Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

(1)

That the Senate notes that the Community Affairs Legislation Committee report, Provisions of the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Other Measures) Bill 2005 and the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work) Bill 2005, tabled in the Senate on 28 November 2005 recommended:

… the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations reassess which of the guidelines under the package are to be disallowable by the Parliament; that is, that it ensure key aspects of the guidelines be determined by disallowable instruments. This will ensure consistency in application as well as appropriate Parliamentary scrutiny. In particular, the Committee recommends that guidelines dealing with what constitutes unsuitable paid employment, special family circumstances, suitable and unsuitable activities for participation, and compliance issues are based on disallowable instruments.

(2)

That the following matter be referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 September 2006:

The extent and effectiveness of the following regulations made under the Social Security Act 1991 in giving effect to the recommendation of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee’s report:

(a)

Social Security (Activity Agreement Requirements) (DEST) Determination 2006 [F2006L00390];

(b)

Social Security (Activity Agreement Requirements) (DEWR) Determination 2006 [F2006L00338];

(c)

Social Security (Activity Agreement Requirements) (FaCSIA) Determination 2006 [F2006L00348];

(d)

Social Security (Prospective Determinations for Parenting Payment Recipients) (DEWR) Guidelines 2006 [F2006L00336];

(e)

Social Security (Reasonable Excuse) (DEST) Determination 2006 [F2006L00397];

(f)

Social Security (Reasonable Excuse) (DEWR) Determination 2006 [F2006L00340];

(g)

Social Security (Reasonable Excuse) (FaCSIA) Determination 2006 [F2006L00350];

(h)

Social Security (Special Circumstances relating to a Person’s Family) (DEWR) Determination 2006 [F2006L00339];

(i)

Social Security (Special Circumstances relating to a Person’s Family) (FaCSIA) Determination 2006 [F2006L00349];

(j)

Social Security (Unsuitable Work) (DEWR) Determination 2006 [F2006L00341]; and

(k)

Social Security (Unsuitable Work) (FaCSIA) Determination 2006 [F2006L00347].

This motion relates to what I believe is an extremely important issue, and I seek to have the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee review the legislative instruments that implement the Welfare to Work legislation. We had what I consider a fairly limited debate when the Welfare to Work legislation went through this place, and only three days of committee hearings. During the second reading debate in the Senate, through to the Committee of the Whole debate and the Senate committee hearings, we heard a number of concerns expressed about the implementation of the legislation.

Everyone is well aware of the concerns of the Greens—and, I think, of most members on this side of the chamber—about the impact that these significant changes will have on the most disadvantaged in our society. The legislative instruments were implemented as a means of dealing with some of these concerns about the implementation of the legislation, because a lot that is left up to the interpretation of the secretary of the department, of departmental officers and of Centrelink officers will have profound implications for the people who are subjected to the Welfare to Work regime.

During the committee process, a number of recommendations were made about things that should be put into legislative instruments. I note that during the process of debate a number of concerns were raised about things that were to be left in the guidelines. There were commitments made about addressing issues in legislative instruments. Some of those issues have been picked up in the legislative instruments and were tabled in this place. I did not seek to disallow those instruments because, while they look to me to be not fully adequate to cover the issues that need to be covered, some instruments are better than others. But I do think that, while they are being implemented, the committee should be reviewing their effectiveness.

I draw the Senate’s attention to recommendation 2 of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee report on the inquiry into the provisions of the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Other Measures) Bill 2005 and the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work) Bill 2005. Recommendation 2 of the report states:

... the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations reassess which of the guidelines under the package are to be disallowable by the Parliament; that is, that it ensure key aspects of the guidelines be determined by disallowable instruments. This will ensure consistency in application as well as appropriate Parliamentary scrutiny.

I believe that the appropriate response to ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny is to refer it to the committee to review the effectiveness of these instruments: whether the instruments are adequate, whether the specific instruments cover all of the issues and whether all the issues are covered by them. The recommendation of the committee goes on to state:

In particular, the Committee recommends that guidelines dealing with what constitutes unsuitable paid employment, special family circumstances, suitable and unsuitable activities for participation, and compliance issues are based on disallowable instruments.

I think everybody would agree that those issues are extremely significant to people affected by these changes. I believe there are some errors by omission in the instruments. There are gaps and inconsistencies, and promises and assurances made during the debate on this legislation have not been delivered on. We need to ensure that these legislative instruments are fair and equitable, that not too many sensitive issues are left to the discretion of either the secretary of the department or those implementing the guidelines—for example, Centrelink—and that there are clear guidelines around the things that are left to their discretion.

