Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Bartlett is quite right to be critical of the government members’ report of the Senate Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Education inquiry into the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Vocational Rehabilitation Services) Bill 2006. He is correct when he says the government merely parroted the propaganda from the minister’s second reading speech. I suppose the government members had little choice but to do much else because they were not able to provide any argument as to how these amendments would assist people from welfare to work, which has been the problem with the whole Welfare to Work package.

The second reading speech of the Minister for Workforce Participation, Dr Stone, consisted of a whole four paragraphs. The first paragraph described the technical approach of the bill and where it fitted in to other pieces of legislation. The second paragraph indicated that the government was going to introduce some contestability and therefore provide choice to people with disabilities or injuries. The third paragraph generally talked about Welfare to Work changes in a very global sense. And the fourth paragraph—with no supporting evidence, no data, no documentation, no argument—simply said:

The amendments will enhance the smooth operation of the legislation so that job seekers among the targeted disadvantage groups of the Welfare to Work reforms—long-term unemployed people, parents of school age children, mature age Australians and people with disabilities—can continue to be supported and assisted to build their capacity and find work through employment and related services.

Strangely enough, that is the same conclusion the government members came to in their committee report and, again, with no argument, no demonstration. Senator Bartlett was correct in reminding the Senate that time and time again during the Welfare to Work debate that went on in this chamber the government was asked the question: how does simply cutting payments to people with disabilities or people on welfare provide any plan, progress or incentive for people to go into work? That question remains unanswered today. This legislation certainly does not assist in that process. In fact, we believe it will probably make it worse in many respects.

Senator Barnett came into the chamber—also a member of the committee and, as I understand, the only government member who is going to speak in this debate in support of this bill—and did somewhat better than the minister’s second reading speech, which consisted of four paragraphs. However, for the first 11 minutes of his speech he tried to politicise this whole debate by accusing Labor of not being genuine about welfare and work. He said some things which are simply dishonest, such as that we, the members of the opposition, wanted all people with disabilities to stay on welfare until they were eligible for the old age pension. How he could ever come to that conclusion given the debate that has gone on in this chamber over the last couple of years really beggars belief because that has never been, and will never ever be, the ALP position. We want to treat the most vulnerable people in our community with respect and we want to give them dignity in the workplace. We want to help people with disabilities to get the skills in order to help them obtain appropriate employment to give them dignity in the workplace as well as dignity in life.

But the approach of this government is to force people into work which may be unsuitable and not cost effective by lowering the threshold of the hours of work required, otherwise they will lose their disability payments. While Senator Barnett talked about how the government want to help people with disabilities get work, at the same time this legislation cuts the pensioner education supplement to a lot of people. On the one hand the government say, ‘We want to help people get the skills and vocational training to get genuine work,’ but they simply mouth those words. There is nothing to back them up, because their actions demonstrate that they seek to do the opposite: they seek to remove the education supplement from people in many of these disadvantaged categories.

So for the first 11 minutes Senator Barnett went on this trip rewriting history and he was completely inaccurate. While he did attend the committee inquiry into this bill, I am amazed at how he could come to the conclusions contained in the government members’ report or that reflected the contribution he made tonight.

After 11 minutes, he then went on to say that people have to be accountable for their actions and they have to be able to say thank you to the community. Again, this seems to be the view that everyone who cannot find work—people with disabilities, whether they be mental or physical disabilities; slackers or bludgers; or people who want a free ride on the welfare system—should get up, show some initiative and they would all get work. I think that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what actually happens in the welfare system. We are talking about some of the most vulnerable people in the community who need assistance, help, education, training and support to get them back into the workforce. To simply come along with a stick and say, ‘We are going to cut your payments,’ does none of the things which need to be done in order to treat people with respect and dignity.

In his last couple of minutes I thought he was actually going to address the contents of the bill, but I was sadly disappointed because the closest he came to that was to say that this bill will provide people with the choice to get back into work and that it provides people with the same choice that Work Choices provides. If that is true, that this provides the same choice that World Choices provides, that is a sad indictment on this legislation. I am not going to talk much about Work Choices, but I will say that everybody understands the choice that Work Choices provides—that is, take it or leave it. In some respects, I suppose Senator Barnett was right: the choice that this provides in terms of the contestability of rehabilitation services, ultimately, will also be a take it or leave it choice. I will talk more about that later.

Then, to my disappointment, Senator Barnett sat down. He did not provide any evidence or any argument as to how these amendments are going to assist people to get back into work. It was simply hollow rhetoric on the belief that because the general bill and the policy position is called ‘Welfare to Work’ that means that if we have concerns about its practical application—and, of course, vote against elements of that reform—we are not genuine about reform. He ought to look past the name of the bill and look at the effect of the bill, and then he may begin to understand the difficulties that we have with this bill and that people with disabilities will have with it.

We say that this bill is yet another misguided piece of welfare legislation introduced by the Howard government. It represents a continuation of the most significant downgrading of the income support system since the Social Security Act was introduced in 1947. ACOSS has estimated that over the next three years approximately 81,000 people with disabilities will be put onto lower payments courtesy of the government’s previous so-called Welfare to Work legislation. Previously, the DSP was made available to those who were deemed to be unable to work at least 30 hours a week. The benchmark has been shifted to 15 hours. This has forced many people onto lower payments, most commonly Newstart, which in turn limits their access to education support. I have already mentioned the hypocrisy of this government when it says that it wants to provide people with better vocational training and better access to education, when the effect of its legislation will be to deny many people who have an existing entitlement access to the pensioner education supplement in the future.

