Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying earlier, the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2009 deals with our response to the Northern Territory intervention. As at March 2009, just over 15,200 welfare payment recipients were under the IMR provisions in the Northern Territory and 30 people had IMR provisions applied following a request by the Queensland Family Responsibilities Commission. So you can see it is not a one-off or an isolated occurrence. Many people have been subject to the processes and the intervention, which has not been without contention and controversy but certainly has paid dividends in the lives of many young people in particular and women who have been freed from abuse, neglect and the scourge of alcoholism in their families and amongst their relatives.

The Rudd government announced a review of the NTER arrangements in June 2008. The review board presented its report on 30 September 2008. There were a number of recommendations. One related to the rights of appeal of an original decision made by a person in relation to Centrelink dealing with income and other support. Under the present law, if a person subject to these arrangements is unhappy, they go to the Centrelink authorised review officer—in other words, there is an internal review—and that is the end of the matter. There is no external merit review process at all, as is the case for non-Indigenous Australians not subject to these arrangements. That seems to be unfair in all the circumstances.

You are treating one group of people differently. Not giving them the same access to an independent, merit based review process is unfair and inequitable. I am pleased to say that this bill proposes to allow people who are subject to the IMR provisions in those areas in the Northern Territory to have the same rights of appeal to the SSAT and then to the AAT like other Australians. It is a fundamental right that a person has access to justice and that the person who hears his or her case hears it independent of the decision maker. It is the apparent transparency which is really important in these circumstances, and that protects the integrity of the whole process. I am very pleased the government has seen fit to make these changes in the circumstances.

As I said before, as at about the middle of March there were 15,200 customers being income managed and subject to the Northern Territory emergency response. There were a lot of changes as a result of the intervention. Many of them were good in the circumstances. There has been the licensing of community stores, work for the dole participation, alcohol signage, a school nutrition program, safe houses, new creches, and improved child and family health. In the circumstances I think the Northern Territory intervention, in protecting children and women, has played a significant role in improving their lives.

We have seen also as a result of that intervention hundreds of new jobs created. On 4 April this year a joint media release by the Minister for Ageing and the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel indicated clearly that Indigenous workers now fill 319 jobs in the aged and community care sector through changes made to the Community Development Employment Projects program. There were other part-time and permanent jobs created as a result of the NTER. We saw, for example, 274 positions in HACC services and 45 positions in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flexible aged-care services. This is about empowering people financially in their homes and in their families, as well as protecting them. Under the new NTER employment and welfare reform measures, 319 part-time jobs have been funded. So it is about real money going into communities.

The Rudd government are committed to improving the lives and the lot of our Indigenous people. Closing the gap between Indigenous and other Australians is a national priority. We started this parliament with the apology, a historic moment, in February 2008. Since the last election the Rudd government have poured billions of dollars into the project to close the gap between the lifestyles of Indigenous people and other Australians, which we believe is a moral challenge. We believe it is necessary in the circumstances to carry out the policies in relation to the Northern Territory intervention to protect children from abuse, neglect and family violence, to improve community safety in these rural communities and to build better lives and lifestyles for Indigenous people. Investing hundreds of millions of dollars in education, economic development and health reform is crucial if we are going to provide a degree of equity between Australians whether they live in Darwin or the Dandenongs. It is important in the circumstances for all Australians to be uplifted financially and to benefit from the prosperity that we enjoy as a country.

The third aspect of the legislation that is before the House today deals with the CDEP program, which commenced in 1977. There are significant reforms and the minister outlined very clearly in her speech made on 18 March this year what these amendments will mean. I will quote it because I think it says it quite aptly:

The amendments will mean that new CDEP participants will not receive the CDEP Scheme Participant Supplement as such participants will be able to claim other additional benefits through the income support system. The amendments will allow continuing CDEP participants to receive CDEP wages from CDEP providers, and the CDEP Scheme Participant Supplement, until 30 June 2011, when continuing participants will transfer to income support.

People in my electorate have expressed their views to me in relation to the Northern Territory intervention. On this side of the House we believe that it is worthy to care for people regardless of whether they live in rural communities or cities. We believe it is important that whether you grow up in an Aboriginal community in the centre of Australia or in a rural community, like in my electorate of Blair in Queensland, you should have the same rights to a good education, to good maternal and child welfare, to health services and to the same employment participation and opportunity. We believe that the policies we are announcing and the measures taken in this bill go towards the achievement of those goals and aspirations and I commend the bill to the House.