I also remind people that I believe the level of a development of a society—the maturity and humanity of its culture—is not measured by how it treats its foremost citizens but by the way it looks after the welfare of its least fortunate. That should be borne in mind whenever we look at these types of issues. We face a significant challenge in Australia in that the gap between rich and poor continues to grow. We do not seem to be making it any smaller—that is for sure.

We know that it is the size of this gap that is having quite a significant impact on people within our society. It is not really the objective wealth of the disadvantaged that is the best indicator—and I have talked about this issue in this place—of the amount of crime and conflict and the level of chronic illness; it is actually the fact that the gap exists in the first place. We need to ensure that we are addressing that specific issue. I believe that these changes are one of the most significant group of changes to affect the welfare system in this country in a very long time, which is why I think we need to do everything we can to ensure that it is fair and equitable.

I am not convinced by the rhetoric that we heard from the government about how this will in fact be better for the most disadvantaged in our society. I do not believe it, and I am not convinced by the issues that have been brought up here and that the government has put on the table. Be that as it may, the government brought in this legislation, and I think it is now incumbent on us as legislators to make sure that the legislative instruments that are in place actually do deal with the significant issues that have been raised by the community and by the most disadvantaged.

During the discussions, as I said, there were a number of issues raised. I want to address some of them now and look at how they were picked up by the instruments that have been tabled to date. In saying that, I am also aware that some of the issues that were brought up were supposed to be dealt with by guidelines. Those guidelines, as we heard in this place the other day, will not be available until 3 July. We have not seen them. They are not being covered as legislative instruments. They are not having the parliamentary scrutiny that the committee report recommended. It recommended that there were many key issues that should be determined by disallowable instruments to allow parliamentary scrutiny, which is why I am trying to refer these issues to the community affairs committee so that it can have that due level of parliamentary scrutiny.

I believe we need to do the best we can to ensure that these regulations are fair, just and equitable, and that they are actually helping people that are affected by what I still maintain are draconian changes. I have looked at the recommendations from the report that I have just mentioned. I have also been looking at the community concerns that have been raised in the inquiry and in public fora. I have also been looking at some of the answers that we got back from estimates on some of the issues, to look at how effectively these issues are being covered in the legislative instruments. The legislative instruments that we are looking at cover a range of issues such as special circumstances relating to a person’s family, activity agreements and compliance issues in particular.

I would like to touch on compliance issues now before I go into the specifics of some of the legislative instruments. As far as I can find in looking at the legislative instruments, compliance issues are not dealt with by one specific instrument, so they are much more difficult to look at as a block. They are not dealt with in the same way as the others. There is not a single disallowable instrument that deals with compliance. There are a number of things about compliance in the act—as we all know, the draconian breaching of people and what is going to happen to those people when they are breached. There is a ‘reasonable excuse’ legislative instrument, which I will go to in a minute.

I think it is arguable that the compliance regime has not been wholly outlined and implemented, as was recommended by the committee that I highlighted earlier. I do not think it is as clear as the committee had intended in the recommendation that it should be. Because it is not clearly in the form of a disallowable instrument, it does not allow this chamber to have the level of scrutiny that I believe is particularly important when we are dealing with compliance. There are still significant elements of the compliance regime that will be in the guidelines—which, as I highlighted earlier, despite this legislation coming into force in the very near future on 1 July, which is a weekend, will not be available until 3 July. I am also concerned that some of this compliance regime will be at the discretion of individual Centrelink or Job Network staff. I do not believe that is good enough. It should be essential that more scrutiny is given to the compliance regime and compliance process issues than has been given through the legislative instruments that are available at the moment.

As I said, during the limited and constrained debate on these issues, we heard a lot of concerns by community organisations, peak representative groups, church groups and charities. I would like to outline a few of those groups so that people can understand the wide spread of concern in the community. There was ACOSS, the Welfare Rights Network, the Australian Council of the Disabled, the Council of Single Mothers and Their Children, the Sole Parents Union, the Physical Disabilities Council of Australia, Brain Injury Australia, Catholic Welfare, Anglicare, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, ACROD, Jobs Australia and the various state COSSes and state disability councils. There was widespread concern from groups who wrote in about many and varied issues.

A few of their concerns were addressed in the legislation—not many—and I acknowledge that many of them dealt with the body of the legislation and cannot really be dealt with in the legislative instruments. Many of their concerns, as I said, were related to the substance of the act, which I acknowledge cannot be modified as much I would like it to be by instruments or regulations. For example, going back to the issue we are concerned about, there is the reduced rate of access of sole parents, people with a disability moving from PPS to DSP and onto Newstart, inadequate funding for places and intensive programs of employment assistance, moving people from parenting payment single onto Newstart, and all those issues which are still of deep concern to many of us.

