Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security Amendment (Parenting Payment Transitional Arrangement) Bill 2011. The bill amends the Social Security Act 1991 to limit the application of the parenting payment transitional arrangement so that recipients are covered by the transitional arrangement only for children who were in their care before 1 July 2011. The Gillard Labor government seeks to amend section 500D(3) of the act to provide that a child cannot be a parenting payment child of a person under that section unless the person was the principal carer of the child on or before 30 June 2011. We all too quickly forget that it was the Howard-Costello government which, in July 2006, introduced substantial reform to reduce the age of a person's dependent child, above which the person ceased to qualify for a parenting payment, from 16 years for their youngest dependent child to eight years for single parents or six years for couples. Those who immediately before 1 July 2006 were in receipt of a parenting payment were grandfathered, or grandmothered, under the act and could continue to qualify for a parenting payment until their youngest child turned 16.

It is appropriate at this point to turn attention to the notion of real reform. This grandfathering of the eligibility of existing parenting payment recipients is called the parenting payment transitional arrangement and is given effect in subdivision AA of division 1 of part 2.10 of the act via the definition of parenting payment child in section 500D(3). In basic terms, under current legislative arrangements a parenting payment transitional arrangement can continue to be paid to a person indefinitely while a person who was in receipt of the payment on 30 June 2006 continues, to use the words of the legislation, to acquire dependent children. For example, if a person is covered by the parenting payment transitional arrangement on 1 March 2011 when they give birth to a new child, that new child could be their parenting payment child until he or she turns 16 on 1 March 2027 and be covered by the parenting payment transitional arrangement for that whole time. Through its recent, self-proclaimed Labor budget, Labor has decided that a child cannot become a parenting payment child of a person for the purposes of the parenting payment transitional arrangement after 30 June 2011, although they will still be a parenting payment child until they turn six or eight. Labor argues that this will remove an unintended inequity. The practical effect of these changes is that they will limit the ability of parenting payment recipients to extend their grandfathered status by acquiring new parenting payment children. Any subsequent children that come into the recipient's care will not be covered by the grandfathering provisions. This will mean that all parenting payment recipients will be treated equally in a shorter time frame than would otherwise be the case. This bill was referred for inquiry and the coalition will carefully consider the report of the Senate Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee, due for release on 14 June this year.

As I pointed out earlier, Labor are quick to ignore the coalition's 2006 reforms. They are quick to ignore that more than 100,000 Australians have come off parenting payment (single) and (partnered) since July 2006. Indeed, in 2005 there were approximately 618,000 people in receipt of the parenting payment. By 2010 that number had reduced to 459,000—a reduction of 160,000 people on the parenting payment as a result of the reforms which the Howard government introduced, and I was the minister at that stage in 2006. It was the coalition who pursued and who delivered significant social security reforms for this country. Labor have not given the coalition any credit for the reforms, other than by imitation through weak and directionless attempts to replicate real welfare reform in the guise of trials, reviews and of course more rhetoric.

Let me go back. In 2005 Labor were scathing of welfare reforms. They were scathing of reforms to parenting payments. Senator Wong from the other place said:

These laws allow the creation of a working poor in Australia.

And she said:

Let us be clear about this: these are the most drastic changes this country has seen in social security in decades. They will make hundreds of thousands of families worse off.

She could not have been further from the truth, as we look back on what were some of the most effective and important social security reforms in recent history—real reforms, not Labor type pretend reform. Senator Evans in the other place said at the time:

The so-called welfare reform package is confused, fails to meet the government’s own objectives, increases disincentives to move from welfare to work, is manifestly unfair and is not reform but, in large part, punishment of those on income support.

In concluding, this is another missed opportunity for real social security reform. Back in 2005, the member for Jagajaga, now the minister, said Labor opposed the welfare to work measures 'because Australia needs real welfare reform'. Well, now she is the minister and while she loves talking about reform we all now know that it is just, unfortunately, regrettably, mere talk. We need real action, not inaction. Labor are not prepared to make the tough decisions. They are not prepared to do the hard yards. Theirs is a government based on spin and slogans and it is time they brought some real plans—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have given a fair bit of latitude and I would really like you to come back to the bill before the House. This is not an appropriations speech.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is time they brought some real plans for welfare reform to the table beyond what is in this bill. If history is anything to go by, the next policy announcement I make will become Labor policy soon after, like our mutual obligation announcements from 2010. The coalition will not oppose this bill.

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

I speak in support of the Social Security Amendment (Parenting Payment Transitional Arrangement) Bill 2011. This is a good piece of legislation because it is about making sure that people have the benefit of equity and equality with respect to their arrangements. It is part of our broader framework in terms of learning or earning and getting people off welfare into work. It is about making sure that we give people an incentive to do so. We are unapologetic about the fact that there is a carrot and stick approach as well in what we are doing in social security. This bill will amend the Social Security Act 1991 so that only those children who are born to or come into the principal care of their parent before 1 July 2011 will count towards the grandfathered status of the parenting payment recipient.

Under the Welfare to Work reforms, the eligibility for parenting payment was changed so that recipients who claimed the payment from 1 July 2006 ceased to be eligible once the recipient's youngest child turned 16 if the recipient was partnered, or eight years of age if the recipient was single. Prior to these changes, the eligibility of parenting payment ceased when the child turned 16 years of age. Existing parenting payment recipients on 1 July 2006 are covered by the transitional grandfathering arrangement, whereby they continue to be assessed under the previous rules and if their circumstances change may remain eligible for the payment until the youngest child turns 16 years of age. So it is about making sure that people are treated similarly. The amendment in this bill will limit the grandfathering transitional arrangement so that only children who are born to or come into the principal care of the parent before 1 July 2011 will count towards the grandfathered status of the parenting payment recipient. This is a matter of equity. It is also a matter of encouragement. It is a matter of a stick in many ways as well.

I cannot let the previous speaker get away with saying some of the things he did. He talked about ducking the hard yards. This government did not duck the hard yards. We were faced with the global financial crisis, with what the Treasury said would be 200,000 jobs lost. There are 1.5 million Australians working in the retail sector and 250,000 Australians working in the construction sector. What did we do? We made sure that those jobs were secure. We took a temporary, targeted and timely approach, going into deficit but making sure that by way of our Keynesian response we kept people in employment. I cannot count the number of times that people told me they had jobs as a result of the BER projects, the infrastructure projects. We saw many people get a start, getting off welfare and into work—young people, apprentices, people who had opportunity, people who had in part been recipients of parenting payment and other social security payments who actually got jobs as a result of what we were doing. I visited Bremer TAFE at Bundamba in my electorate, which received $2 million under our payments—opposed, of course, by those opposite—to improve the campus to make sure that single mothers, young people and older people could take the opportunities in their lives to get off welfare. Many people there were single mothers. There was a childcare facility there where they learned responsibilities and parenting skills. They were given opportunities. There were also arrangements where people could learn skills, trades, English and computer skills. We put the money into Bremer TAFE, opposed by those opposite. That is our idea of getting people off welfare into work. We have given a record amount of money for higher education.