Wilson Tuckey (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am here, of course, to replace the member for Lyons, who was next listed to speak but is apparently not in the House this afternoon. One can only wonder why. I am very interested in the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2009 and more particularly the reference at the end of minister’s second reading speech in which she said:

Lastly, the bill makes amendments to implement part of the government’s announced reforms to the Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) program, which aim to improve employment participation for Indigenous Australians.

This particular project has been in place for quite a long time and, of course, was implemented for the purpose of giving Aboriginal people some status in society so that they would not be perceived as, to use a common phrase, dole bludgers. It was going to be an opportunity for them to have paid employment equivalent to the unemployment benefits they would otherwise receive. Of course in some very remote communities the tasks undertaken would have been the normal civic tasks of keeping their streets in good order and doing more or less local government jobs. The government have obviously recognised some of the difficulties with this particular scheme and are making some attempts to correct that, although it appears that that proposal is virtually to put new applicants back more or less on welfare payments after 30 June. But they are proposing to retain those who were previously under the CDEP in that scheme which, as I said, gives at least some sort of standing in the community.

But of course as the government discovered—and as the former coalition government must have been becoming aware—the scheme was not being treated properly. I have had Aboriginal people in my office in Albany, particularly qualified young women who had a good education, who were dragged into CDEP and who then said: ‘Where are you sending me? Give me a job to do. Give me a job to do helping out in Aboriginal activities.’ They were told: ‘No, you go up to the so-and-so hall and you sit there until lunchtime. Then you will have done your responsibility and you can go home.’ They were devastated by this. They sincerely believed that they were getting into a government system that gave them some employment and some standing in the community. I want to draw the attention of the House—and I hope the officials present will see that their minister has an answer to this particular circumstance—to the fact that clearly the CDEP expected the participants to do some work.

In the town of Yalgoo, not far from my electorate, as it so happens, Mr Paul Valenzuela took over the local store and the management of the local CDEP program because in the town of Yalgoo nearly all the population are of Aboriginal descent and, in fact, number from 120 to 140 persons from time to time. When he took over the CDEP, the local Aboriginal people arrived on the usual day to collect their fortnightly cheques. Raul, who—as his name indicates—is from South America, asked them what they had done and on what account he should hand over taxpayers’ money. Remember that, as the agent, he was appointed to protect the taxpayers’ dollars. They all said, ‘Oh, no, we never do anything; we just come around and collect the money and go off and play cards and have a few drinks.’ He therefore refused to issue the cheques. This caused a bit of upset, but, when the same people came back a fortnight later, he made it very clear that there was a ‘no work, no pay’ policy. He was threatened et cetera, but he had probably seen worse parts of life than that, and he refused to pay them and suggested where work was readily available in terms of community activities.

After two or three weeks, the local people came back and said that they were prepared to work for their money, as proposed within the CDEP. Raul formed a good relationship with the participants and they all became very willing to do whatever work was required. He gave them a list and away they went and did the work. Some of the work performed included community work within the school and general tidying up of the grounds, the clearing of weeds and litter around the town, cleaning the local nursing post, and painting, cleaning and repairing the local sporting complex. They also built and planted new garden beds for the shire and did any other odd jobs that arose. The majority of the people became content at doing this work, and I am sure they had a lot more pride in themselves accordingly—rather than sitting about with nothing to do—and were proud of what they had achieved. There were one or two who were disgruntled.

