessing the rehabilitation of people with a disability. Will this authority be delegated, and, if so, to whom? My second concern is that private providers will be allowed to operate for up to 12 months without being accredited under the Disability Services Act. In other words, for the first 12 months they will be able to operate under this legislation with no accreditation. To ensure that appropriate levels of care are delivered, we must have accreditation from the first day. You cannot be half pregnant; you are either accredited or not accredited. I cannot understand how you can have a system in which accreditation comes in a year after the system has begun. That is a basically stupid policy, and that has not been clearly understood. I do not understand how you can logically defend it or why you would.

Another concern in this area is the arrogance this government has shown in beginning the tendering process with the private providers before this bill has passed through the parliament. It shows contempt of the highest order for the democratic processes of this place. The next thing we know debate will be removed entirely. What is the point of debate if the government have already begun the process? It proves to me how much arrogance has crept into this government if they believe this is how they can behave.

Finally, I want to touch on the changes to the pensioner education supplement contained in this bill. We on this side of the chamber have argued consistently that we should be doing more to provide welfare recipients with training opportunities. Our position could not be further removed from that of those opposite. Labor recognises that the best path to a job is to have the skills that employers demand. We should not be restricting these training opportunities, and that is exactly what this bill will do. Not only will it restrict people from undertaking further training; it will prevent them from continuing training that they have already commenced. That is crazy. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to go out there and talk to people with disabilities and fully understand that they would love to have a different life to the one they have. In so many cases, all they ask is for a fair go, some support and the training and encouragement to be put in place to see what they are capable of doing.

People receiving the pensioner education supplement already face significant barriers to entering the workforce. Preventing them from completing training adds another obstacle on their path to prosperity, self-worth and social acceptance. I do not know what the government hopes to achieve from these provisions in the bill, apart from saving a few dollars in the short term. That is a pretty pathetic motive. The long-term costs to the people forced to abandon their training, the local communities in which those people live and the nation as a whole will certainly outweigh any short-term gain. I strongly believe that this government needs to re-examine its whole attitude to Welfare to Work. Disabled people and other pensioners need a hand up to get into the workforce. They need encouragement, support and training. They do not need to be backhanded by a government which, after more than a decade, has not delivered one initiative, in my view, to adequately improve the lot of disabled people.

I will conclude my remarks with an observation. Over the years of this government, I believe that people with disabilities have been derided and held in contempt by a lot of the comments that have been made in this parliament—particularly by the Treasurer, but by others as well. They have said things like: ‘Get off your butts. You’ve all got bad backs and you’re malingerers. Get out there and do something and stop being such a huge cost to us the taxpayers holding the taxpayers’ purse.’ That is so confronting and so insulting.

At the end of the day, what have we seen? We saw Welfare to Work legislation come through this parliament that basically excluded the 780,000 people who happened to be on the DSP at the time. The people the government complained about have been removed from the equation. We then had the disastrous transition period, which I referred to when I spoke of the case of the young man in my electorate who was a DSP recipient under the old system. He did everything in his power to work full-time but could not. When he had to re-apply for the DSP, he came under a whole new set of tests. It was quite unfair and put him in a terrible position. Thank heavens we were able to save him from that. I hate to think how many others are out there who were not able to be saved in a similar way. Now we have this legislation coming in affecting the people who are on the DSP today. I say that that is three strikes for this government—a failure in three cases on Welfare to Work. All they have to do is go out and talk to people in the community to understand that their approach is so wrong. We are so far removed from that approach. The divide between us and the government on this issue could not be wider.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a delight to follow the member for Canberra on this issue. She is a very passionate advocate for people with disabilities. I rise to speak on the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Vocational Rehabilitation Services) Bill 2006. This bill is part of the Welfare to Work measures which commenced on 1 July 2006. It is in essence a bill seeking to fix up mistakes, but it also introduces a whole new set of difficulties to a system which is already too complex for people to navigate. The main components of the bill are the opening-up of vocational rehabilitation services to contestability—a tender process which, despite the bill being debated only today, has already started. You have to be galled by the arrogance of the government on that. There are some real issues with the process, but I also have concerns about the lack of safeguards to protect some of our most vulnerable job seekers and I will detail that later in my contribution to this debate.