We heard people opposite talk about the fact that they were the great reformers on social security. The member for Menzies was talking about that. But I will tell you something. Their idea of social security reform not just in the family life of people but in the working life of people was to impose Work Choices on the higher education sector, whether it was Bremer TAFE or the University of Queensland at St Lucia or Ipswich. That was their idea. They feign concern. They say that they are for reform with respect to social security and family payments. They say that they are in favour of helping those in need. Yet their action within government was to oppose real reform, and their own reform was more a matter of punishing those who were poor, weak, oppressed or disadvantaged, such as migrants.

We see it every day not just by their actions but by their language. We see it in question time. There is a harshness, brutality, meanness and dispiriting anger that those opposite keep showing towards those on welfare, those who are poor and those who are suffering. There is a real born-to-rule mentality and it comes through from the member for Menzies and all those opposite in the way they go on in this place. Even the Nats do it.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Blair is also stretching my patience on the relevance rule. Many people may have forgotten but you need to be relevant to the bill.

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

This legislation is important. It is the first of many changes to the eligibility of groups of parenting payments. This is important. This is aligning rules to different recipients and ensuring over time the same rules apply to each person. I believe fundamentally that the laws and the social security payments and payments that people receive should be the same. They should be eligible regardless of where they live or what their circumstances are.

These amendments form part of a broader package, as I was referring to before—the Building Australia's Future Workforce package. It is a $3 billion initiative that we put into this budget. We are encouraging participation in work and other activities across the electorates in this country. In my electorate, we have seen it through the local employment coordinator, Samantha Wilson, and the work that her group does. The work that groups like those have done to get people off welfare and into work has been fantastic. Great organisations like Apprenticeships Queensland, WorkVentures, Bremer TAFE and the University of Queensland Ipswich campus are important to get people from welfare into work. This budget that this legislation forms part of sees $1.75 billion in funding payments to the states for vocational education and training. We have never seen anything like that from those opposite. Do not let the member for Menzies come in here and lecture us about moving from welfare to work, because their record does not show keenness for work, only keenness for Work Choices. They are not interested in the welfare of the Australian people; they are interested in the welfare of the Liberal and National parties.

Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to say to the member for Blair that, given the pathway I have walked in life, I do not find his comments applicable. I rise today to support and contribute to the debate on the amendments to the Social Security Act 1991 limiting the application of the parenting payment transitional arrangement. I acknowledge Senator the Hon. Chris Evans for proposing the amendments, which I support.

The bill forms part of wider reforms in the Building Australia's Future Workforce 2011-12 budget package released earlier this month. If passed, the amendments contained in this bill will come into effect as of 1 July 2011. The bill will amend the act to tighten existing arrangements on the grandfather clause which allows parents covered under the clause to continue to receive parenting payments for any child born before 1 July 2011. This amendment is about equity and ensures all Australian families are on an even playing field in respect to parenting payments. This amendment is an important one and ensures that all the parents in the electorate of Hasluck are given the same level of benefits, as they deserve. It applies further amendments to the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Other Measures) Act 2005 introduced by the previous Howard government.

The coalition agrees that government needs to do more to encourage sections of the community to re-enter the workforce or take that step for the first time. It is a long-held belief of the coalition that work is the best form of social security and its benefits far outweigh the obvious financial ones. This belief underpinned the previous amendments put forward by the Howard government.

I launched the Green Jobs Corps in Forrestfield, which is in my electorate of Hasluck, earlier this year. It is a 20-week environmental training program that offers young people, aged 17 to 24 years, a combination of work experience, skill development and accredited training to ensure they are ready for employment in emerging green and climate change industries. In talking to them, I asked them why they had not taken other pathways and they said that this gave them the opportunity to enter into the working arena and, from that, they were looking at pathways that they might consider at the end of their training. At the last election the coalition had a suite of policies designed to encourage and reward more Australians to enter or return to the workforce. The coalition planned to introduce a job commitment bonus to encourage young Australians who had been out of work for lengthy periods to take a job and commence a pathway back into the workforce. The proposed additional incentives would encourage these people to stay in work beyond two years. A reallocation allowance was proposed if unemployed jobseekers moved to a regional area to take up a position. Employers would have been rewarded for employing an eligible jobseeker. Our older Australians who have a lifetime of experience, corporate knowledge and skills would have benefited from the $3,250 seniors employment incentive payment for employers that hired mature workers aged 50 or older.

Australia finds itself in a unique geopolitical position in the 21st century. The rise of China, a burgeoning India and growing ASEAN economies will place huge demands on our workforce in the coming years and it is a government's responsibility to ensure that its people are as best placed as possible to take advantage of this growth. Australian governments have an obligation to build Australia's workforce and strengthen our domestic employment market. The availability of jobs is one of the most important issues to my constituents in Hasluck and I suspect that it would be the same for many other electorates. Hasluck suffers from one of the highest levels of unemployment in metropolitan Western Australia and there are many efforts underway to improve this situation by encouraging small business and giving people the skills they need to enter the workforce.

I want to refer to initiatives that encourage young people to acquire the skills which enable them to access employment opportunities. The Catalyst Clemente university education program, driven by Mission Australia in association with Edith Cowan University, is based in Maddington and helps provide education to fast track people into university courses. Jobs West, on Abernethy Road, is a community based registered training organisation which promotes hands-on learning, while the Smith Family group in Gosnells and Midland assists low-income families to enter its Learning for Life scholarship program.

The Small Business Centre South East Metro is proof of how local organisations, given the right support and encouragement, can make a real difference to the community. Since its inception, the Small Business Centre has created hundreds of jobs in the south of my electorate. They manage a significant number of clients who after advice on training in small business creation are empowered to take steps to full-time employment and jettison their welfare dependency. In the north of my electorate, the Small Business Centre East Metro, under the watch of doyen chief executive officer, Tony Watts, is also helping one of Hasluck's most disadvantaged areas to thrive under difficult business conditions, and certainly he encourages young people to make that choice of stepping into the workplace, being supported and then having the opportunity of a full-time job in some key areas. They also look at the opportunity for pathways into the resource sector. They offer training advice to start up businesses, information on new tax regimes for existing businesses and knowledge on how to maximise business. This naturally results in employment flowing on into the community.

