Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the motion be amended to read—That the House:

(1) notes:

(a) the positive impact compulsory and voluntary income management is having on the wellbeing of families and children in Perth and the Kimberley in Western Australia;

(b) an independent evaluation of income management in Western Australia reported that income management had made a positive impact on the lives of women and children including increasing their ability to meet essential needs and save money;

(c) that a non discriminatory model of income management system has been rolled out in the Northern Territory to help children who are being neglected or are at risk of neglect;

(d) that more than 1,700 people have moved off income management across the Northern Territory including because they have found jobs and apprenticeships or improved their parenting skills; and

(e) that income management produces positive life impacts for individuals acquiring new skills through training and getting jobs;

(2) welcomes the Government’s decision to trial income management in other communities to help those families and individuals receiving welfare payments who:

(a) are identified as vulnerable by Centrelink social workers;

(b) are referred by child protection workers; or

(c) volunteer to participate to improve their ability to manage and save money and provide the essentials of life for their children; and

(3) calls for continued evaluation and monitoring of income management in the new and existing locations with a view to assisting further expansion for the benefit of vulnerable Australians—

I move In my last speech regarding these matters I spoke a great deal about Western Australia. I do not propose to do that tonight. The member for Durack and others from Western Australia can do that. It has been a long time since I have had anything to do with Western Australia. But in the conclusion of that speech I spoke about the income management and other welfare reforms which have been undertaken by this government. I spoke about their extension to other areas around Australia, in particular into my own community and I think that these reforms are critical but only if they are matched with opportunity. Specifically, I asked for them to be put into the community of Playford. I have been not only talking about this in parliament but also lobbying government ministers because I believe that while Playford, which incorporates the old city of Elizabeth and the old city of Munno Parra, has always been a great working-class community it has always been a community that has been buffeted by changes in the Australian economy, in particular the reduction of tariffs and the demolition of unskilled jobs. So we find that while the average unemployment rate across the country is 5.1 per cent, something we can all be proud of, the average rate across Playford is 12.7 per cent. In some suburbs it is as high as 20 per cent. We know that in some of these communities up to 48.2 per cent of the working age population is in receipt of some Centrelink benefit. We know that the average duration of unemployment is 54 weeks, as against the national average of 36 weeks. We know that all of this has a devastating impact on people's employment prospects, particularly in the new economy.

It is interesting to note that in Playford we used to have a problem with jobs as there were just not enough jobs. When I came out of university I ended up, as a university graduate, being a cleaner. I ended up working in warehouses. I ended up being a trolley collector. I ended up doing casual work of all shapes and sizes—and if I were doing that work then almost certainly I would have displaced someone with less education, someone who was less able to participate in the education system and in the economy.

We know that for such a long period people just did not have the opportunity to work. Of course, unemployment is the most destructive thing that you can do to a family. It is the most destructive thing that you can do to a community. We know that out of all of that has come the terrible blight of decades of unemployment. We have had intergenerational unemployment, simply families that could not get a start even after education and desperate attempts to find employment. Even after really trying hard, they could not find work and this led to all sorts of social problems.

The destruction of the family unit in many of these communities led to problems that were symptoms of this economic and social breakdown but ended up being problems in their own right. So we know that many of these communities need both specific action as to and specific changes to our welfare system. They need the linking of income management with the social security system and the child protection system. We know we have to interlink those systems so that they effectively manage people's incomes and effectively give people the assistance that they need to stabilise their households and, from there, gain employment, education and participation in the broader community. But we also know that we have to provide not just training but the prospect of a job at the end of it.

Governments can do things and I think in this area we have done a great job in terms of income management. Some five of 10 communities around the country are getting income protection and the others of the 10 are getting special programs to intervene to help teenage mothers and the like. But we are not at the end of it. A job is the most valuable thing. A government can take action but we need to provide work. That is why it is so good to see that in my community Holden's have provided a guarantee of 20 jobs off the line to long-term unemployed people who have completed a three-month, five-day-a-week training course. This training course is designed specifically to lift people out of unemployment and into work. It is designed specifically to intervene in people's lives and give them personal presentation and literacy and numeracy skills. It is designed basically around employability. I think that is critical, along with the government's welfare reforms, to sending the message that, although we expect more of people in this new economy and we are not prepared to leave people behind anymore after two decades of economic change, we are prepared to provide opportunity. Nearly all of the money to run these employability courses, these pre-employment courses, comes from federal programs.