The bill also restricts access to the pensioner education scheme, which the government claims is a Welfare to Work measure. The government has never been able to explain how removing the ability of people to afford education and training assists them into work. Unfortunately, that has been the government’s approach to welfare reform and moving people from welfare to work: place them on lower payments, despite the significant financial barriers they already face; stop them getting the training and assistance they need; and tell them to get off their butts and get a job.

The Welfare to Work changes have been in place for some six months now. Many agencies who work with the most disadvantaged in our community continue to have concerns about them. The harshest impact of the reforms has started to bite and the eight-week breaching regime is, in many cases, causing significant financial distress. The impacts are being felt most significantly by people with disabilities, but sole parents are also waking up to the harsh reality of the Howard government’s welfare reforms. No-one contests that the best way you can help people out of poverty is to get them into the workforce. No-one contests that if you are in receipt of government payments then there is an expectation that you will be obliged to do all you can to find work. But the government has never been able to explain how reducing people’s income and access to education and training helps them get a job.

We will be opposing this bill in its current form. The key areas of concern are the removal of the entitlement to the pensioner education supplement for certain groups of social security recipients and the introduction, without adequate checks and balances, of contestability to vocational rehabilitation services. We also have issues with financial case management.

A demonstration of the harshness and unfairness of Welfare to Work is exposed in this bill, which strips the pensioner education supplement from some of the most vulnerable Australians. Under the Welfare to Work changes, people who moved from the disability support pension or parenting payments to Newstart or youth allowance were supposed to retain the pensioner education supplement until they completed their current course of study. This makes sense, as all the research shows that education and training are among the best ways of helping people re-enter the labour market. However, this is exactly what the Howard government is taking away from Australians who need it most. Education and training are often the bridge to employment. We should be encouraging, not preventing, access to programs like the pensioner education supplement.

The Australian Federation of Disability Organisations, in its submission to the inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Education into this bill, highlights that the pensioner education supplement is a stepping stone to employment for people with a disability—a stepping stone that this bill proposes to remove for some social security recipients. The bill would see a person who came onto the DSP in the transition period of Welfare to Work, between May 2005 and July 2006, lose their access to the pensioner education supplement if they were reviewed off the DSP after 1 July 2006. The amendment would result in people who continue to be eligible for the DSP after their first review but who become ineligible at a subsequent review not only moving to a lower payment but also losing their pensioner education supplement.

This element of the bill drew further fire from ACOSS, the Australian Council of Social Service, in the Senate inquiry. ACOSS uses the example of a person with disabilities on the disability support pension who has just commenced a three-year full-time course when their payment is first reviewed, say in July 2007:

• If they lose the pension on this first review, they would ordinarily continue to receive the PES until the course is completed, three years later. This would be worth $31.20 per week, or around $4,900 over the three years.
• However, if they retain the pension at this review but lose it in a subsequent review 12 months later, the PES would then be cancelled. They would miss out on the $31.20 per week for the remaining two years of the course, a total of $3,200.

In this example, the person disadvantaged by the policy is the one with the more substantial barriers to work, since they retain the pension at their first review.

This is clearly unfair and works against the very people who need assistance. I know that the pensioner education supplement is highly valued by people on a disability support pension. I have had countless people in my office who are on such a pension, who are struggling to re-enter the workforce and who would like to see the pensioner education supplement expanded. This bill will greatly disadvantage many of those who need to access the pensioner education supplement but who will have it removed from them.

Catholic Social Services Australia summed up the effects of this provision well when it noted that for people who are turned down for the disability support pension after their first review there will be:

… a high cost in economic, productivity, social and human terms. Many individuals in difficult circumstances who have invested considerable time and effort in furthering their employment prospects are likely to be forced to jettison half-completed courses—courses commenced and continued in good faith in the expectation that the Commonwealth’s Pensioner Education Supplement would be available for the duration of the course.

How incredibly short-sighted!

The other area that we are concerned about is the contestability of vocational rehabilitation services. We have accepted contestability as a principle for vocational rehabilitation services, but we are really concerned about the way in which this government is going about it. As I said, we are here in this place debating the bill and the tender is already out there. We have not even passed this legislation to say that vocational rehabilitation services can go to contestability, yet the government is already out there with the tender.

Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very arrogant.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is extraordinarily arrogant. I do not know why we bother to have a parliament if the government assumes that, despite the Senate and despite the House of Representatives, every piece of legislation is going to go through completely unamended. It is disgraceful.

Currently, rehabilitation services are provided by the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service; however, as with other areas of social security, the Howard government has been working towards making rehabilitation services contestable so that private providers can tender for contracts. As I said, they have already started that tender process for vocational rehabilitation services.

There are some real concerns about opening this sector up for contestability. One of the issues is that vocational rehabilitation is a specialist service, particularly for people who have mental health issues or significant disabilities or who have been injured at work. Not only does it require specialist, skilled people who have occupational therapy, physiotherapy or social work skills and qualifications but also it requires people who really understand the sorts of experiences people have gone through when they are confronted by those issues—whether they have injured themselves and are trying to return to work, whether they have developed mental health issues or have a chronic disability that continues to cause issues throughout their life. I am concerned that the government is not providing any guarantees about the quality or the standard of services for people who would be going out of the Commonwealth rehabilitation system.

Many of us have seen, when areas are opened up to contestability, agencies enter the market voraciously, sometimes getting things wrong and sometimes not doing a great job. Most of the Job Network providers and employment agencies that we have across the country do a really good job, but some of them do not and, when we open this service up for contestability, significant protections need to be in place for people with disabilities and/or mental health challenges who want to return to or find work.

Unfortunately, this bill does not provide those safeguards and it does not provide those guarantees. Nor does it actually recognise that these are really specialist services. This is not just about going out there for job seekers who are at a certain level. This is about providing really tough job-seeking assistance, and it does require people who have good skills and good qualifications who really understand the experiences of people with disabilities and mental health challenges and those needing rehabilitation and assistance to enter the workforce. I am not convinced that the government understands that. Nor am I convinced that the government has built any safeguards into the system of contestability in order to protect people in the system.

The other area of concern in this bill is the issue of financial case management. You have to remember that financial case management does not have any basis in legislation. Financial case management basically is a by-product of the Howard government’s extreme welfare compliance regime, a regime that even many right-wing commentators have noted is excessively harsh. The regime provides that people who commit certain breaches within the social security system will lose their income—all of their income—for eight weeks. If the penalty is applied to you, you may be eligible for assistance through financial case management. This means that Centrelink or one of its contract providers will actually cover your costs and will pay for your food, rent and utilities in certain circumstances. But there is absolutely no basis in legislation for saying that, if it is not deemed that you can get access to financial case management, you have a capacity to appeal that. This bill puts in place a mechanism by which, if, by the end of financial case management, overpayments have occurred, those overpayments can be claimed back—and you have no capacity, if you are in those circumstances, to appeal. There is no appeal mechanism and no complaints mechanism that you can apply if an overpayment is being sought from you under the financial case management system.

I think that should be of concern to many people in terms of procedural fairness. Many people working in politicians’ or solicitors’ offices find that a lot of people in the social services system are incurring a Centrelink debt and their capacity to negotiate their way through the system to decide whether they can appeal is really quite difficult. Unfortunately, within this bill there are no protections and no complaint mechanisms for those people who may find themselves subject to a claim to have their payments reduced because an overpayment was made under financial case management.

I am extremely concerned by the lack of balance in the current welfare system. Labor supported and introduced the notion of reciprocal obligation into the welfare system. But our version was just that: we asked that people in receipt of social security payments did everything they could to find work and that they actively demonstrated it. In return we said that there were certain things that people could expect—access to training, proactive assistance in finding work and becoming job ready, and high-quality service providers in the local area that they were able to work with in an innovative way to find work.

We recognised that there were some people, particularly those with chronic conditions, mature age workers and sole parents, who had specific difficulties and faced unique barriers to entering the workforce. We recognised that there were people who started well behind the eight balance—those whose lack of education or a lack of a nurturing and supportive upbringing, or in many instances even a home, made their job prospects very limited.