Raul worked closely with the local police, the headmistress, the nursing sister and the local town gardener—all of whom speak very highly of his work with the local Aboriginal people. Following the introduction of this program, running it in the proper way, Raul was proud to tell me that he was able to obtain long-term employment for about 10 people. The very epitome of Work for the Dole was to expose people to the workforce and give them a virtual CV so they were attractive to other employers. In a small community the size of Yalgoo, that was a good result. However, Raul’s contract has not been renewed. The CDEP is run by MedAC in Mullewa, and FASHA is the organisation in Geraldton that distributes the funding. Raul asked why his contract was not renewed. He was protecting the Aussie dollar—taxpayers’ dollars—he was undertaking to ensure that the Aboriginal participants did their work properly and he was getting them paid employment so they were no longer a burden to society and had better standing in the community. He asked why, and the MedAC people and the FASHA people said, ‘Oh, we’ve had a couple of complaints.’ He said, ‘Well, if they’re in writing, can I please seem them?’ He was told, ‘Oh, no, they’re not in writing.’ In other words, a couple of people who thought they had a right to be paid for no work have managed to cancel the contract of a top-class operator. And you wonder why CDEP does not work, when people who are prepared to ensure it is working on behalf of the Australian taxpayer are treated in this fashion.

I want to know what he did. There is no evidence that he stole money or did anything wrong. His sin was to make sure that the scheme was administered according to the laws carried in this parliament. I can only ask where else this has happened and why it is that the managers in my electorate—who, of course, are part of the Aboriginal elite—tell people to sit in a hall to qualify for their CDEP. It is an outrage and it is a matter that requires an answer from the minister today. The minister might also answer another question. I wrote to her to draw her attention to the circumstances of the operations of the Yamatji Land and Sea Council in Geraldton and the complaints I received from Aboriginal people about its operations, saying that something should be done about it. My letter was never promptly acknowledged, which is a fundamental courtesy, in my mind, and one I maintained for five years as a minister. I was required to wait, taking phone calls from the Aboriginal people concerned asking me, ‘What are you doing about this, Member of Parliament?’ I could give them no answer for months and then I got an answer which was a waste of time.

You ought to see some of the answers that we are getting to questions on notice from other ministers that just virtually say: ‘I’m not going to tell you.’ If that is the way this parliament is going to proceed, it will be no different to when Paul Keating said, ‘You can only ask me questions two times a week.’ The principle of questions in writing, above all—it is a bit of theatre in this place—is that you can put a question in writing to a minister. You may get no answer or you may get misleading comments. You can ask a supplementary question—’Can you answer this; can you answer that?’—and the answer comes back: ‘No, I can’t. I don’t know what the rest of the world is doing in high-voltage DC transmission.’ That came from the Prime Minister’s office. The Chinese are building a 2,000 kilometre HVDC system at the moment which is a real answer to global warming. I know that is not part of the bill, so I will not proceed on that. The issue I am really touching on is the behaviour of ministers, the arrogance of their answers and, more particularly, how the minister, when having the complaints of Aboriginal people drawn to her attention, gave me an answer which she clearly did not write herself. It was just an excuse for doing nothing. I talked about some of this in my earlier speech today on native title. The biggest problem with native title is administration and, of course, the dysfunctional land and sea councils that are considered representative bodies.

I have never been able to understand why they are the representative body. Why can’t a group of traditional owners—being a small section of the larger area, for instance in the Kimberley—get their own representative and someone who will keep them informed? The reality is that when the ImpEx people offered the Kimberley Land Council a billion dollars in association with the ImpEx proposal, the traditional owners were not told, they were not given the opportunity to say no—and, of course, that was assisted by the negligence of the then WA Labor government. We have seen all that change in a flash with the election of the Barnett government. He just said to them, ‘You will comply with the law.’

The reality with ImpEx is that, when the Japanese company wanted to build their LNG plant on two rocky vacant islands, the land council started flying people at taxpayers’ expense out to those islands every day so that, if anyone flew over during the daylight hours, there were in occupation Aboriginal people who had never been there in 100 years. Why would you do that? Why would you deny a major project when even the local state member of parliament, an Aboriginal lady, had stood up and said, ‘I’ve got 6,000 unemployed Aboriginal people in the Kimberley’—though she might have said 16,000; I will check that figure—’and why aren’t they entitled to a job?’ It was because a group of the Aboriginal elite were listening to other people and telling stories about it.