They need employers to engage and we have seen both Holden and Woolworths provide these opportunities, provide this work. We have seen Holden now running a second program again some 40 places in the program with 20 employment opportunities. We have also seen Woolworths at Blakes Crossing embark on the Fresh 40 Program, which is all about providing people who have been unemployed and giving them the employability skills so that they can get to work.

Welfare to work is about many things. It is about the government's changes, particularly around income management; particularly around team mothers. But it is also about embracing communities. It is about linking reform to opportunity. That is the critical part that has been missing in previous attempts. We have heard a lot about these matters over the years. We have seen many shock jocks say that if only people did a bit more or knocked on a few more doors they would get work. We have seen a lot of people frankly make excuses for those not seeking work. Neither approach is responsible. It is not responsible for community members; it is certainly not responsible for government members of MPs to advocate. Basically we need both reform which requires more of people and asks more of people in certain instances and it requires that they have stable households. It requires that they send their kids to school; it requires that they participate in the community the same way we would expect anybody to participate. It also requires the government and business and others to come up with the path to employment; to come up with a path out of the mire of intergenerational unemployment which can be so heartbreaking and so difficult and you can only feel for those people who often try. They try and they try and sometimes they get casual work and they just lift themselves out of these problems and something comes along, they lose their job and they are back on the heap.

We do not want to see that happening. We want to make sure that people are lifted out of poverty and lifted out of unemployment. We can only do that if we provide opportunity. As I said, for so long in these communities opportunity was absent. It is now the opposite. We now find that employers cannot fill vacancies; we find, in particular, employers who have skilled vacancies unable to find employment. We have to set up a system where we retrain those who are currently in employment. Retrain them to take on the work that is provided in the Defence industry; retrain them to work in the mines and in the civil construction area where there are going to be so many high paid opportunities and we will kick ourselves if we miss them. We need to retrain the unemployed—this group of people who have been left behind in previous economic growth; left behind after a decade of indifference by the coalition government, to these communities interests. We need to retrain them to take the unskilled jobs or the semi-skilled jobs that will be left behind in this great transition that we are going through. This great change in our terms of trade; this great economic bounty that will hit us which is presenting all sorts of challenges in all sorts of areas but one of them is this area and I think all of these reforms that the government has undertaken and which I personally lobbied for are the beginning of that transformation and the beginning of hope coming to these communities. I commend it to the house.'

Barry Haase (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise this evening to support this private member's motion. I believe income management, either compulsory or voluntary, has a valid place within Australian society regardless of the recipients colour or creed. This private members motion moved by a member of the government is rather refreshing. So many members of the government, because of their apparent high regard for equal opportunity, believe that the intervention by government with a program of income management somehow takes away the more important basic rights of individuals. This lofty, worldly view of human rights may be fine in debating circles however to hold a view that income management and its potential removal of basic or equal rights is more important than the lives of small innocent children, has moved me to support this motion. The motion is outlined in detail by the member for Wakefield. He highlights a number of statistical benefits as a result of income management. The negative impact of welfare does not discriminate against race as our moral responsibility to ensure all children—children of any heritage—trapped within the walls of welfare are fed, clothed, educated, safe and in a warm bed at night. These expectations must be realised for all children, not just some.

A few months ago the ABC, in cohorts with Animals Australia, put to air a carefully compiled piece to denigrate the live cattle export industry in Australia. I find it alarming that a population so ready to stop an industry in its tracks in an effort to stop the cruelty recently shown to be inflicted on animals overseas cannot show the same passion in response to the very real problem of cruelty to our children. The only explanation is that the population is unaware of the truth. That they have to be shown by the same people who pushed the button on their computer or got out of bed on a Sunday to attend a rally to influence a decision on something they know nothing about is remarkable. To choose to be sympathetic to animals and ignore our abused children, often in remote communities—children who have no voice and no button to push for help—is truly remarkable.

A government member: Surely you can do both.

Not necessarily multi-skilled. The Little children are sacred report of the Northern Territory board of inquiry into the protection of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse published in 2007 seems to have been forgotten. The board of inquiry into the protection of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse submitted an interim report to the Chief Minister in October 2006 and it said:

Sexual abuse of children is not restricted to those of Aboriginal descent … nor to just the Northern Territory. The phenomenon knows no racial, age or gender borders. It is a national and international problem.

The classic indicia of children likely to suffer neglect, abuse and/or sexual abuse are unfortunately, particularly apparent in Aboriginal communities. Family dysfunctionality, as a catch-all phrase, reflects and encompasses problems of alcohol and drug abuse, poverty, housing shortages, unemployment and the like. All of these issues exist in many Aboriginal communities.