As a former social worker I have worked with many young people whose literacy and numeracy skills were completely inadequate for them to even contemplate entering the workforce. Their capacity to hold a conversation with anybody and to speak to anybody in an appropriate way without causing great offence was extremely limited. The thought of these young people being able to get solid, full-time work without a significant amount of work on them beforehand was completely ridiculous.

We recognised that those with caring responsibilities and people with disabilities may not have the capacity for full-time work. We recognised that there needed to be some flexibility in the system to accommodate individual circumstances.

The government, in my view, have forgotten what the notion of reciprocal or mutual obligation means. They have forgotten their end of the partnership, their end of the bargain, with job seekers. The system now lacks the balance necessary: you need both incentives and penalties to assist job seekers into work; there need to be obligations placed on employment agencies about the way in which they deal with unemployed people; and the government needs to take an active role in removing systemic barriers for job seekers.

The Howard government’s reforms have been all about punishing people, not helping them. I would have been happy to support welfare reforms that provided reward for effort, increased training opportunities and worked out practical solutions to some of the reasons why people are not participating in the workforce. Instead, the Howard government decided to reduce financial rewards for work and made it harder for people to get the education or training they need to get a job. I have yet to meet someone with a disability who is not desperate to get work. Most find it extremely hard to find an employer to take them on. There is little that this government has done to change employer attitudes. I meet many women with children who are itching to get back into the workforce but they cannot afford the childcare fees. Or they do the sums and find they would be worse off after getting work not only because of childcare fees but also because of effective marginal tax rates that mean they are working to fill John Howard’s coffers, not to provide for their families.

This bill, in particular the restriction of the pensioner education supplement, is a continuation of the Howard government’s failed approach to welfare reform. We on this side of the House know that it is dangerous and foolhardy to sit back and somehow think that the resources boom will be the driver of permanent jobs and prosperity for all time to come. We know that it will not. To drive the next wave of prosperity, we need an education revolution, to borrow the words of the Leader of the Opposition. All the evidence shows that the best way to help people out of poverty, to help them into jobs and to increase participation and prosperity is for governments to invest in education and training. This government has done just the opposite, and this bill is just a continuation of the failed and flawed Welfare to Work reforms that the government has been driving.

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

I ask the House to bear with my voice or lack thereof, although I think I will be able to get my message across very ably.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a demonstration of great courage, member for Shortland.

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

I come to this debate on the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Vocational Rehabilitation Services) Bill 2006 from a different position to many other members of this House. I suspect that I am the only member who has worked in vocational rehabilitation services and I did so for in excess of 10 years. A large part of my contribution to this debate will deal with the issue of contestability and what that means to the people affected by the change in the delivery of vocational rehabilitation services.

The bill before us deals with four main policy areas. One is vocational rehabilitation services, to which I have already foreshadowed I will be making a lengthy contribution. The bill removes the entitlement to the pensioner education supplement for certain groups of people receiving payments through Centrelink. The bill also enables the recovery of financial case management debts and makes changes to the income test arrangements for certain CDEP recipients.

I will commence my detailed contribution by addressing the issue of the removal from PES recipients of the entitlement to the pensioner education supplement. The government is making a grave error in choosing to remove eligibility to receive this supplement from people who are in receipt of the disability support pension. Under the bill, people who claimed a disability support pension between 11 May 2005 and 30 June 2006 and who qualified for the PES, the pensioner education supplement, will only be able to continue to access the PES if they no longer qualify for DSP as a result of the first DSP review after 1 July 2006. This is very short-sighted. The government should be doing everything in its power to ensure that people with disabilities undertake some training so that they can move off the disability support pension. The government is making it harder for people in receipt of disability support pension to move off it.

Much of this government’s approach to welfare reform has been motivated by the fact it wants to get people off benefits rather than see them get work. Every day we see the government direct the sharp end of all its legislation to the most disadvantaged in the community. If the government truly were interested in seeing people on DSP enter the workforce and earn a wage, it would help them by maintaining their entitlement to the pensioner education supplement.