Looking over some of the specific legislative instruments, I have many concerns. I have had some input from some community groups about the effectiveness and the coverage of some of these disallowable instruments. For example, if you look at activity statement requirements, there is concern that they are not comprehensive enough, that the wording in some places is very general and is open to interpretation and dispute, and that there are many matters that are up to the opinion of the secretary. That came up repeatedly during the committee discussions, and many, many concerns were raised about the opinion of the secretary and the discretionary nature of some of the decisions that will be made.

We have many concerns because we have not seen the guidelines yet, so we do not know how they interact with the legislative instruments and the activity agreements. There is concern that they are not comprehensive enough. There are issues around what has and has not been included, and what constitutes unsuitable work. There is provision, for example, for when it takes you longer than 60 minutes to get to work, but we do not believe it is detailed enough for those with disabilities in particular. As was articulated earlier, many of us have extreme concerns about the impact of the Welfare to Work changes for those on disability support being forced onto Newstart. But we are particularly concerned that there is not enough adequate provision for people with a disability who are required to travel to work, as it is going to take them far longer to travel somewhere.

There are also the issues of child-care costs and how they are interpreted. There is the cost of personal-care equipment for those with a disability and the additional equipment expenses required for those trying to find work. There are the issues of those caring for people with a disability. The emotional and physical wellbeing of the person with a disability should be included. There are concerns about how some of the requirements for the determination of level of illness and disability will be implemented and the likelihood of different activities aggravating this. There is a big role for the medical profession there, and we do not believe the instruments clearly articulate the role of the medical profession and how they interact with the legislative instruments.

We have concerns about how the legislative instruments deal with those with a mental illness. There was a lot of discussion in the committee about how people with mental illnesses, specifically episodic illnesses, will be affected by these changes. There are also concerns about the participation requirement exemptions for those in remote areas. I understand some of this has been dealt with in regulations in the past. How those regulations are to be changed, we do not know because we do not see those until 3 July. We do not know the level that will now be dealt with in the legislative instruments as compared to the guidelines. It is very difficult to tell what has been left out of the legislative instruments and will be picked up in the guidelines—again, we have not seen the guidelines so we do not know.

During the discussions there was a great deal of concern expressed about those impacted by and subject to domestic violence. I do not consider that that legislative instrument deals with those issues very well at all. For example, a determination must be made within four weeks of separation or bereavement. In many cases, grief takes a much longer period. We cannot confine grief to a limited period of four weeks, for example. There are issues around hiding from violent partners and how going back to the same Centrelink office, or another office, may lead to interaction with your former partner. There are a lot of issues around that, and a lot of issues are left up to the discretion of the secretary.

There are likely to be extreme difficulties for staff implementing some of these guidelines. One particular statement jumps out at me in that legislative instrument. It says, with regard to matters to be taken into account when making a judgment, that there is ‘significant adverse impact on the person’s emotional or physical wellbeing’ and that this ‘will prevent, or is likely to prevent, the person from both being able to look for work and being able to participate in training activities.’ In my opinion, this should probably be left to someone’s professional psychological judgment rather than leaving it up to somebody at Centrelink—and that is not having a go at anybody at Centrelink. I think these are extremely complex issues and, when you are dealing with the issue of domestic violence, which is particularly sensitive, there is no strict rule book. I do not believe this legislative instrument has sufficiently dealt with these issues. I think a committee needs to look at these issues. These legislative instruments need to be carefully considered to ensure that they are delivering, as I said earlier—that they are fair and just and do not adversely disadvantage the most disadvantaged members of our community.

Another area of concern is the participation requirements and exemptions for those who are homeless. While these areas are partially covered by reasonable excuses, we do not believe that they are adequate. They are not addressed in the activity requirement statements or the activity requirement legislative instruments. Again, it is ad hoc. One would argue that that is another most significantly disadvantaged section of our community which is not being adequately addressed in these legislative instruments—again, another reason why we need a review of these legislative instruments to make sure they are delivering a fair, just and equitable system.

I really do not see why the government would not support a review of these instruments, particularly once the guidelines come out, so that we can ensure nobody is falling through the gaps and that this system is being implemented in such a way that people are assisted into the workforce but are not significantly disadvantaged. Nobody is disagreeing with the fact that, as a community, we should be helping as many people as we can into the workforce, but there are significant issues which need to be dealt with around that. I very strongly believe that these instruments have many gaps and need to be looked at and addressed. The way to do that is to send it to the committee so that they can have a look at this and then come back and report to this place about how these instruments are implementing the effect of the act.