Hasluck is also blessed with strong chambers of commerce—namely the Swan Chamber of Commerce and its formidable chief executive officer, Sandra Wallis; the Kalamunda Chamber of Commerce and its president, Robert Bentley; and the Gosnells Chamber of Commerce oversighted by John Hardy, the chair, who is ably assisted by the chief executive officer, Denise Bradley. In my discussions with them we have been looking at the opportunities that we can create for young people within the electorate of Hasluck and allow them to have that second chance in life that will enable them to not depend on government welfare programs. As such, I have set up advisory groups sourced from businesses, agencies and constituents within Hasluck in the areas of training, environment and disabilities to meet regularly throughout the year to identify funding and policy opportunities and to progress the issues relevant to those key areas within Hasluck. The Hasluck Training Advisory Group is made up of representatives from different sectors in training, including industry, registered training organisations, the TAFE sector and the secondary schooling sector. Again, our focus as leaders within this area is to look at the opportunities that we can create to bring people into the skills pathway and into permanent work. This varied representation recognises that in the area of training all sectors have a significant part to play in the delivery and outcomes of training opportunities for the people of Hasluck.

The proposed bill is highly relevant to the work that we are collectively undertaking as leaders within Hasluck. My intentions are to address both the immediate needs of individuals within Hasluck and, more importantly, to work with a strong network of training providers who contribute to the skills development of Western Australians in this local area. I want to contribute to my belief in lifelong learning for all to enable individuals to have the capability and capacity to make choices, to access skills training and have the flexibility of career pathway options. This group will work on achievable areas of policy formulation and opportunities in training that will assist young people who want to work and come back into the workplace. This alliance of the Hasluck Training Advisory Group is to provide strategic directions for a local approach to providing training and skilling opportunities. The bill will contribute to my belief in lifelong learning for all to enable individuals to have the capacity to make choices, access training and have the flexibility of career pathway options that will increase labour market efficiency, productivity, innovation and ensure increased utilisation of human capital as opposed to the reliance on welfare measures.

The Skills Australia discussion paper, Creating a future direction for Australian vocational education and training, released in October 2010, is a salient reminder of the fact that the skilling of our human capital is critical. Australia is facing a stark reality in respect of our long-term economic and social prosperity and depends on the depth of skills in the population and the better use of those skills to overcome the risk of a fiscally unsustainable ageing population. There is an urgent need to provide individuals with the broad based skills and knowledge for changing labour market demands and emerging occupations and industries.

Having had an education background, I am often of the view that we sometimes undervalue the human capital that is often caught up on welfare dependency. I have had discussions on a couple of occasions with Noel Pearson about the incredible talent that we still have within our society but that we do not harness; nor do we capitalise on opportunities by taking them off dependency on welfare payments and getting them into pathways of learning, skilling and training in order to equip them to make choices for some of the job opportunities that exist within this country. To that end, I commend the government on the amendments within this legislation. The Social Security Amendment (Parenting Payment Transitional Arrangement) Bill 2011 is one step towards encouraging Australians to re-enter the workforce.

Yvette D'Ath (Petrie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to rise to speak in support of the Social Security Amendment (Parenting Payment Transitional Arrangement) Bill 2011. This bill is important to correct what has been referred to by the minister as an unintended consequence. We have heard the member for Menzies, who was the minister at the time that this transitional arrangement was brought in back in 2006, criticising the position that the government is now taking in relation to this bill. But the reality is that we are here today introducing this bill because there was a flaw in the way that this transitional arrangement was set up.

To set up a grandfathering arrangement generally means that you look at the entitlements being provided at the time and you protect those entitlements into the future for a period of time for that group of individuals that is receiving them. What grandfathering clauses are not meant to do is allow for those arrangements to indefinitely continue or, in effect, to expand those arrangements so that they not only protect those that were to be covered in the first place but in fact broaden their coverage, and that is what the changes back in 2006 did. The parenting payment transitional arrangements came in under Welfare to Work. The changes were in relation to the eligibility for parenting payment such that the recipients who claimed the payment from 1 July 2006 would cease to be eligible once their youngest child turned six if they were partnered or eight if they were single. Prior to these changes, eligibility for parenting payment ceased when the youngest child turned 16. So the purpose of the transitional arrangements was to identify those parents who were already in receipt of the parenting payment and to ensure that they, as recipients, continued to get that parenting payment until their youngest child turned 16. What that arrangement should have done is said 'until the child or children who existed at that point in time in 2006 turned 16', but it did not. It failed to put that clarity in the legislation at that time. It created a situation whereby not only the children who were born prior to 1 July 2006 but also children born post 1 July 2006 were included in this grandfathering clause; it applied to those children until they turned 16. And that is the case today. If those parents have another child today, then the grandfathering clause applies for 16 years from that child's birth. That is the problem that was created as a consequence of a flawed transitional arrangement established in 2006.

I appreciate the member for Menzies standing here in this chamber this evening and criticising the government for this measure, saying: 'This is not a Labor government policy. This is not about looking after parents and entitlements.' But the fact is the reason this bill is here is that the member for Menzies did not do his job properly in the first place. Basically, he introduced a flawed piece of legislation. So we are here today to rectify that problem in relation to the transitional arrangements and to ensure that those parents in receipt of the parenting payment who have a child post 1 July 2011 will receive exactly the same entitlement as every other parent getting the parenting payment—that is, they will get that entitlement until that child reaches the age of six if they are partnered or until the child reaches the age of eight if they are single. I fail to see any unfairness in a proposal that ensures that we bring in equality of entitlements for parents, and that is what this bill seeks to do.

It is very good to hear the member for Hasluck talking about the importance of incentives for businesses to ensure we are delivering skills and training and that we are moving away from reliance on welfare, because that is exactly what this Labor government's budget for 2011-12 did and that is what this bill before the House today does. This bill is the first stage of the income support payment reforms contained in the Building Australia's Future Workforce package. This is a package of incentives for parents to engage in the workforce and to reduce their dependency on welfare. It will provide families with a greater measure of financial security. This government is committing to building Australia's future workforce, ensuring we are training people and getting them ready for work. We are doing this through Skilling Australia's Future Workforce, providing $3 billion over six years. There will be reform of the training system, placing industry at the heart of the training effort. We will be ensuring apprenticeships that work for more Australians. There will be vocational education and training to meet the longer term needs of the economy. We will be building better skills for workforce participation. We are ensuring more participation, through rewards, opportunities and responsibilities. We are improving incentives in the tax system; investing so more young Australians are earning or learning; rewarding and supporting single parents to engage in work; supporting very long-term job seekers; providing more opportunities for people with disability; and taking a new approach to addressing entrenched disadvantage in targeted locations throughout the country.