I turn to the provisions of the legislation that deal with financial case management debts and the recovery of those debts. Financial case management is only necessary because the government has brought in a very harsh breaching regime. I have shared with this House the concerns of some of the constituents whom I represent. Only last week I raised the issue of two women who have been threatened with breaching. One woman has a cross against her name already. She is 60 years old and was unable to get to an interview because she did not have transport. So now she has one cross against her name. She has been warned by Centrelink that she has to be very careful because next time she will be breached. This happens to a lot of people in the community. The more vulnerable the person, the more likely they are to be breached. Financial case management has been put in place to support those people who have no money to pay for their food, rent, gas, electricity or water bills.

I do not believe that anybody should obtain money fraudulently. But if, after a reassessment, Centrelink staff determine that a person could have looked after themselves—their parents may have given them some money or some assistance and it is as black and white as that—Centrelink can recover the financial assistance they have given to that person. For a country like Australia to have in place such a harsh regime, to my way of thinking, is unforgivable. We should be a caring nation. We should be helping those people who are more vulnerable than others are and we should have proper safety nets in place. This amendment bill raises real concerns. I have already seen firsthand how people within the electorate that I represent have been affected by this harsh Welfare to Work regime.

Welfare to Work is supposed to be about assisting a person receiving a Centrelink payment with moving into the workforce. The way this government is implementing it is all stick and very little carrot. To get the absolute best outcome, a person needs to be nurtured through the process. The more vulnerable a person, the greater the assistance they need. I feel that this government is letting people down in that area.

I would like to turn to the issue of contestability in relation to vocational rehabilitation services. But, before I move to the issues affecting people using the vocational rehabilitation service, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the introduction of contestability. Once the Commonwealth Employment Service closed, that led to the Job Network that operates throughout Australia, offering services similar to the CES. There are some very good Job Network providers in all of our communities but there are also some very marginal and very ordinary Job Network providers who are interested mainly in obtaining money for providing their services and tend to forget the reason that they are there.

Last Thursday I raised in this House my concerns for a 55-year-old woman who had been asked to jump through hoops just to satisfy the Job Network provider requirements. I have had many other people contact me about problems they have with Job Network providers. I even had a constituent who advised me that they had been penalised because they had previously been to see me. They came to see their member of parliament because they were not happy about the way the Job Network provider they had been assigned to was operating, and they were threatened with repercussions. They had to undertake a program because the Job Network provider did not feel that it was right for somebody to go and see their member of parliament if they had a problem with that Job Network provider.

The Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service provide a very specialised service to people with disabilities. They have a wide range of clients from a wide range of areas, with a wide range of skills, education and disabilities. There are people with very severe injuries—head injuries, spinal injuries, back injuries—intellectual disabilities and psychiatric problems. These are all people who need very specialised assistance to find employment. The CRS employ a variety of caseworkers and occupational therapists, who do physical assessments of clients and workplace assessments, and who provide return-to-work programs. There are psychologists, social workers, job trainers and physiotherapists. They provide the services that people with disabilities need to get back to work. And of course I should not forget rehabilitation counsellors, seeing as I was once employed as a rehabilitation counsellor with the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service.

I would have to say that the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service is not perfect, but it certainly offers the greatest hope anywhere in Australia to people with disabilities for getting back into the workforce. I think the changes foreshadowed in this legislation will lead to a poorer service for people looking to attract vocational rehabilitation. Once you bring into play contestability, as outlined in this legislation, you will not be comparing apples with oranges. Vocational service organisations will have fewer skills and less expertise. They will have to pay their workers less. These services will be able to undercut the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, which pays for the professionals they employ, professionals who can assess objectively the needs of their clients.

It will put in place a very bureaucratic structure and there will be a decline in service. It will be a similar situation to the one that exists with the Job Network providers, with a variable quality of service. If a person with a disability is lucky enough to be referred to the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service, they will get the creme de la creme service; if they are referred to service X down the road, which does not have anyone with proper qualifications, they will end up being put into a job that they are not suited to.

Part of the challenge of getting a person with a disability back into the workforce is being able to choose a job that fits their physical and intellectual capacities. A poorly trained person may say that a person with a back injury could work for eight hours standing all day as a console operator. That is setting that person up for failure. Maybe there might be a person who can do that, but you really need to have the workplace designed around the needs of that person. You need to ensure that that person will have the right sort of support.