I want some answers, and I intend to pursue this matter, as to why someone who had cleaned up the CDEP in Yalgoo—and I would suggest that there was a substantial amount of taxpayers’ money involved—has not had his contract continued. And they had better have some arguments that say that there was, for example, some corrupt activity—but that is not the answer he received. The answer he received was, ‘A couple of people didn’t like you; a couple of people objected to you making them do some work under the CDEP,’ when that is exactly what this parliament intended. I will conclude my remarks on that basis, but I will be watching with great interest at the conclusion of this debate to see if the minister honours the parliament with a response. Importantly, she has time to contact the people in Mullewa and the people in Geraldton to find out the reason that they stopped someone who was doing their job properly.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2009. This bill deals with three separate measures, the first being a component of the phase-out of the Community Development Employment Program; the second being the establishment of a review mechanism for administrative decisions made under the income management regime, which applies to those covered by the Northern Territory emergency response; and the third being a streamlining in the payment of the family tax benefit. I intend to deal with each of these provisions in that order.

I will start with the part of this bill which deals with the Community Development Employment Program. The Rudd government have committed to closing the gap on a range of social indicators between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. We have established under that broad umbrella six specific targets, one of which is to halve the gap on employment outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within the next decade. This is as important a target, as important a goal, as any of the gaps that we are trying to close in relation to Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia.

Whether or not you have work has an enormous impact upon your prosperity. In Australia, work is the principal means by which we get a ticket to engagement in the prosperity of our society and all the things that a modern, developed economy has to offer. People who work have better health outcomes. People who work ultimately therefore have better life expectancy. So we cannot hope to close the gap in a range of areas if we do not first close this gap in employment outcomes. Right now, Indigenous unemployment runs at a rate of almost three times that of non-Indigenous unemployment. So there is a very significant gap to be closed. At the heart of this is reforming the Community Development Employment Program—otherwise known as CDEP.

CDEP was introduced 30 years ago and its original aspiration was to provide a transition for Indigenous unemployed people from being unemployed to being in the open labour market and to full employment. Indeed, in many places there have been real success stories around CDEP. There have been important community projects which have been undertaken, work has been provided to people and there has been a source of income. In simple terms, the way in which CDEP operates is that participants forgo their entitlement to other mainstream income support payments and payments are made by the government to a CDEP provider and that provider then makes those payments to the participants. At the same time, as part of providing those payments, the provider has participants working on community projects. As I said, there are very good examples out there of very effective projects being undertaken and good work being done. I think that comment is particularly apposite to more remote communities in Australia.

If we take a step back, it is fair to say that CDEP has not met its original aspirations. At one end of the spectrum there are people undertaking activities under CDEP which really do not constitute real work. It may involve very little, if in fact any, work at all. At that end of the spectrum CDEP starts to look like welfare, and in some cases like passive welfare. At the other end of the spectrum there are people operating under CDEP who are doing real work, and work which is very much needed within a community. But, as a result of doing it under CDEP, they are being paid far less than what they would be paid if that work were being performed in the open labour market. In that sense the CDEP is preventing these people from earning the kind of wage they would earn if they were doing that work in the mainstream labour market, and therefore denying them the prosperity and the range of other social benefits that come from being paid a proper amount for their work.

The unifying theme across that entire spectrum is that for far too many CDEP has stopped being a transition from unemployment into paid work and has in fact become a destination in itself. People go onto CDEP and they never leave. That is absolutely against the original aspiration of the CDEP. In terms of the programs that are offered by government, Indigenous job seekers ought to be afforded all the hopes and aspirations that are afforded to non-Indigenous job seekers. That is the way that government programs should approach Indigenous job seekers. But, given the entrenched disadvantage which exists in the rates of unemployment for Indigenous Australians compared with the rates for non-Indigenous Australians, it is necessary to have a particularly targeted program for Indigenous job seekers in applying a mainstream scheme. That is the way in which the Rudd government seeks to go.

That does mean the phasing out of the CDEP. Already the review board of the Northern Territory emergency response has commented that by virtue of the Commonwealth, the Northern Territory and a range of local governments in the Northern Territory fully funding various programs that they had previously undertaken through the CDEP, 1,536 jobs will be transferred from what would have been CDEP jobs to fully paid jobs—paid jobs the same as if they were being undertaken by anybody else. By June of last year, 1,300 of those jobs had already been taken up. That is a wonderful example of what can occur through the transition from CDEP into the open labour market.

