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

I would like to continue where I left off on 15 February in commenting upon the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Vocational Rehabilitation Services) Bill 2006. As I indicated at the time, the opposition will not support the bill as it stands and will move amendments to improve the bill. Labor is strongly committed to welfare reform. I have said that in this debate already, and indeed other contributors to the debate have reinforced that particular view. But we are concerned that the government is adopting a punitive approach, and that is exemplified by its Welfare to Work changes. It is true to say that most of this bill represents a continuation of those changes, it is short on detail and will have many unfortunate consequences for welfare recipients. I am afraid to say that that has been a feature of the government’s Welfare to Work legislation as a whole.

I did manage to introduce in my earlier contribution references to the pensioner education supplement. I indicated to the House that pensioners who study or train in an approved course can access the pensioner education supplement; however, recipients of allowances such as Newstart or youth allowance cannot. Under these 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 last year.

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 proposes to extend the pensioner education supplementary 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. The bill, however, provides that overpayments can be recovered by deductions from future income support payments. We have a situation where there is legislation for the recovery of overpayments but no legislation for the payments themselves. The lack of an appeals process is indeed also unsatisfactory.

There are obviously some cases where it is entirely justified to recover payments; Labor is not opposed to debt recovery in principle. Centrelink needs appropriate recovery powers, but such powers should be subject to transparent guidelines and review mechanisms. The bill fails to provide these.

In conclusion, Labor is not opposed in principle to 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 does not meet these requirements—in particular, the loss of parliamentary oversight of these safeguards is unacceptable.

Sharman Stone (Murray, Liberal Party, Minister for Workforce Participation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—In summing up this debate on the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Vocational Rehabilitation Services) Bill 2006 I would like to thank all members for their contributions. In 2002 this government brought forward the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Disability Reform) Bill 2002, the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Disability Reform) Bill (No. 2) 2002 and the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Disability Reform) Bill (No. 2) 2002 [No. 2]. These bills aimed to reform the legacy of Labor’s outdated welfare arrangements. These arrangements consigned disadvantaged Australians to a life on welfare rather than assisting them back into work. Labor opposed the reforms then and voted them down. We wanted to assist disabled Australians to rehabilitate and, if necessary, to upskill them so they could return to work if they had at least a part-time capacity, but the opposition said no. Labor wanted to keep the disabled on pensions until they reached old age. They no doubt thought that their time-honoured practice would reduce their unemployment statistics.

The then shadow minister for family and community services and now shadow Treasurer, the member for Lilley, said at the time that our disability pension reforms were ‘an unprecedented attack on the 3.1 million Australians who have a disability’, but he then went on to say in the same speech:

This country and this society desperately need real welfare reform. We need a community, a whole of government and a political commitment to welfare reform.

Labor has opposed every major employment and welfare reform undertaken by this government, including the introduction of the highly successful Job Network and Work for the Dole, the tackling of Indigenous welfare dependency, the introduction of mutual obligation, helping parents on pensions back to work, and disability support pension reforms. These later changes have been rolled into our highly successful and acclaimed Welfare to Work reforms, which we were able to pass into legislation some 18 months ago.

These amendments to the Disability Services Act 1986 are about increasing choice and diversity for people who need rehabilitation to help them get back into a job. Under Labor, workers left behind by structural change and damaged by years of hard work were simply consigned to an alienated life on the disability support pension. Labor made no genuine effort to vocationally rehabilitate or re-skill these individuals to help them to remain in the workplace, or to return according to their capacity. The John Howard-led government recognises the fundamental importance of vocational rehabilitation for an injured or otherwise disabled worker. We aim to assist the job seeker to understand, compensate for or manage their injury, disability or health condition so they can rebuild their capacity to work. We aim to help them to avoid re-injury and, most importantly of all, to find and retain meaningful employment.

From listening to the contributions from a number of speakers from the opposition, it is clear that the Labor Party, despite its rhetoric, still does not support real, results based reforms to help people to move from welfare to work. Labor would have you believe that this bill is about penalising people who do not have a capacity to work, such as people with permanent and severe disabilities and parents with very young children. Of course, that is not the case. The member for Lalor said in her contribution:

... 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.

In fact, the government’s Welfare to Work policy delivers a substantial investment in training and employment services and supports people who can work at least part-time through providing the right incentives to move from welfare to work.

There will always be a safety net for those who cannot work due to a disability or because they have responsibility for children under school age or have some other condition which simply makes it impossible for them to sustain themselves in our economy. Every caring government has aimed to keep a safety net well and truly in place.

With an unemployment rate of some 4.5 per cent, a booming economy and an ageing population, there has never been a better time to assist people on welfare to get real jobs. Under our reforms, people are not on their own in their search for work. We have a comprehensive suite of services, including vocational rehabilitation services that offer people opportunities to improve their skills, to participate in work experience and to undertake training. In the last year we have seen a rise in the number of people getting jobs. The Job Network made a difference to almost 650,000 people by placing them in work—50,000 of this group were parents on pensions, 47,000 were Indigenous Australians and 81,700 were from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

Speakers on the other side talk of obligation and opportunity but give the Australian people little insight into how their alternative policies would deliver this. This government’s comprehensive suite of services and supports has proven that it delivers jobs; in fact, in the last six months, more jobs have been delivered to the unemployed—those previously on welfare—than was managed in the last six years under Labor’s employment services strategies. When the opposition was in government, unemployment rates were in double digits.

This bill will provide choice for people who want and need help to return to work. The Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service currently assists this group. This bill will open up the vocational rehabilitation market to a range of organisations that specialise in supporting people to get back into work and will develop relationships with employers who are prepared to give these people a go.

I would like to highlight the fact that all of the vocational rehabilitation providers appointed through the new tender will have to be suitably qualified and experienced in delivering tailored and appropriate services to clients, based on their individual needs. The quality of all services delivered by providers of Australian government employment services are closely monitored by the department, and any complaints are taken very seriously.

The proposed amendment has limited application as the vocational rehabilitation contracts will not come into operation until 1 July 2007. During the period covered by item 17 of the bill, both houses will continue to have the ability to disallow any vocational rehabilitation services guidelines, consistent with the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. People who have an ongoing eligibility for the disability support pension or parenting payment will continue to receive the pensioner education supplement. Those who most need it will have that access.

There are also a range of quality assurance and compliance measures. For example, new providers of vocational rehabilitation services will be subject to a range of quality assurance measures. The current tender requires tenderers to lift the qualifications of their organisation and staff. This will be taken into account in assessing successful tenderers, and all vocational rehabilitation services will be subject to regular compliance checks and measures. There are comprehensive contractual requirements that specify the standards of the services to be observed. These include a service guarantee, code of practice and performance reviews. Providers must also comply with the legislative disability service standards, which set out a range of standards that must be met in the provision of a rehabilitation program. Compliance with these standards is independently assessed. Breaches of these contractual or legislative standards can result in a range of penalties being applied. An independent complaints mechanism is in place and is available to participants who may be dissatisfied with any aspect of the service that they are receiving.

I commend this bill to the House. It is an important part of our welfare reforms for some of the most disadvantaged people in this country.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.