Since the December quarter of 2007, Australia's GDP has risen 6½ per cent in real terms, while real GDPs in the euro area and Japan are yet to return to pre-crisis levels. During the global financial crisis, Australia was one of only three advanced economies not to enter recession. Australia's economy is expected to continue to strengthen over the medium term, driven by the resources boom, which will have flow-on effects for the rest of the economy.

Workforce participation is around historical highs, at close to 66 per cent. Unemployment is forecast to fall to 4½ per cent by mid-2013, and it is estimated that close to 500,000 jobs will be created over the next two years. However, there are still some groups at risk of missing out on these opportunities. This bill, other bills currently being debated before the House and bills that will be introduced over the coming weeks and months will implement the 2011-12 budget commitments. They will see this government committing to more workforce participation and ensuring that people who have been long-term unemployed, people who are single parents, people who have disabilities, young people and people in areas of entrenched disadvantage are getting the opportunity to participate in the workforce and have the dignity of work. That is what this government is about. It is about trying to move people away from the reliance on welfare and giving them that opportunity.

Some of the initiatives that are part of the Building Australia's Future Workforce package are about providing skills for workforce participation. This government is investing $263 million to help people attain the basic skills, such as reading, writing and numeracy, needed to participate in the workforce. If we want to move people out of the welfare system and back into work, we have to invest in the basic skills that those people need, especially if they have been long-term unemployed, especially if they have been at home caring for young children and out of the workforce for many years. That is why we will commit $143 million to provide 30,000 additional commencements for job seekers in the Language, Literacy and Numeracy Program; $80 million for additional training places for single and teenage parents; $20 million to expand the Workplace English Language and Literacy program to support businesses who want to boost the core skills of their workers; and $20 million to maintain the number of places in the Australian Apprenticeships Access Program to ensure apprentices have the basic skills they need. These measures build on the $116 million investment in language, literacy and numeracy in the 2010-11 budget through the Skills for Sustainable Growth initiative.

I have talked about workforce participation. This government is spreading the benefits of workforce participation through the most recent budget and through bills such as this. We are doing this by: rewarding work through more timely tax assistance, improved income tests for single parents and young people, and incentives for employers who hire people with disability and the very long-term unemployed; providing new opportunities to get people into work through training, education, child care and improved employment services; introducing new requirements for the very long-term unemployed, disability support pension recipients, teenage parents, jobless families and young people; and taking new approaches to address entrenched disadvantage in targeted locations.

That is what this Labor government are doing. We are doing everything possible to ensure that we are getting workforce participation. At a time with low unemployment but a skills shortage and businesses screaming out for workers, we need to do everything possible to make sure that people are not left behind. That is what we seek to do.

Before we started debating the Social Security Amendment (Parenting Payment Transitional Arrangement) Bill, a number of my colleagues were speaking on some of the new tax law amendments in relation to the budget. They were talking about the low-income tax offset. That is another one of those improved incentives in the tax system to make it more attractive for people to move back into the workforce but not be disadvantaged by doing so. Importantly, this bill is very much about rewarding and supporting parents who want to re-engage in work. It is so important that we do this. There are new opportunities and responsibilities for single parents. It goes both ways. We will provide the opportunities, but there are also responsibilities that come with that. In order to encourage parents to get into work, the government will provide $179 million to reward part-time work by reforming the income test for single parents on Newstart allowance. Changing the taper rate from the current 50c or 60c in the dollar to 40c in the dollar from 1 January 2013 will let them keep up to an extra $3,900 of their income from part-time work each year. From 1 January 2013, the government will also gradually phase out grandfathering arrangements for parenting payment recipients with a youngest child aged 12 to 15, to make eligibility more consistent with the treatment of other parents. That is what we are talking about with the bill before the House today. It is about providing incentives at the same time as ensuring that we are moving people away from reliance on welfare. It is also about providing consistency and equality. If we want to get the system right, if we want to get the balance right, we need to make sure that arrangements such as grandfathering arrangements work the way they are intended to—that is, they have a certain lifespan. Once that lifespan is up—and it should be a reasonable lifespan—those people move into a system, getting the same benefits as everyone else. They are not worse off, as the member for Menzies would have us believe. It is about equality. I fail to see how the member for Menzies can stand here and argue that. Parents who have a child after 1 July 2011 will still get the benefits of the transitional arrangements for all of their children who were born prior to 1 July 2011, if they were part of the transitional arrangements from the 2006 legislation. All of the children they have from 1 July will get the same benefits as those of every other parent out there. I think this bill is fair, and I commend it to the House.

Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security Amendment (Parenting Payment Transitional Arrangement) Bill 2011. We have just heard from the member for Petrie, who has given a very considered contribution on this bill and in particular has pointed out the hypocrisy of the member for Menzies in terms of his criticism. It was interesting. I was also able to be here in the chamber to listen to the member for Hasluck, who took a very different approach to the member for Menzies. In fact, the member for Hasluck recognised this bill for what it was, congratulated the minister, supported the bill and congratulated this government in relation to the particular initiatives that this bill seeks to bring in and the associated reforms that this government has sought to bring in around jobs. I almost thought that the member for Hasluck was sitting on the wrong side, because of his strong endorsement of government policy. He went on to talk about jobs and the need for further education.

Clearly the member for Hasluck has not spent too much time looking at the policies of the former Howard government, because if he had he would have been horrified with the party that he is in this parliament to represent. They had an atrocious record in relation to investment in human capital, which was something that the member for Hasluck spoke about at length. They had a terrible record in relation to higher education, the worst in the OECD. I think the next worst in the OECD had a positive contribution of something like 10 per cent in growing the budget for higher education. Under the previous government we saw a 15 per cent cut. I make a general invitation to the member for Hasluck that, with the strong views that he put and his obvious personal commitment to jobs and making sure that people get the opportunity to start, he should come to this side of the parliament and join us more often, because clearly he is a very decent man and one who sees a good policy for what it is.