In addition to that the Rudd government has implemented the Indigenous Employment Program, which sits in tandem with the mainstream income support programs but which is targeted to Indigenous job seekers. The Rudd government has committed $779 million over the next five years to targeted assistance through the Indigenous Employment Program. The Indigenous Employment Program will establish two panels. One will be an employment panel, which will focus on providing customised training to Indigenous job seekers as well as providing support to employers about how to recruit Indigenous employees and how to retain Indigenous employees. The second panel will be an economic development and business support panel, which will provide business support—much-needed basic business skills—to small indigenous businesses which are attempting to establish, as well as developing economic strategies for communities. All of this is a very important transition from CDEP to a mainstream income support program which is supplemented by the Indigenous Employment Program.

This bill sets time lines for the phasing out of CDEP. Under this bill, from 1 July this year new CDEP participants will not be paid through CDEP, but will in fact be paid through the normal income support mechanisms with the IEP in place. But they will be able to access CDEP programs in terms of the work that they undertake. Existing CDEP participants will continue to have access to CDEP wages and programs under this bill until the end of June 2011 before transferring to mainstream income support supplemented by the Indigenous Employment Program. CDEP will be enhanced for those participants who continue over the next two years so that those who are not doing work under CDEP will also have access to training around life and foundation skills, English literacy and numeracy and basic work skills, and they will have their situation case managed. A community development stream will also be put in place to fund community projects and local capacity under CDEP programs, which will be aligned to the existing local job opportunities within the particular community. That is to say that the projects that are undertaken by the CDEP over the next two years in these communities will be focused on skilling participants in that program with skills which are likely to be able to be used within those communities.

That is a very important measure in phasing out the Community Development Employment Program. What is important to understand is that young people and school leavers will immediately go onto the new regime of mainstream income support supplemented by the Indigenous Employment Program. They will not be caught in the CDEP trap. There is a period of transition for those who are working under CDEP, where those participants can prepare themselves for 1 July 2011 and the day on which they will then transfer to mainstream income support—of course, at that time also supplemented by the Indigenous Employment Program. Existing CDEP providers will be encouraged to become Indigenous Employment Program providers at that point as well.

During this transition there will be intensive support provided to both CDEP providers and CDEP participants. This is an intelligent, compassionate and gentle phase-out of the CDEP program and it is a much improved way of getting from where we are now to where we want to be than what was proposed by the Howard government. This phase-out is being done in the context of a much broader investment by this government in employment services for Indigenous jobseekers, and so I very much commend that part of this bill to the House.

The second measure contained in this bill provides for the establishment of a review mechanism for administrative decisions made under the income management regime which forms a part of the Northern Territory emergency response. I have seen in recent weeks the operation of the income management regime firsthand, I have seen how its operation has increased the purchasing in remote communities’ stores of fresh fruit and vegetables, for example, and I have seen how it has been welcomed by many women in Indigenous communities. The way income management works is that people who are in receipt of welfare payments have a certain proportion of those payments deducted by Centrelink and placed into an income management account, which is dedicated to that person and is there to provide for priority needs such as food, housing, clothing and household items. The introduction of the income management regime was a function of the Northern Territory emergency response. As of March this year, 15,204 welfare recipients have their welfare managed under the IMR provisions in the Northern Territory and 30 people from the Queensland Family Responsibilities Commission.

When the Northern Territory emergency response was first put in place by the Howard government, there was no mechanism for appealing administrative decisions made in the management of the income management regime. The reason that was given at the time was the unique circumstances of the emergency response. In June last year the Rudd government put in place a review of the Northern Territory emergency response, and that review reported on 30 September last year. One of the key recommendations of that review was that all welfare recipients who have their welfare payments managed as part of the income management regime ought to have access to a merits review, ought to have access to appeals in relation to administrative decisions made in the course of administering the income management regime. That is an appropriate thing to do.

Decisions for these people in relation to the income management and the way that it applies to them have all of the significance, have all of the effect on their lives, as administrative decisions that are made for non-Indigenous Australians in relation to normal income support payments. So it is appropriate that there be the same rights of appeal in relation to those decisions that exist in other parts of the income support system. What this will do is put in place a right of appeal to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and, after that, to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Again, I commend that part of this bill to the House.

