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

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (14) together:

(1)

Schedule 1, item 19, page 7 (lines 22–23), omit the item

(2)

Schedule 1, item 20, page 7 (lines 24–25), omit the item

(3)

Schedule 1, item 21, page 7 (lines 26-30), omit the item

(4)

Schedule 1, item 22, page 8 (lines 1–3), omit the item

(5)

Schedule 1, item 23, page 8 (lines 4-5), omit the item

(6)

Schedule 1, item 24, page 8 (lines 6-8), omit the item

(7)

Schedule 1, item 25, page 8 (lines 9-11), omit the item

(8)

Schedule 1, item 26, page 8 (lines 12-13), omit the item

(9)

Schedule 1, item 27, page 8 (lines 14-15), omit the item

(10)

Schedule 1, item 28, page 8 (lines 16-21), omit the item

(11)

Schedule 1, item 29, page 8 (lines 22-24), omit the item

(12)

Schedule 1, item 30, page 8 (lines 25-26), omit the item

(13)

Schedule 1, item 31, page 8 (lines 27-29), omit the item

(14)

Schedule 1, item 32, page 9 (lines 1-3), omit the item

When I spoke in the second reading debate on this bill on 14 February, I raised a number of concerns about whether this bill prevents parliament from having proper access to disallowance guidelines relating to vocational rehabilitation services. I indicated that my counterpart in the Senate, Senator Wong, had written to the Minister for Workforce Participation requesting clarification on the question. I am pleased to indicate that, on the day of my speech on the second reading, Senator Wong did receive a reply from the minister indicating that both houses will continue to have the ability to disallow any guidelines relating to vocational rehabilitation services, consistent with the Legislative Instruments Act 2003. We accept the minister’s assurances in response to our concerns.

Unfortunately, other concerns remain. This bill restricts access to the pensioner education supplement by removing the ability of some people moving from the disability support pension to Newstart or youth allowance to retain their pensioner education supplement until they complete their current course of study. This measure is at odds with the principle of increasing access to education and training to improve employability, but it is entirely consistent with the Howard government’s approach of moving people from welfare to work by placing them on lower payments and reducing access to training.

Labor’s amendments would remedy this defect in the bill. Labor urges the government to seriously consider these amendments rather than, as we would expect with a government that so often plays politics, simply rejecting these amendments out of hand because they have been moved by the opposition. The proposition is simple: pensioners who study or train in an approved course can access the pensioner education supplement, while 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 be able to retain their pensioner education supplement until they completed their current course of study. Then this bill comes along and breaks that promise.

This bill changes the arrangements for the so-called ‘transitional group’ of disability support pension recipients—that is, those who were granted the DSP after the May 2005 Welfare to Work announcement and before the July 2006 implementation date. If these people 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 will effectively not be considered part of the transitional group. This means that they will be able to continue to access the pensioner education supplement only if they no longer qualify for DSP as a result of their first DSP review after 1 July 2006. The very fact that explaining that is an enormously complicated proposition indicates that there are a group that are going to be disadvantaged and for no good reason. Indeed, we would say that it defies explanation.

The Howard government, when we have asked them to justify the very perverse effect of this legislation, have simply claimed that it is a clarification of existing rules. The ordinary meaning of the word ‘clarification’ is to make things clearer, and that is the last thing that is achieved by this set of arrangements in relation to the pensioner education supplement. Labor has 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. We urge the government to support Labor’s detailed amendments that have been moved at this stage of the debate to remedy this defect in this bill, particularly when the only argument in favour is a clarification. (Time expired)

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

In responding to the amendments moved by the member for Lalor, let me say that eligibility for the pensioner education supplement, or PES as it is commonly called, was extended through special provisions to the disability support pension transition group—people who claimed and were granted DSP between 11 May 2005 and 30 June 2006 and who transferred to Newstart or youth allowance as part of the Welfare to Work reforms.

The Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Vocational Rehabilitation Services) Bill 2006 clarifies who is in the disability support pension transition group for the purpose of receiving the pensioner education supplement. Under Welfare to Work, people in the DSP transition group who are receiving the pensioner education supplement are able to retain their entitlement to PES for the duration of their course even if they do move on to Newstart or youth allowance. PES is not generally available to people on Newstart or youth allowance. There are lots of other supports for training, as you would be aware, for those categories. This special provision for the DSP transition group enables completion of a course already commenced.

The Australian government did not intend that people would retain DSP transition group status indefinitely. It was intended that people would no longer be in the transition group once they had had their first review after 1 July 2006 under the new DSP rules. People in the transition group who were receiving the pensioner education supplement are able to continue receiving PES for the duration of their approved course even if they lose eligibility for the disability support pension after their first review after 1 July 2006. This might happen, for example, if they have their full work capacity back.

Allowing people to retain DSP transition group status indefinitely would, we believe, discriminate against other DSP recipients receiving the pensioner education supplement who do not receive the benefit of retaining their entitlement to the pensioner education supplement if they lose their entitlement to DSP. On that basis, we do not believe the amendments are necessary, and I commend the original bill to the House.