As the member for Petrie said, this legislation is about fixing up a mistake that the member for Menzies made in 2006. He left open the grandfathering provision so that it did not just apply to the children of those parents who were eligible in July 2006; it continued to apply, by mistake, by error in the legislation, to a whole category of children who were born after that date. That really is not grandfathering at all; it is the creep of middle-class welfare. It has effects, because it means that people are treated differently—that there is not equality in the way we treat children and parents who are eligible outside that grandfathering provision—and that is just unfair. One of the things we need to do is to make sure that we treat people fairly. It also has a detrimental effect in relation to encouraging people to get off welfare and back to work.

That is where this government stands, in stark contrast to the opposition and to the previous Howard government, in relation to what it believes needs to be done with jobs, what needs to be done about the dignity of work and what needs to be done to break the unemployment cycle that so tragically often affects many generations of families. It is not the first time—nor should it be the last, because we are very proud of our record in government—that people from this side of the House have reminded the House of the fact that this government and only this government stood between Australia and a much, much higher unemployment rate that would have happened if those on the other side had been in charge of the Treasury benches when the global financial crisis took place. Quite frankly, those on the other side were not concerned about jobs at all. That was never part of their issue. They were happy to let the market rip and see what happened. The sort of attitude taken was that, in the long run, people will find a job.

We stood up for Australians. We made sure that jobs were a priority. We wanted to make sure that where we could keep people in jobs we did so. That is what the stimulus packages were about. All we ever got from the other side was negativity about why things should not happen, why we should be opposed to these issues, rather than looking at the very positive impacts that our stimulus package had in keeping people employed.

I remember in particular visiting a building site where a hall was being built at Tacoma Public School and meeting a young apprentice carpenter called Jeff. Jeff was in his third year of apprenticeship, but his previous employer had cut him loose because of the downturn and he was in the unfortunate situation of being a third-year apprentice without an employer. He was in a very difficult position to try and pick up and finish that apprenticeship, which would have given him vital skills and made sure that he was able to be employed and contribute to the economy. It was our stimulus package that made sure that he had a job, because he was picked up by the local builders. He was a local boy. He got a job at that school and was able to go on and finish his apprenticeship. That is a very local example of why jobs are so important. This recent budget made sure it looked at particular areas around Australia where unemployment is entrenched, where unemployment is often intergenerational. One of the 10 areas identified is the Wyong Shire, which falls in the electorate of Dobell, my electorate. For a long time people in Dobell have said: 'Unemployment is always going to be higher than the national average. There is nothing you can do about it. That is just the way it is where I live. There are not enough jobs.' On this side of the House we do not share that view. We take the view that no-one should be left on the economy's scrapheap, that people should be given training and opportunities. I note the member for Throsby is in the chamber. His electorate is also in one of those 10 areas. What is so exciting about this recent budget is that it made sure it looked at local solutions for these areas. That is the key. We are making sure that we approach unemployment from a local perspective, making sure we know the particular problems that exist in a local area, looking at local providers for local solutions and moulding and crafting those solutions to get people back into jobs. We are making sure that we connect employers who are looking for a certain sort of employee with those employees who are looking for jobs. We are making sure that we give training opportunities to those people who may not have the skills to match the jobs that are there. By making sure we are putting appropriate packages in a local area, we will be able to match these things up.

The previous government's Intergenerational report spoke a good game about participation rates and the need to increase Australia's participation rates because of the ageing population. But they actually did nothing about fixing Australia's participation rates. Even though Australia's participation rates are at record highs, we really need to focus on the participation rate of females in the 25- to 44-year-old bracket. Australia is not performing as well in that bracket as it should. In that area, we are 25th in the OECD out of 33 nations—a lot lower than we should be.

We have looked at ways to ensure that women of child-bearing age are able to participate in the economy for two reasons: one, for their own social reasons so they have a sense of purpose and wellbeing; and, two, for the economy, because we need to ensure that we are increasing participation rates. With unemployment down to 4.9 per cent, and estimated to go down to 4.5 per cent, it is vital that governments look at increasing participation rates for these women. The most obvious and most needed reform in this area was the introduction of the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Australia was one of only two countries in the western world that did not have such a scheme. How the previous government could say that they were interested in increasing the participation of women and not address this issue is beyond reason. Clearly, this scheme was long overdue and, over time, will have a direct impact on the participation of women of child-bearing age in the workforce.

Another area we looked at was child care. We made sure we increased the childcare rebate up to 50 per cent. Women in the 25- to 44-year-old bracket often did not have a choice but to stay at home because child care was difficult for two reasons: one, it was often unavailable—and we have looked at addressing that issue; and, two, it was too expensive—and by increasing the rebate to 50 per cent we have addressed that.

Also, more recently, we have reduced the effective tax-free threshold for low-income earners from $11,000 to $16,000, so the effective marginal tax rate is not a disincentive for people to get back into employment. That is a very important thing to help ensure we get people participating in the community.

This government have a track record of making sure that we look at measures to get people back into jobs, making sure that jobs come first and making sure that we put people who need to work into work. We have looked at areas of particular disadvantage and my electorate is one of those areas. I looked at the budget initiatives the other day and I went through some of the statistics. There is a suburb in my electorate where unemployment is at 26 per cent. That is an indictment of the way governments in the past have failed to address these issues. In this particular suburb, unemployment has occurred over many generations. They have known nothing else. They are welfare dependent. We are about making sure that people have the dignity of a job, that we get them off welfare and into the workforce so they have self-esteem and the economy gets the benefit of their contribution.

This bill is part of a matrix of proposals this government is putting in place. It is an example of the way this government says, 'Jobs come first.' Without jobs, our communities disintegrate. Without an emphasis on making sure people have paid employment and are off welfare, our suburbs become more dangerous and develop a range of social issues that flow from long-term intergenerational unemployment. This bill is important in relation to that and it is a bill I commend to the House.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is with great pleasure that I follow my colleague and friend, the member for Dobell, in this debate on the Social Security Amendment (Parenting Payment Transitional Arrangement) Bill 2011 because he has made an important contribution, a devastating critique that goes to the very heart of the distinction between our philosophy and our position--how we manage the budget and how we manage the economy and how we deal with social security and welfare—and the position of those opposite. As the member for Dobell points out, as we have gone through the global financial crisis we have seen an interesting separation of views. Those opposite thought it was much more important for them to retain the political bragging points, that they could balance a government budget, than it was for millions of households to balance their budgets by retaining a job. They come in here day after day and talking about the importance of dealing with the cost of living, but there are millions of households out there who know that the most effective way to balance their household budget and deal with the cost of living is to have a job.