With the introduction of the model of contestability set out in this legislation we will have the revolving door syndrome. People will be put into jobs that they are not suitably qualified for—either physically or vocationally. They will go along to the workplace and may work there for a week or two weeks. The vocational rehabilitation service will receive a payment for placing that person but two weeks later the person will be unemployed once again. People with disabilities are one of the most vulnerable groups in our community when it comes to looking for work. If the person assessing their needs is not properly qualified, that is setting up the disabled person for failure. I find that absolutely unacceptable. I do not think this House should support a model that will allow that to happen.

Workers compensation in most states uses a variety of rehabilitation services. They have very different clientele from the type of people who go through CRS. The expertise needed is very different. When you are dealing with the group of people most disadvantaged by disability, I would argue very strongly for ensuring that we provide the proper vocational services. A few years back, the government set up the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service for privatisation—they were going to sell it off. Instead of selling it off, they are giving it away. They are undermining the service by setting up a model similar to the model that exists with the Job Network.

I implore the government to revisit its approach to welfare reform. I support welfare reform. There is no-one in this House more supportive of people with a disability being given a go, being given the opportunity to get a job, than me. I understand all the issues that surround it. I know that every time a person with a disability tries to enter the workforce and fails, it is the most enormous setback for them. They are being put back—behind where they were when they were placed in that job. The more times they fail, the more it affects their self-esteem and the less likely they are to succeed in entering the workforce.

This government is a harsh government. It is not prepared to really look at the issues. All it is concerned about is trying to marginalise those people who need the government’s assistance. I cannot support the contestability provisions as set out in this bill. Let’s face it—contestability is just another word for privatisation. I cannot support the removal of the pensioner education supplement as detailed in this legislation. The recovery of financial case management debts, except in cases where fraud can be proved, is something the government needs to think about long and hard. The only reason we need this financial case management is that the government has in place such a harsh regime, which has affected so many Australians. Rather than support this bill, I think the government should take it back to the drawing board and amend it to make it reasonable.

Michael Hatton (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Shortland. I am glad her voice held out.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And what a voice it was!

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

Rasping.

Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia and Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Rasping, but it made the point—and that is what this exercise is all about. The member for Shortland has done a very good job in explaining to those who might be listening to this debate on the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Vocational Rehabilitation Services) Bill 2006 our concerns with this legislation. They should be left in no doubt about those concerns. I am going to apologise in advance for spinning off, in my contribution, the speeches made by two of my colleagues. The first is the speech made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Ms Gillard. The second is the speech made this morning by the shadow minister for Indigenous affairs, Ms Macklin. I want to pick up on some of the issues they raised. The deputy leader, in her contribution, said that this bill:

... is a bill that is all about mistakes. It tries to rectify old mistakes and on the way it manages to make a whole lot of new mistakes. It is ... a grab bag of unrelated measures, ranging from the straightforward to the incompetent. In part it makes some minor changes to social security rules to increase consistency, particularly in respect of CDEP.

It is on CDEP that I want to concentrate my remarks. Others have spoken in detail about what I would describe as the asinine stupidity of the Welfare to Work measure of trying to restrict access to the pensioner education supplement. The measure speaks for itself. The deputy leader made this very obvious point:

This is the Howard government’s approach to moving people from welfare to work—just put people on lower payments, stop them from getting the training they need and then tell them to get a job; and, if they do, then take back most of what they earn.

That is an apt description of where the government’s Welfare to Work policies are at now. Then the deputy leader made a very strong case explaining how Labor supports welfare reform, particularly reform that helps people move from Welfare to Work. She made the obvious point that Labor is, by definition, the party of work and the party of working Australians.

We have heard much, and continue to hear much, from this government about the issue of mutual obligation. That is interesting in itself but it ignores the reality that the concept of mutual or reciprocal obligation in the context of welfare reform was introduced by the Hawke and Keating governments. I well recall the introduction of that concept in dealing with those who were unemployed—their obligations to attend training and to look for work. I well recall the outcry that we received from some sections of the community about having the temerity to require unemployed people to undertake some activity in order to get a benefit from the Commonwealth.