I can stand here and espouse all manner of doctrine, but the truth of the matter is I do not have the answers to all of the problems faced by not only those in our remote Aboriginal communities but also those in the wider community who are suffering from the same—dare I say—social malaise.

I do know, however, that income management appears to be working and should be extended. It is instinctive to protect our young and we are morally bound to protect not only the young but also the feeble, the infirm, the disadvantaged. What sort of country have we become that our moral compass is so out of whack we have forgotten the horror that was made public in 2007? Women, children and the elderly are being abused on a daily basis and too many are pretending it is not happening. Income management ensures priority items such as rent, utilities, food, clothes, health items and basic household products are paid for. What it does not allow for is the spending of money on alcohol, pornography, tobacco, gambling products, gambling services, home brew kits or home brew concentrate, very specific.

The Northern Territory Centre for Disease Control provides sexually transmitted infection data for children in the Territory for 2000 to 2005. The following is from the Little children are sacred report:

The per capita rate of sexually transmitted infection amongst all Aboriginal people is between seven and thirty times greater than for non-Aboriginal people. From 2001 to 2005 of all SDIs diagnosed in Aboriginal people, 8 per cent occurred in children under the age of 16 years, compared with 3.2 per cent for non-Aboriginal children. SDIs are statistically more likely to be found in Aboriginal children. From 2001 to 2005, an STD was identified in 64 children aged under 12 years. Some 54 of these children were identified as aboriginal, five were identified as non-aboriginal and the cultural identity of another five was not reported.

Sixty-four children under the age of 12 years were identified as having sexually transmitted diseases. Regardless of racial origin, these figures are abhorrent. I very much doubt that these children were having sex of their own free will. I dare say the majority of these innocent children were from homes where alcohol and drug abuse is the norm and where welfare money was spent on getting high. If even one child is saved from both the physical pain and the ongoing mental anguish because of welfare quarantining, it is worth it. I challenge anyone to disagree with me and I dare any civil libertarian to look me in the eye and tell me I am wrong. I have seen the damage done, I have heard the stories and I am disappointed that we did not initiate income management sooner.

  Our welfare system in some cases creates long-term intergenerational dependency too often including those able to participate in work. Yes, good old-fashioned work. Work promotes self discipline and self-esteem—the Australian idiom of a fair day's work for a fair day's pay. Inability to manage money or spending in a manner that ignores the basic necessities has been a major problem in my remote communities. It is sadly a problem that for too long has been overlooked. Why, you may ask. I suggest because some bureaucrat decided that equal rights and political correctness were more important than mutual obligation. Going further than this motion, I would suggest that those communities which are supported by taxpayers but which have no chance of jobs are unsustainable. Imagine a life where each day rolls into another, one where nothing punctuates those days—no challenge, no responsibility, nothing to look forward to except the day the welfare cheque comes in. It is a life of boredom and hopelessness.

We have no right to take away a person's dignity; no right whatsoever to keep giving handouts and expect nothing in return. We must educate our people. We must move them to work. We must give back a sense of self pride. We must demand mutual obligation. Tough love is required. No matter what our colour, we instinctively know the difference between right and wrong from a very early age. Drugs and alcohol blur the ages of reality, but they do not change right from wrong.

There are civil libertarians who argue against income management, but I wonder if they have ever looked into the eyes of a child who is no longer raped by a drunk or drugged father, uncle, brother, cousin or neighbour. Have they looked into the eyes of a wife who is no longer beaten and raped by a husband fuelled by alcohol and drugs? I do not think so. If they had, they would support income management. There cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach to reform, and income management may not be the best answer to a range of insidious social conditions; but it is the best answer we have at this point in time. To ignore the plight of children locked within the walls of generational welfare is to be complicit in the horrendous outcomes of that cycle. I seriously support this motion.

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

This is an important issue. It slips through when everyone is trying to be politically correct around the way we view and identify issues, particularly those associated with welfare. What the member for Wakefield has been able to do is to ensure that our focus is firmly and unwaveringly fixed on families and children in particular. Just to reiterate, income management is an arrangement whereby a percentage of the income will be quarantined to be available for priority goods for families, such as food, housing, clothing, education and health care.

Income management is an essential tool necessary for individuals to participate, particularly families, in the normal discourse of life and for ensuring that their families will not miss out. There are many families in Australia that sometimes struggle to stretch their budget to ensure that they are providing the necessary support for basic elements of life. Sometimes, regrettably, because of various choices, particularly bad choices, that people make there is not enough money available in the family budget to ensure that provision for their family, particularly for their children, is met in an appropriate way.