This legislation before the House today is a small part of our broader program to reform welfare and to reform our workforce policy. Our approach to welfare sits on three pillars. The first pillar is that we believe any good society has an obligation to assist its citizens in their time of need. The second pillar is that we believe there is an inherent benefit in work and engaging in the workforce. That is of benefit to the individual, to the economy and to society as a whole. The third pillar is that we believe that you can design a welfare system in a way that, on the one hand, provides a benefit to the welfare recipients but, on the other, builds in incentives for people to care for those whom they have been entrusted to care for, incentives for those who are receiving a benefit to actually get out there and engage with the education system--to learn and to build their skills and to re-engage with the workforce—and incentives to actually earn. A well-designed welfare system addresses each of those three points. That philosophy—that approach of those three pillars—is behind our approach to welfare, is reflected in our budget, in legislation that we have brought before this parliament and legislation that we intend to bring before this parliament and in this bill.

The Gillard government's first priority is to keep the economy strong so that we can keep families in jobs. We have a very strong record of creating jobs. There are now 750,000 more Australians in work than there were when we came to office in 2007 and we estimate that over half a million jobs will be created over the next three years. And the measures in this bill and in our recent budget will facilitate that growth and facilitate our making more opportunities for our fellow Australians.

Joblessness amongst families is a significant social and economic problem in Australia. It is associated with higher rates of poverty, poorer health status and lower educational attainment for parents and their children. In my electorate of Throsby in New South Wales, which takes in large parts of the southern Illawarra suburbs and the Southern Highlands, there are areas of intergenerational unemployment much like those described before me by the member for Dobell. We have intergenerational unemployment and intergenerational social disadvantage. That is why I am pleased that a key objective of the Gillard government is to provide opportunities to equip jobless families to train and work and to provide a pathway to better life outcomes for both themselves and their children.

I am proud that this budget is a Labor budget that gives priority to jobs and opportunities for Australians, making sure that everyone can benefit from our growing economy. We all know that long-term parental joblessness and reliance on income support is detrimental to the long-term wellbeing of children. That is why I am particularly happy that in this budget a region within my electorate, the Shellharbour local government area, which falls within the southern part of my electorate, is one of the communities that have been identified for intensive assistance to deal with long-term disadvantage. All of the social indicators for the Shellharbour local government area--for income support, unemployment and youth unemployment--are higher than the national average. They paint a picture of a region that has been missing out on employment opportunities for far too long. That is why it is great news that Shellharbour is one of the 10 sites for the trial of new measures to make sure teenage parents finish school, for us to support jobless families and for us to provide additional support for their children. I am very pleased that recently the Minister for Human Services visited the Shellharbour area to have an initial consultation with the community groups and organisations and other stakeholders that are in the front line of dealing with people at the tough end of disadvantage.

The bill before the House today reflects another step in this government's budget to make sure parents remain engaged with the workforce and are helped to get back to work sooner. Currently, single parents that have claimed income support after 1 July 2006 are eligible for Parenting Payment until their youngest child turns eight. However, at the moment, parents who were receiving Parenting Payment before 1 July 2006 were grandfathered under the Welfare to Work changes and their eligibility ceases when their youngest child turns 16, including for any children born or coming into their care after then. This bill aligns the eligibility of grandfathered recipients with those who started receiving Parenting Payment after the Welfare to Work changes, which came into effect on 1 July 2006. In straightforward terms, grandfathered single parents that have new children after 1 July 2011 will only be able to receive Parenting Payment until a child turns eight, not until that child turns 16, which is currently the case.In addition, grandfathered partnered parents who have new children after 1 July 2011 will receive parenting payment only until that child turns six, aligning it with the current arrangements for new parents on parenting payment (partnered). This initial change will, over time, mean that the same arrangements apply to all parenting payment recipients and will lead to a reduction of time spent out of the workforce.

The primary change we are introducing is a more generous income test for single principal carer parents. This provides a strong incentive for single parents to take on part-time work. As part of a $178.9 million initiative, working single parents on Newstart allowance with a youngest child between eight and 15 will be able to earn almost $400 a fortnight or up to a total of $1,346 per fortnight before they lose eligibility for Newstart allowance.

The grandfathered group's eligibility for parenting payments will cease when their youngest child turns 12, or 13 from January 2013. This will give affected parents at least 18 months to prepare for the change. As a transition, parents whose youngest child is already 13 years old before 1 January 2013 will not be affected by the change.

We also make sure that parents have the right support and services to get the skills to go back to work. For example, the government will provide over $80 million for additional training places for single and teenage parents so that they can gain get the skills they need to get a good job when they return to the workforce. In addition, there is $19 million for additional community based support for parents, like playgroups and mentoring, through the Communities for Children program and $4 million for access to career counselling through the Jobs Services providers. This career advice will be available to grandfathered parents in the year before they move on to the Newstart allowance so they can start to plan their return to work and access the training needed.

This is in addition to the support that we are providing through the new teen parents initiative. That assistance will ensure not only support, life skills and education opportunities but also generous childcare support, allowing every support possible to give these people the opportunity to re-engage with education and re-engage with the workforce to provide them with greater life opportunities.

In mining boom mark 2 we cannot allow whole regions to be left behind as they were during mining boom mark 1. It is notable that we have heard very little from the Leader of the Opposition on these new measures since the budget two weeks ago. Indeed, he continues to be all opposition and no leader. This budget has focused squarely on jobs. It has focused on education and training to ensure that the benefits of the mining boom make it into every corner of Australia, including some of our most disadvantaged communities.

In our new location based approach welfare recipients will have greater responsibilities to participate, but they will also have extra help. Centrelink is going to have dedicated case workers for the most disadvantaged jobseekers. These case workers will work closely with, and in many cases under the same roof as, financial counselling services, drug and alcohol counselling services, housing and homelessness services and other types of services to help long-term unemployed people back into the workforce by overcoming all the barriers that have kept them unemployed and unengaged with the workforce or education.

All of the initiatives outlined in the budget are designed to couple intensive support with increased obligations, to give that extra help that people need to get them into work and to make sure that they too are able to share in unprecedented economic opportunities. The Gillard government understands that as our economy strengthens there will be some parts of the nation that are leaping ahead and some that will fear that they are at risk of being left behind. That is what we know as Australia's patchwork economy. This is why the Gillard government is so determined to make sure that, as we spread the opportunities that this phase of economic growth gives us, we do it in a way that provides opportunities for all to get a trade and the skills that you need to get your first job—and so that, as the Prime Minister has said, when you get that first job the opportunity is there to move on, hopefully to an even better job.