The final measure that is contained in this bill is a streamlining of the payment of the family tax benefit. Currently the family tax benefit—both A and B—is paid on a fortnightly basis and that, in turn, is based on an estimated income, or the other option is to have the family tax benefit paid at the end of the year as a lump sum through Centrelink or Medicare, but also through the tax office based on a tax assessment, which of course is a self-assessment. Mr Deputy Speaker, 90 per cent of people who are in receipt of family tax benefits choose to receive them on a fortnightly basis, and it is fair to say that those people who choose to receive them as a lump sum are generally in the higher income bracket of those who are in receipt of the family tax benefit.

What this measure will do is say that if you choose to receive your family tax benefit as a lump sum at the end of the year, then you will not be able to do that through the Australian Taxation Office. This does not remove the choice of the way in which you can receive it, because you can still receive the lump sum through the Medicare or Centrelink process; it just removes it being received through the tax office. Nor does it change the level of the benefits that you would receive.

But there are two important reasons why this measure is being put to the House tonight. The first is that the means by which eligibility for the family tax benefit is assessed is different through the Centrelink and Medicare process than it is through the Australian Taxation Office process. Indeed, there is a more thorough assessment of the eligibility requirements done by Centrelink and Medicare, whereas the ATO uses a self-assessment process. So this provides some consistency in the way eligibility to this particular payment is assessed. The second reason, and perhaps just as significantly, is that by taking this function away from the Australian Taxation Office nearly $20 million of public funds will be saved this year and that will rise to up to $30 million a year within three years. That is a very simple measure that we can take which provides a very important saving for the public purse and for that reason I would also commend this part of the bill to the House.

Louise Markus (Greenway, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2009 legislation is an example of a work in progress. The purpose of this bill is to reform a number of legislative arrangements to deliver better outcomes for families and for individuals in the income management regime and the Community Development Employment Projects scheme. It is a sensible approach that will have important outcomes.

The first part of the legislation amends legislation that streamlines the family tax benefit payment arrangements and it is estimated that this measure will save the government $101 million. Currently, eligible families claiming the family tax benefit A and family tax benefit B can elect to have their payments paid either fortnightly through Centrelink, or annually in a lump sum when they lodge a tax return with the Australian Taxation Office. There was also the flexibility to receive fortnightly payments from Centrelink for part of the year, as well as a lump sum payment at the end of the year. This legislation will stop the annual claim with the Australian Taxation Office in their tax assessment at the end of the year. However, they will still be able to elect to receive a lump sum payable through Centrelink or the Medicare office.

Family tax benefit A and B were included in a suite of reforms of family assistance developed by the Howard government when introducing the goods and services tax in July 2000. The GST provided an opportunity to reform a number of payments. Family tax benefit A replaced, for example, the family allowance, family tax payment A and family tax assistance part A. Family tax benefit B was established to provide extra assistance to single parent families and to families with one main income. This meant one parent could stay at home, and it was especially helpful to families with small children or where there was an illness dependent person in the household. Family tax benefit B also replaced several income supplements and tax programs. Eligibility for either payment is subject to an income test using an adjusted taxable income.

Just as the changes brought about by family tax benefit A and B were a work in progress, replacing and streamlining the family payments system, so too are the proposed changes to the payment arrangement of these two payments. In the 2006-07 year, the breakdown of payment choices shows that 90 per cent of claimants chose to have their payments paid fortnightly through Centrelink, three per cent chose to have a lump sum paid through Centrelink and seven per cent chose to have a lump sum paid through the taxation system when lodging a tax return. Based on those figures, it is clear that families appreciate the regular payment system rather than waiting for a lump sum payment at the end of the year. By the same token, 10 per cent of families liked the lump sum arrangement.

The legislation will transfer all of the responsibility for paying family tax benefit A and B to Centrelink. Recipients will still have the choice of fortnightly payments and still retain the capacity to claim a lump sum payable through Centrelink or Medicare offices. Family tax benefit recipients will face minimal change and the measure will simplify the payment arrangements, reduce duplication and save—as has already been mentioned—approximately $101 million in administrative costs.

The second element of the legislation delivers equity to Indigenous individuals under an income management regime. The income management regime was introduced with the passing of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment Reform) Act 2007 and was included in the Northern Territory emergency response strategy introduced by the Howard government in 2007. Under the income management regime, a welfare recipient can be required to have their welfare payments paid into an account controlled by Centrelink and access to moneys from that account is provided to the individual for needs considered to be priority needs of the person and particularly of their dependants. This was particularly helpful for children where their parents may not have been ensuring that they received what was essential for their growth and development. As at March 2009, there were 15,204 welfare payment recipients under IMR provision in the Northern Territory.