We make no apology for supporting the concept of mutual obligation, but we say the government has no ownership of it and ought not pretend that it does. It ought not pretend that somehow or other its championing of mutual obligation is precedent setting—in fact, quite the reverse. The idea was developed initially by the Labor Party when it was last in government. The government ought to be at least gracious enough to acknowledge that fact. It ought to acknowledge that the reforms introduced by the Labor Party, in my view at least—I am sure the government would disagree—were far more understanding of the need for people on benefits to get into training and to get a job, than are the reforms of the government, as observed by the deputy leader.

For some people, as the deputy leader said, the best form of mutual obligation is a requirement to get a job. But then she made what I thought was a very significant observation—that is, other people start further behind. Some people have an extremely limited education and correspondingly limited job prospects in today’s economy. For them, mutual obligation should require that, in exchange for income support, they get the skills an employer needs and then they should be required to get a job. I think that statement is a very good summary of the reality.

But I would go further. It is all very well for us to talk about individuals getting themselves into a position where they have the skills an employer needs. The difficulty many Australians have is that they are not in that position. They are not in a position to acquire the skills an employer needs, for a range of reasons. One may be the nature of the labour market in which they find themselves. One may be where they live and their access to education and training opportunities sufficient to give them the skills that an employer might require. What I would be saying—and I strongly support the view that people who can work should work—is that we need to understand the reasons why in many instances people find they cannot get work or are out of work. Whilst bland statements about trying to get people in work are useful in some respects, we need to understand that macro-statements of that type, if they are to have any impact, need to comprehend the particular circumstances in which individuals and communities find themselves. If we want people to get a job we need to understand where they live, who they are, what their life experience has been, what their educational opportunities have been and are currently, and the likelihood of them getting a job with the skill sets that they have at present.

There are many Australians, even in this period of very low unemployment and supreme skill shortages, who are either unable to access the education that they require to get into the labour market or unable to access the skill sets that they require through vocational education and training to get themselves into the labour market. That is not acknowledged by the government and it needs to be. There are many other reasons why people are unable to gain employment. It may be due to their family circumstances; it may be that they have responsibility for caring for individuals or family members.

When I talk about the responsibilities that individuals have I make it very clear that mutual obligation, reciprocal obligation—whatever you want to call it—is a two-way street. We have an obligation as a government to provide the safety net that people need if they are in crisis or unemployed. The unemployed have an obligation to seek employment and, where available, to get into training that will give them an opportunity to gain employment. But governments have an obligation to ensure that they are in that position. Governments have a responsibility to ensure that people have access to the education that they require. Governments have a responsibility to ensure that people have access to the vocational education and training opportunities that they require. Unfortunately and sadly this has not been the case.

I wish to build on that by referring to the contribution by the shadow minister, Ms Macklin. She made the point that, on average, Indigenous Australians were over three times more likely than non-Indigenous Australians to be out of work. She made the further point that it is not just a location or a poverty issue, because Indigenous people living in the poorest neighbourhoods of cities are still more likely to be unemployed than their non-Indigenous neighbours. She referred to a report by CAEPR. She then said she wanted to talk about personal regard and responsibility, why it is important, and what else is needed for Indigenous Australians to become economic equals. It was a very prescient request to look at what is required to ensure that Indigenous Australians become equals in this regard.

It is not my intention to repeat all of what the shadow minister said, but she made this point, which I think is illuminating. Half of the Indigenous population is under 25 years old and population growth is even higher in remote communities, particularly in the Top End, which includes all of the Indigenous communities I work with in the seat of Lingiari. This is true right across the Top End of Australia and indeed in Central Australia. In the top part of South Australia in the Pitjantjatjara lands population growth is quite high and there is a very young population with high fertility rates. We need to understand that those people require particular attention. In many of those communities, people’s only access to employment is through the Community Development Employment Projects, CDEP. This government has made changes to CDEP which I have spoken about previously and which I have grave concerns about.

The shadow minister talked about the need for us to think laterally about regional economies and job creation. She referred to Noel Pearson and Warren Mundine, who have advocated the idea of regional economies that have a partially mobile transient work force, part of which would be employed in enterprise and service delivery to the home region and others would seek employment elsewhere and return regularly, investing back in that region. This is not a new model. Indeed, there have been employment enterprises set up in Central Australia, designed to provide work teams to travel across Central Australia to carry out building functions for road maintenance, of the type which have been spoken about by Messrs Pearson and Mundine. So this is not new. It is happening right now but can be expanded further. It relies on a number of things: knowledge of government because they have a responsibility to ensure that to get people into work teams the situation in which they live must be addressed. Unfortunately, as I have said many times in this place, that is not the experience of Indigenous Australians in this country at the moment.