That is why, even in a tight budget, we have made sure that $3 billion is available to invest in skills, because if we do not do that not only will we be leaving people behind and running the risk of further entrenching disadvantages but we will be building economic bottlenecks in our economy that lead to an increase in inflationary pressures and decreases in our capacity to take advantage of the opportunities that are available in the mining regions—available to us as Australia is located in the go-ahead region of the world—and of opportunities that are available to us from the boom in the services economy. We are not willing to sit by and allow that to occur.

There is a stark contrast. It is a contrast between the approach of those on this side of the House and those opposite. We understand that there is an obligation on a government in a good society to provide both a helping hand but also an incentive through the welfare system to ensure those that have often been left behind or ignored in welfare traps can find their way out of those poverty and welfare traps and to ensure that they do not hand down intergenerational disadvantage from mother and father to child, from one generation to the next. We understand that engaging in work has inherent benefits for the individual, for an economy and for a society. We understand that a well-designed welfare system provides benefits to the individual but also builds in incentives to care, to learn, to be educated and to earn. I commend the legislation to the House.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Back in April 2011, just a month ago, the OECD released a report called Doing better for families. It was a report into the condition of children in countries, and I have to say that the information on Australia did not make particularly pleasant reading. The sole parent employment rate was found to be one of the lowest in the OECD, which contributed to an above average number of children living in no-income households. In fact, around one in five children lived in such a household and it was projected that that number would increase by about 20 per cent over the next 25 years. In general the report found that too many single parents were benefit dependent and far too many children in both single and partnered families were living in no-income households.

As we know, joblessness among families is a significant social and economic problem facing this country. Australia has one of the highest proportions of children living in jobless families in the OECD. In February 2011 more than 640,000 families in Australia with dependent children were on income support. Some 40 per cent of these were jobless families with no reported incomes in the last 12 months, and around 70 per cent of jobless families were single parent families. All of us in our own electorates meet people in circumstances such as this. When I am doorknocking I quite frequently find families that are sometimes third and fourth generation jobless. Joblessness is associated with high rates of poverty, poorer health status and lower education attainment for both parents and their children.

Some parents spend a long time on income support and some spend their whole lives on it. For example, parents spend an average of between five and seven years on parenting payment and then they move onto other income support payment such as Newstart allowance. We all know that extended periods of income support reliance are associated with ongoing high levels of disadvantage. If there were ever a time to make a move on this, it is now. It was also the time during the mining boom mark 1 to move on this but now, as we enter mining boom mark 2, it is well and truly time for us as a nation to make serious inroads into joblessness among families.

We have a comprehensive plan to build Australia's future workforce, and the Social Security Amendment (Parenting Payment Transitional Arrangement) Bill is a very important part of that. We have a long way to go on this. There have been some improvements. Back in 1990, for example, the employment rate for mothers with a youngest child under six was only about 42 per cent, less than the OECD average of about 48 per cent. By 2002 we had increased slightly, from 32 per cent to 45 per cent over nearly 11 years, but the OECD had increased to 59 per cent. The OECD continued to increase, as have we, but we are still below the OECD average.

The previous coalition government took some steps to improve the situation in their Welfare to Work package, introduced on 1 July 2006. But when they introduced that, they wussed it. I do not know whether that is parliamentary language, but they definitely wussed it. They did something that they quite frequently did when they were in government—if they introduced a new set of rules, particularly in the welfare area, they tended to exempt for very long periods of time people who were already on the benefit. The grandfathering clauses, or the transitioning arrangements, which you might have expected to last a few years sometimes lasted for much longer than that—sometimes for the life of the recipient. This is one of those cases, and I am going to explain these grandfathering clauses. If you have not heard this before you might find it difficult to believe because, quite frankly, exactly what they did was unbelievable.

Prior to Welfare to Work changes, parents were entitled to parenting payment until their youngest child turned 16. When they introduced the Welfare to Work changes, which came into effect on 1 July 2006, when a parent had their first child and first came into contact with parenting payment they were eligible for that parenting payment until their child turned six, if they were a couple, or eight if they were single. If I had my first child after 1 July 2006, when I first came into contact with the parenting payment, there was quite a reasonable benefit period and I could have six or eight years on the parenting payment and as my a child got older I was expected to move off it. If I had a child before 1 July 2006, I was able to retain the existing arrangement until the child turned 16. So if I had a child already, prior to 1 July 2006, that new rule did not apply to me—I was able to keep my parenting payment as my child turned four or five or six or seven or eight, right up until they turned 16.

There was some justification for that, but they went further. They did not attach the grandfathering clause to the child—they actually attached it to the parent. If I had been receiving a parenting payment before 1 July 2006, no matter how many children I had, even 10 or 15 years into the future, for each of those children I would be entitled to keep the parenting payment until they turned 16. If I had had my first child in 2005, and then had another one in 2008 and one in 2010 and through to another one in 2015, I would still be entitled to the parenting payment until that last child turned 16. That is an extraordinary grandfathering clause. When I first read it, I had to read it three times—it really is absurd.

We are acting in this bill to introduce some sanity and some equity, but we are not doing it in a way that provides surprises for families. We also, in effect, are grandfathering people on the existing arrangement so they can transition over in a reasonable way, with a reasonable expectation of what the rules will look like as their child gets a bit older. The bill really aligns the eligibility of parents and children who were grandfathered with that of those who started receiving the parenting payment after the Welfare to Work changes came into effect on 1 July 2006.

This means that a single parent who has a new child after 1 July this year—in other words, if you are about to have a child and you have the child after 1 July this year—will only be able to receive the same parenting payment that parents who had their children after 1 July 2006 receive. That means that you will be eligible to receive the parenting payment until the child turns six if you are in a partnered couple and eight if you are in a single couple. That absolutely brings grandfathered parents into line with other parents who have children. That will apply from 1 July 2011, so it is not retrospective. That means that if you had your first child prior to 1 July 2006 and you have had a couple of children since then and are having another one, the new parenting payment will apply to that new child. That will expire when the child turns six or eight, depending on your circumstances.