When the IMR was introduced in 2007, there were provisions expressly excluding persons subject to these arrangements in the Northern Territory and residing in designated areas in the NT from appealing against the application of the IMR provisions to the Social Security Administrative Tribunal. Time has moved forward. The reasoning at the time, it was suggested, was that the unique circumstances of the emergency response meant that the potential for appeals was large, given that people would no longer be directly receiving all of their welfare payments. We have since moved on and the amendment being introduced now is to enable the Social Security Appeals Tribunal to review a decision made under Part 3B of that act relating to a person who is subject to the Northern Territory IMR. As a consequence, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will also be able to review such a decision. The appeals will not be retrospective. This will only apply to those who are newly income managed.

The third and final element of this proposed legislation reforms the payment arrangement under the Community Development Employment Projects scheme. The thrust of the reforms is to improve the employment participation of Indigenous Australians, something that both sides of the House are committed to. This will involve a gradual change to payment arrangements so that new starters of CDEP programs will receive income support payments and still be entitled to access CDEP programs. Continuing CDEP participants will continue to receive CDEP wages from CDEP providers up until 30 June 2011 and in some cases also receive the CDEP supplement. It needs to be said—and in this I agree with my colleague the member for Warringah—that the outcome that we want from any program provided by the federal government for people who are struggling to find employment is real employment.

These and other reforms, such as extra funding for services and support, will be introduced on 1 July 2009. Reforms that assist families and that give people a hand rather than a handout so that they can live dignified and productive lives, contribute to their community and participate in the economy are to be supported. I support this bill and commend it to the House.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children's Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2009 a measure on family tax benefit from the 2008 budget is introduced, along with two other measures from the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs portfolio.

The 2008 budget will streamline the administration of family tax benefit by removing from 1 July 2009 the option of claiming payments through the tax system. Removing the tax system option for the delivery of family tax benefit payments will simplify the system and improve consistency for customers and will reduce duplication in the delivery of payments. Only around seven per cent of current family tax benefit customers claim through the Australian Taxation Office. Customs will still be able to choose between fortnightly payments, including end-of-year top-ups if applicable, and an annual lump sum by dealing with Centrelink and Medicare.

Importantly, payment rates will not change as a result of this adjustment in the delivery arrangements. The Australian Taxation Office and Centrelink will still exchange information as necessary to make sure entitlements are as accurate as possible. Adjusted taxable income will still be used for family tax benefit income testing and end-of-year reconciliation processes. Also, tax refunds will be available to offset family tax benefit debts and vice versa. In most of these administrative respects, customers should notice no change in the arrangements that they are used to.

I note that in evidence to the recently completed Senate inquiry on this bill the Commonwealth Ombudsman welcomed these proposed arrangements, particularly that an individual’s taxable income is more routinely verified to determine entitlement. From their experience:

… the differential processes resulted in inconsistencies and were particularly vulnerable to error, which often resulted in debts, especially in shared-care cases.

One of the non-budget measures in the bill was foreshadowed by the government in its announcement on 23 October 2008 in response to the recommendations of the Northern Territory Emergency Response Review Board. This measure will make sure that people who are subject to the Northern Territory income management regime are able to appeal to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in relation to their income support and family payments, just as all other Australians can. As was also announced in that response, further measures will be introduced in the 2009 spring sittings.

The last measure in this bill makes amendments to implement part of the government’s announced reforms to the Community Development Employment Project, CDEP, program. Those reforms are intended to improve employment participation for Indigenous Australians. This measure will give new CDEP participants on or after 1 July 2009 access to the CDEP program while they receive income support payments instead of CDEP wages from CDEP providers. Through these amendments new CDEP participants will receive the CDEP scheme participant supplement because these participants will be able to claim additional benefits through the income support system.

The amendments will, however, allow continuing CDEP participants to receive CDEP wages from CDEP providers. The CDEP scheme participant supplement will continue until 30 June 2011. At that point continuing participants will transfer to income support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.