Referring back to the issue of mutual obligation, I have said here before—it warrants saying again—that CDEP was an initiative which came from Indigenous people themselves as far back as the early 1970s. It is seen as the Indigenous equivalent of Work for the Dole, which it predated by almost 25 years. It needs to be understood that its purpose was to alleviate the deleterious effect of unemployment benefits on Aboriginal people. The Indigenous people themselves understood the impact of welfare dependency in remote communities and said to government, ‘We want you to provide us with a capacity to ensure that people in our communities who are getting a benefit from government for being unemployed work for that benefit.’ They understood then, as they understand now, the impact of welfare dependency not only on their young people but on the communities generally.

When we talk about the need for welfare reform and when we pillory Aboriginal people, as often happens in this place, we need to understand that initiatives that were taken by Aboriginal people predated initiatives which are now being taken by governments. The acknowledgement of welfare dependency, which has been echoed by people like Noel Pearson, Warren Mundine and many others, has been talked about by Aboriginal people across Australia for at least a generation. And now we find that governments have been unable to address the particular needs of those individuals and communities. So to get people to work, you need to comprehend where they are, who they are and what their particular situation is. To illustrate the remote communities of Northern Australia where there is chronically high unemployment, let me give you some data about the community of Wadeye.

Less than one-fifth of the adults in the region around Wadeye are employed and the vast majority are tied to the Community Development Employment Projects, CDEPs. Eighty-two per cent of Aboriginal income is attributable to welfare sources, 90 per cent if CDEP is included. That is very significant. We know that Aboriginal people occupy less than half of the 130 jobs outside CDEP—at least they did when this data was collected in the region. We also discover that in 2003 only half of the region’s school-age population were enrolled in school and only half of those enrolled attended classes, and then it was on a mostly irregular basis. There is a correlation there. The issue which I have raised in this parliament on an ongoing basis is the need for our community, the community of Australia, to understand what is happening in these places. Because of policies of successive governments, we do not have the educational outcomes that we require in these communities. Resources which would make it easier for them to get a job are not being addressed to the poverty which these people suffer. If you are not healthy and happy, it is going to be very hard to be educated.

In the context of this community, there are 144 habitable homes with an occupancy rate of 16 people or more. So, just to meet the demand in 2023, you will require another 122 dwellings. We have chronic overcrowding. This is a community with the highest incidence of rheumatic heart disease in the world, so it is not a healthy community by any stretch of the imagination. It has high welfare dependency, high dependency on CDEP and low levels of educational attainment, yet the government is introducing reforms which do not address the fundamental issues here. The fundamental issues are: how you address those underlying issues of poverty, how you provide the infrastructure that is required to give people a safe and healthy living environment, how you provide the nutrition that will get the kids to school in the first place, and how you build schools that will maintain the interest of those young people and provide them with the skills they require to get access to employment or access to training opportunities.

Let it be said, in support of the views being expressed by Messrs Mundine and Pearson, that the people who work in these communities are potentially very mobile. There will be no difficulty at all in attracting them to work in other places provided they can return home on a regular basis. This is not hard. What is hard is getting governments to understand that they have an obligation—the obligation which I referred to earlier. It is all very well to say to the individual, ‘You have an obligation to work or do some other activity to receive a benefit,’ but at the same time governments have to make sure that they have the capacity to get that work or do what they have to do to get the benefit. To do that they need to provide the investment that these communities require so that these individuals can participate actively in a workforce, like any other Australian. Only then will we be able to say that these people are getting equal treatment. It is all very well to be disparaging about the living conditions in which they find themselves, but we need to work with these people, with these communities, to ensure that when we introduce policies such as these they do not hurt and harm them; they help them. Unfortunately, the welfare reform policies which have been introduced by this government hurt people, and I think the government should be condemned for it.

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

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! It being 2.00 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.