These changes are based on the government’s misguided philosophy that reducing income support will increase workplace participation. This is despite ample evidence to the contrary which shows that countries that have invested heavily in employment assistance have been the most successful in reducing unemployment and welfare dependency. The current changes with regard to the pensioner education supplement would see a person lose their access to the PES who came onto the DSP during the transition period between the introduction and the implementation.

So we already have measures that reduce people’s access to income support, and now this bill seeks to further limit access to training for welfare recipients. This government’s approach is quite clear: place people on lower payments, deny them access to training and education, and simply tell them to go and get a job. Genuine welfare reform should be about boosting investment in employment assistance and providing people with the capacity and skills to find a job and to keep a job. It should not be about penalising some of the most vulnerable people in our society by reducing their payments and denying them access to education. This is occurring at a time when the country is experiencing significant skills shortages.

This bill also deals with the opening up of contestability for vocational rehabilitation services. In principle, Labor does not oppose a form of benchmarking to ensure that services provided by the Commonwealth are actually working efficiently and effectively. We support that type of benchmarking approach. Labor does not oppose competitive tendering of vocational rehabilitation services provided appropriate safeguards and quality control mechanisms are in place. However, this bill does not provide such protections.

Rehabilitation services with the aim of promoting transition into the workforce are currently exclusively provided by the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service—a service which currently provides vocational rehabilitation for nearly 44,000 clients. This bill opens up a tendering process so that private providers can tender for the contracts. Community organisations and disability advocates who made submissions to the inquiry have indicated a number of concerns with this process.

CRS, a service which is generally well regarded amongst allied health professionals, currently provides services such as the assessment of an individual’s capacity to work, specialist counselling, workplace assessments and supervised on-the-job training with the aim of assisting clients with a disability to return or join the workforce. It is a specialist service which provides access to allied health professionals such as occupational therapists, psychologists and rehabilitation counsellors. These are professionals who have skills in the rehabilitation sector and an understanding of the unique issues faced by people with disabilities who want to return to work.

The bill removes the requirement that individual rehabilitation programs are approved by the secretary under the Disabilities Services Act. It is of great concern to me that this legislation does not provide appropriate guarantees that the quality and standards of this service will be retained under the tendering process. The National Association of Community Based Children’s Services is concerned that the lack of safeguards could lead to a reduction in services, poorer rehabilitation outcomes and fewer specialist services.

In my state of Victoria there are a number of CRS services that have a specialist focus in dealing with specific areas, such as mental health or acquired brain injuries. These facilities provide the same services as other CRS services, such as neuropsychology, social work and occupational therapy. These health professionals have specialised skills in working with people from these cohorts. It is my concern, and a concern reflected in a number of submissions received by our committee during the inquiry, that under this piece of legislation these specialised services may no longer exist.

This legislation simply fails to enshrine regulatory mechanisms which focus on achieving the best outcomes for people. It also fails to ensure a consistent national service quality. Market forces alone will not ensure accessibility of services, appropriateness of services, quality of services or even positive rehabilitation outcomes for consumers. There is a genuine concern that opening vocational rehabilitation services to the for-profit sector will shift the focus from rehabilitation outcomes to profit making; it will draw services away from less profitable regional centres and specialist units. By moving away from a centralised service, we risk a reduction in the consistency of services, the capacity of the health professionals to share knowledge and information and a decrease in accessibility for some consumers—a key issue for many people with disabilities.

The statutory right to appeal the content of individual rehab programs has been removed without an alternative safeguard. The right to a review is especially important when an activity agreement comprises a compulsory rehabilitation program, as a failure to comply can result in a possible eight-week non-payment period. The extent of the safeguard the government have provided rests with the independent Complaints Resolution and Referral Service. It is a service that helps people talk about their issues and find a resolution, yet this is nothing more than a counselling service and is totally unsatisfactory. People with disabilities have enough barriers to participation. When there is a problem with the system, there needs to be an appropriate failsafe mechanism for dealing with complaints. It is a concern that the inadequacy of this mechanism will make people reluctant to access these services.

The government has shown scant regard for the concerns of those community groups who have appeared before the Senate inquiry and has once again shown its utter contempt for the legislative process. As we are debating this issue in the Senate today, the government has already opened up the rehabilitation market for tender. In fact, the entire tendering process was commenced and completed, with the exception of the awarding of the actual contracts, a month before the bill was even introduced into the parliament. The minister responsible released an industry alert as far back as June 2006, with applications for tender closing on 8 November 2006. This really shows the complete arrogance of the government in dealing with this issue. The government demonstrates an intent to do these things, opens up a tender process and finalises it, but does not award the contracts. The whole system is finalised before this bill is even introduced into the parliament, before the committee has had a chance to inquire into the bill and report back to the Senate and before the Senate has had a chance to actually debate the bill—in fact, before the House of Representatives has had an opportunity to debate the bill. The government has already determined where it will go, and I think that shows a complete disregard for the concerns of the people that this bill affects. As I mentioned earlier, there was a four-paragraph second reading speech by the minister. One government member is on the speakers list so far to actually speak to this bill. It is a bill that is contentious and into which the Senate inquired in the form of its committee system.

Labor supports welfare reform that genuinely seeks to help people move from the welfare system into the workplace. This is achieved by investing in people—providing them with the mechanisms, the education, the skills and the confidence needed to participate in the workforce. This piece of legislation does not address any of these issues. In fact, it further penalises those who receive social security payments. It is a poor attempt by the government to rectify some of the many oversights in the so-called Welfare to Work legislation; instead, it has succeeded in only compounding existing mistakes as well as creating new ones.