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

If that is the minister when she is clarifying, I would hate to see her when she is obfuscating. I ask the Minister for Workforce Participation to answer the following questions about this measure which are dealt with in Labor’s amendments. Firstly, can the minister explain the government’s rationale for removing access to the pensioner education supplement for the group that I have identified? Secondly, why has the government abandoned its commitment to provide the pensioner education supplement to all Welfare to Work candidates for the duration of their course if they began receiving the pensioner education supplement before they moved from a pension to an allowance? When did the government decide that this particular group, who have been moved off the disability support pension after a second or subsequent review, should be singled out?

We believe that we are entitled to know—and indeed the Australian people are entitled to know—how this measure is consistent with the skilling of our workforce to meet current and future labour requirements and with the stated objective of the pensioner education supplement which, according to Centrelink, is supposed ‘to assist people with study to increase their chances of finding work’. That is the stated objective of the pensioner education supplement. How is the measure in this bill, which is removing access to it for a defined group, consistent with that aim? What evidence does the Howard government have that restricting access to the pensioner education supplement for these people will improve their chance of getting a job?

Why are people with a disability being penalised by the Howard government? What other measures will be available to these people to help them meet the ongoing costs of their education? How much is the government going to save through this measure?

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

Good question.

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

I am being assured by the member for Rankin that that is a good question—a question about the money. How much is being saved through this measure? Has any analysis been undertaken to establish the costs to current pensioner education support recipients and the likelihood of those in this cohort dropping out of their courses due to losing the pensioner education supplement? Wouldn’t that be a track record to be proud of as a government—causing people to drop out of their courses due to costs! Where this payment would assist disabled recipients with the costs of attending real training or education courses, what other measures or programs will be available to them to assist with these costs? It is not my intention to delay the House on this matter, but it is my intention to say that the opposition is seriously seeking answers to these questions, which ought to be available to the House before the House votes on the amendments standing in my name.

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

I need to, I suppose, repeat to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that, under Welfare to Work, people in the DSP transition group who are receiving the pensioner education supplement, or PES, are able to retain their entitlement to PES for the duration of their course even if they move onto Newstart or youth allowance. If they were receiving PES, they are able to continue with that course even if they lose eligibility for DSP after their first review.

We in the John Howard-led government have the view that the most significant thing you can do for someone is get them back into the workforce. Under Labor we saw, for decade after decade, a focus on putting people into mickey mouse courses—certificates II, III and IV; an endless churning of people into training after training experience—which never gave them work experience and which often left them deeply distressed by knock-back after knock-back in the workplace. We have an enormous amount of domestic and international research that shows that the most critical thing for someone who has been out of the workforce for quite a period of time—whether for mental health conditions or something like a musculoskeletal condition—is returning to the workplace. And, if they do need further training, perhaps to make up for lost time, the most effective training is, in fact, on the job, surrounded by their colleagues and supported by the team.

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

Dr Emerson interjecting

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

The member for Rankin suggests that we are talking about abolishing PES. That is the sort of reaction we would expect from the opposition. We are, of course, retaining PES. We see it as vitally important. But we see it as even more important that, after you have completed your course, you are helped to be placed into a position of work—indeed, you may be able to be placed immediately back into the workplace. In terms of your own morale, your sense of wellbeing, your ability to be rapidly vocationally rehabilitated, the most significant thing is to return to the place of work. It may be part time initially, if that is what your capacity only allows you in the first instance. We know that it keeps your employment statistics down if you skim people off and put them into endless back-to-back courses, particularly if you can call them full-time study, but we are not into simply churning people endlessly through TAFE courses; what we are about is giving Australians a real chance to be independent of welfare if they are of working age.

We know that work, first and foremost, has proven again and again to be the best way to assist individuals and their families back into a life where they are no longer stigmatised, alienated or indeed depressed because they cannot earn the sort of income that they wish to earn to fully participate in Australian society. We know that intergenerational welfare dependency is not a benign experience: children in a household where there is no breadwinner are four times more likely to become welfare dependent themselves and never know work. We are determined to break the cycle of intergenerational welfare dependency. Unfortunately in Australia there are over 700,000 people on disability support pensions who may never know the world of work. A lot of them have been grandfathered. We are determined that those who can return to the workplace will be assisted to do so, with vocational rehabilitation that focuses on their capacity to fully participate in the Australian economy. That is why your focus on and obsession with training, we think, is not in the best interests of all Australians.

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

We just heard in question time how important training is.

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

Training is of critical importance, and so is upskilling, but it is not an alternative to finding a job and re-entering the workforce. What we have in Australia right now is an economy that is looking for people to rejoin the workforce—and to be upskilled once they are in the workplace if that is what they need. We do not believe it is a kindness to keep people endlessly in back-to-back courses if when they go to be recruited into a workplace they get told, ‘Sorry, you have no recent work experience. You’ve been out of the workforce for a very long time.’ So I am very confident that the bill we have before the House is in the very best interests of Australians with a disability. We aim to make sure that all Australians have a fair go. They will continue, as I said before, to have access to the pensioner education supplement and we will make sure that they have a decent go in this country. (Time expired)

Question put:

That the amendments (Ms Gillard’s) be agreed to.