In this bill we have also dealt with what happens to parents with children born prior to 1 July 2006. We are also bringing them into line over a period of years. We are giving parents essentially 18 months to get prepared for the change. A grandfathered parent will have their parenting payments cease when their youngest child is 12 or 13 as of January 2013. That means that if you had a child who was, say, six or so on 1 July 2006—and I know this is very complicated, because it was a very silly grandfathering clause—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is all over the place.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know; it is all over the place. It is actually quite difficult to deal with these strange hangovers from a quite absurd decision back in 2006. If you had a child back in 2006 who was about six at the time, your parenting payment will cease, essentially, around January 2013, when that child turns 12 or 13. If your child is younger than that—if your child was only two or three at the time—then you still have a few more years, because the parenting payment will continue until your youngest child turns 12 or 13. That means that over what will now be about a 12-year period from 2006 to about 2018 all the parents who were grandfathered when the coalition government introduced this absurd grandfathering clause in 2006 will move over to the same set of rules that apply to the other parents.

It is going to take us that long to bring equity back into the system but, quite frankly, I think we need to give parents the lead time to make the decisions and adjustments they need to in their lives, particularly those who have already been out of the workforce for long periods of time because this grandfathering of the parenting payments allowed them to do so. Some of these parents who will be coming back into the workforce post-2012-13 may have been out of the workforce for quite substantial periods of time, so it is also important for us to provide support in other ways. We are doing a number of things that will help these parents get back into the workforce. For a start, we are providing $80 million for additional training places for single and teenage parents so they can get the skills they need to get a good job when they return to the workforce. We are also providing $19 million for additional community based support for parents, like playgroups and mentoring through the Communities for Children program. That playgroup idea is a particularly valuable one. In my area, wherever there are large numbers of single parents we find that the local community quite often gets together to support these parents through that particular format. It is a very useful way for parents to interact, get out of their homes and start the process of socialising again and moving back into the broader community.

We are also providing $4 million for access to career counselling through Job Services Australia providers. This career advice will be available to grandfathered parents in the year before they move onto Newstart so that they can plan their return to work and access the training they need. Again, this is very important, because this absurd old grandfathering process introduced by the previous government has left a lot of parents out of the workforce for many, many years.

I am pleased to see this bill introduced into the House. It will provide an incentive and assistance for many people to move back into the workforce. At a time like this, when we are approaching a serious boom, particularly in mining, in our economy, we need to make sure that we are providing every opportunity we can for people to benefit from that boom by moving back into the workforce and enjoying the benefits that a boom can bring. This bill begins that process as part of much larger package to support some of the more vulnerable people in our community.

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

It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Parramatta. She went to the detail of the Social Security Amendment (Parenting Payment Transitional Arrangement) Bill 2011 and described all aspects of it very succinctly. After listening to her contribution to the debate I feel it will be difficult for me to improve upon the information she has put before the parliament tonight.

The first thing I would like to say in speaking to this bill is that we are back here in this House fixing up a mistake made in 2006 by the Howard government. I do not know how many times I have spoken in this parliament revisiting legislation in which the opposition has made mistakes that have required immediate action for the problem to be rectified. This bill limits the application of the parenting payment transitional arrangements, or the grandfathering, so that only children who were born to or came into the principal care of their parents before 1 July 2011—this year—will count towards the grandfathered status of the parenting payment recipient. That shows just how poorly drafted the original legislation was. It shows the enormous number of problems that existed in the original legislation. The amendment in this bill is the first of a number of changes that will be made to the eligibility for a certain group of parenting payment recipients. This is part of the government's welfare to work reforms. Quite a tranche of legislation will pass through the parliament to give greater opportunities for people who are unemployed or are receiving a single parent payment to get the skills and support they need to re-enter the workforce. This is about creating opportunities for those people who would like to re-enter the workforce but are unable even to contemplate that because of the barriers that are preventing them.

Currently, parents who started claiming income support after 1 July 2006 are eligible for parenting payment until their youngest child turns eight years old, if the parent is single, or six years old, if the parent is partnered. However, those who were receiving parenting payment before 1 July 2006 are covered by the grandfathered component and are eligible to receive parenting payment until their youngest child turns 16. This bill limits the grandfathered transitional arrangements, so that only children who were born or came into principal care before 1 July 2011 count towards the grandfathered status of the parenting payment recipient. This change will gradually align the rules that apply to different recipients and ensure that, over time, the same rules will apply to all parenting payment recipients, regardless of when they first claimed the payment. That is very important. It is about ensuring that people are treated the same and creating equity in the system. Other changes to parenting payment eligibility will further limit the coverage of the grandfathered transitional arrangements to provide even more consistent eligibility rules from 1 January 2013. It is very important that this problem that was created by the Howard government is fixed.

We all know that the global financial crisis impacted enormously throughout the world. Australia performed just about the best of any country. We were able to keep unemployment at a very low level, but the situation now exists where we need to upskill our workforce so we can fill jobs in areas where there is a skills shortage. Joblessness among families is a significant social and economic problem in Australia. The government is determined to provide opportunities to those people who are long-term unemployed or who have been out of the workforce for a significant amount of time for a variety of reasons, whether it was for the purpose of child rearing or because they have unable to get a job because they do not have the skills. A key objective of the government is to create opportunity and to equip these jobless families with the skills to train and then re-enter the workforce.

Shortland electorate is in the southern part of the Hunter region, on the northern part of the Central Coast of New South Wales. It falls within the Wyong Shire Council local government area, which is one of 10 areas that have been identified to trial a program of local solutions. There are a lot of very disadvantaged job seekers in the northern part of the Central Coast—people find it difficult to access employment. A number of very good initiatives have taken place already. Trade training centres in high schools in the Shortland electorate have created new opportunities for students attending those centres. They are developing the skills they need to be able to access jobs, rather than become long-term unemployed. In addition to that, the Australian technical college that was languishing on a piece of paper has been devolved to those same schools and is now providing training opportunities for young people living in an area where there is a very high rate of youth unemployment.

This government is about creating opportunity, assisting people to move from welfare to work and ensuring that long-term jobless parents—people who have been unemployed and are on parental payments or relying on income support—have the opportunity to re-enter the workforce and to engage. By doing that, they ensure not only their own wellbeing, by getting so many life choices, but also the wellbeing of their children. It is all about creating opportunity. The legislation before us today goes towards creating equality between people who are receiving parenting payment and towards creating opportunity.

The grandfathering of the parenting payment created an inequity. We are fixing an enormous problem that was caused by the Howard government, which did not put its mind to detail and, as a result, created this problem. Along with the changes contained in this bill, the government will provide extra money for training, extra money for community support and extra money to help with career counselling, so that those people who are unemployed and have been on parental payment will be ready to re-enter the workforce. I commend this piece of legislation to the House and say to the opposition: we fix the problems that you create.

Debate interrupted.