One thing that this initiative seeks to do is ensure that individuals have the necessary skills and knowledge about how to manage their finances, things that many of us take for granted. But the truth of the matter is that it does not equally apply to everybody, particularly those on a limited income through a welfare system.

When we discuss things like this, often people want to talk about the fundamentals of human rights. In fact, the member for Durack just referred to that. I often speak about human rights in the House. But, first and foremost, in any discourse on human rights must be the human rights that prevail for children. A child who is being neglected or at risk of being neglected deserves to be assisted in having a brighter future under the care and guidance of their parents, particularly those who are capable of taking care of them. Sometimes they have to learn to take care of them. It would be a great tragedy to see people lose custody of their children simply because of lack of education and information on how to manage their family finances.

I have only been in my current electorate for a little over 12 months but within my former electorate was Macquarie Fields, which is a very significant housing commission area and certainly an economically challenged area. There are many issues there. I spent a lot of time there with people such as Father Chris Riley, trying to do things, particularly post the 2005 riots. I met up with a bloke who freely admitted he was a drug addict. When we were having some discussions about his financial situation, he became very morose. He admitted to me that if there had been some greater effort to actually control his welfare he may not have lost his three children. He thought he had a system available to him where he got his payments and all the rest of it. He had good intentions of looking after his kids, sending them to school and doing all the other things that most parents do. But when he got into drugs and alcohol and things like that, a lot of that fell away. In fact, so did his parental responsibilities of ensuring his kids went to school and a few other things.

The consequence was that the New South Wales government, through DOCS, moved in and, rightfully, put the children into foster homes where they, at least, could have an opportunity for a future. This bloke asserted to me, 'If there were some system of intervention, some system that could have prevailed, other than "Give me the cheque every fortnight"—some way that I could have been held to account for what I was not doing, I might have woken up to myself.' I think that is the point that the member for Wakefield made. This is not necessarily a case of people being bad or squandering their money and doing all those other things; a lot of it is just inexperience in doing the right thing, failing to learn and failing to see the relevance of that to children. (Time expired)

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to add my support tonight to the concept of income management. The reality is that right around this country, from different groups, different communities, different places, there are parents who are making decisions that are not always in the best interests of their child. Whether that is through human frailty or an intent to put their own priorities first and above that of their children, the outcomes can be the same. The children finish second, and that is a tragedy. It is something that we need to guard against.

I have said in the past that I believe there should be more times when, if a child is in danger or is in circumstances of such negativity in the home, children should be taken from their parents to protect them, to make their lives a better opportunity for them in the future. But it is the case that after times of crime or drug use or abuse of various substances, in circumstances where the parents are not making good decisions, then there is that place for income management. When the agencies have identified the families, the parents or the carers who need to be assisted then that is certainly the case and that should occur.

I welcome the fact that income management started as part of the Northern Territory intervention and continues today. I hope to see it rolled across the whole country, not only where we just say a particular area needs support and everyone in that area should be on income management, but also in those circumstances where state agencies have identified the opportunities for families to be assisted under an obligation, if nothing else. If they have identified those families then it does not matter what colour their skin is or what race or from what background they are. The important thing is that we have the will in this place to step in and do what needs to be done for the sake of the children. I certainly appreciate that there is wide bipartisan support for exactly these sorts of measures.

As part of this scenario, we know there are times when people will go out there and decide what the priorities are for their family. Sometimes it can be cigarettes, alcohol, drugs or maybe it is gambling. There are a lot of different vices in many respects that demonstrate that a person has a skewed view of the world. Those vices are the high priority and the needs of the child, whether it is good food on the table or clean clothes on the children, tend to come second. That is a tragedy and again it goes to the point that, in all the cases when families are identified as being in need of assistance such as income support, this is where it comes in.

We know that here has been success. There have been people who have embraced the obligation put upon them and have risen above the old circumstances under which they lived. But we need to be careful as well. People need to never forget that in these cases of adversity or when things are going wrong in their lives, the first thing they should do is look in the mirror and decide what part they have played. We need to be very careful in this country that we do not always look for someone who has failed or has these sorts of issues. What has society done wrong? The reality is that we need to look at ourselves first. We need to have that sense of personal responsibility before we look for others to blame. So we need to be careful that the victim culture in this country does not let people off the hook, so that they do not embrace their own weaknesses, so that they can work on improving themselves to get themselves out of trouble with the help of society.

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.