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

The Greens oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:

(1)      Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 22) to page 4 (line 11), TO BE OPPOSED.

This amendment, and a series of other Greens amendments, relate to the rehabilitation arrangements, the secretary’s role in rehabilitation arrangements and the certification of private providers.

As I said in my speech on the second reading, the Greens do not oppose, per se, the provision of rehabilitation services by private providers. We are concerned about some of the provisions in this bill which, we believe, may leave the system open for providing inappropriate services, or for providing services that potentially do not meet the standards. This specific amendment opposes the secretary’s ability to enter into an arrangement with an uncertified private rehabilitation service, because we do not believe that the arrangements allowed for in the bill are satisfactory.

We are also looking at the fact that provisions of the bill currently provide private providers with a 12-month grace period in which to obtain certification. CRS is currently meeting standards which have long been regarded as important to the provision of quality services to people who are accessing assistance at a time when they are in significant personal and emotional need. The certification process is very important to clients and the community alike. It assures us that the agencies people are seeking assistance from meet certain professional standards. A full 12 months of practising without necessarily meeting these standards could, we believe, result in unnecessary risk to vulnerable people. Therefore, we are deeply concerned that people are going to be accessing services where providers do not necessarily meet certain standards and the standards that are required of CRS.

In my speech on the second reading, I went into some detail about our concerns around this. We are concerned that standards will not be met, meaning that people will not receive a standard of service that we as a community expect, and that it will unfairly disadvantage CRS, who are already meeting the standards. They will be competing with private operators and private providers who do not have to meet the standards and therefore may not have the same financial requirements on them for meeting the standards. They will in fact be getting a 12-month grace period in which they do not have to meet standards and will therefore have an unfair advantage when competing with CRS. The other concern is that clients will not be receiving the standard of care that the community, the clients themselves and their family members expect. I commend this amendment to the Senate.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I indicate Labor’s position in relation to this amendment and, in doing so, make a suggestion or a request to Senator Siewert about the order in which these amendments are moved. As I indicated in my speech on the second reading, Labor do not in principle support the contestability of vocational rehabilitation services. We believe there may well be some benefits to consumers from that. The issue is what will work, and we are very mindful of the position that has been put to us by a range of welfare and disability advocacy organisations. We are also mindful of the comments by Mr Mendoza, which I alluded to in the second reading debate, about the problems that the Mental Health Council of Australia sees are confronting people who suffer mental illness. They do not believe that they are adequately safeguarded against in this legislation.

I indicate to Senator Siewert that we have some difficulty in supporting this particular amendment, particularly because there are some measures in the subsection she seeks to remove which are in fact protective. For example, under item 4—the new subsection 19.2(a) and (b)—there are requirements around certificates of compliance for provision of rehabilitation programs. That is a useful and important thing to have in legislation. Labor are minded to support the sunset provision which was proposed in subsections (2) and (3). These are the provisions which deal with the waiver of the requirement to hold a certificate of compliance. I doubt that Senator Abetz is going to indicate on behalf of the government that these amendments are supported—

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You are reminded.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I could be wrong on that, Senator Abetz. Labor’s position on the amendment that has been moved would depend on whether or not Greens amendment (2) is successful. My preference would be for Senator Siewert to move amendment (2) first and then we could move schedule 1, because our position depends on that.

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

I will postpone schedule 1 at this stage. I will move it later on, subsequent to amendments (2) and (3), which relate to the right of appeal on rehabilitation programs. I will move amendment (2), with the agreement of the Senate.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So you want to postpone considering schedule 1?

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

Yes, I want to postpone consideration of schedule 1 until we deal with amendments (2) and (3).

The Temporary Chairman:

Do you now want to move amendments (2) and (3) together or just amendment (2)?

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

I will just move amendment (2).

The Temporary Chairman:

So you are now moving amendment (2) on sheet 5193?

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

Yes, that is correct. I move Greens amendment (2) on sheet 5193:

(2)    Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (after line 11), after subsection 19(3), add:

        (4)    The arrangements provided for in subsections (2) and (3) cease to operate on 30 June 2008.

This is putting in a sunset clause so that provisions for the certification period are specifically just for a 12-month window. The intention is that, if the bill goes through and the act is amended, the department secretary can enter into arrangements with uncertified private rehabilitation services for a period of 12 months.

We believe this is a clear and unambiguous sunset provision that ensures the secretary can only enter into arrangements with private service providers during the first 12 months of the operation of the new provisions. While the government has said that the intention is that there be only a 12-month period during which new service providers can apply for certification of compliance, this is not how this section reads. The bill as it stands allows the secretary to enter into arrangements with an uncertified service provider at any time, provided the secretary is convinced that within 12 months of that time the provider might be able to achieve certification.

It is one thing to allow for a period of grace for rehabilitation services to obtain certification at the introduction of the bill; it is quite another, we believe, that this be an ongoing arrangement. We need to ensure that there are high standards among rehabilitation service providers, and we do not want to create a situation where this lack of certification is an ongoing issue. We believe this could be an incentive for providers that have cut-rate services to not achieve compliance. Having an ongoing provision such as this for 12-month certification does not encourage service providers who are genuinely interested in maintaining ongoing provision of services to maintain a long-term involvement in the market, as it were. We believe that it is more appropriate that, if the overall amendment gets up, all rehabilitation services be given 12 months in which to become compliant and that there then be a sunset clause.

We believe that 12 months is adequate warning to service providers that they will need to become compliant. The 12-month window provides an incentive to ensure that they undertake becoming compliant straightaway. They have 12 months in which to do that. We believe that is ample time to achieve that certification. After that time, if service providers want to become involved in providing rehabilitation services to people required to have rehabilitation services, they will have adequate time to decide if they want to become compliant and to do so. We believe this is an important amendment to ensure adequate standards are met in the provision of rehabilitation to clients.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not sure whether the minister wants to indicate the government’s position first, but I am happy to indicate the view of the opposition. Labor is supportive of a sunset provision in relation to those subsections in the legislation which enable a provider who is not holding a certificate of compliance to provide rehabilitation services to in fact provide them. I think Senator Siewert’s suggestion that a 12-month window is sufficient for private providers to ensure they become compliant in order to provide these government services is a sensible one. I look forward to hearing the government’s view on this.

I indicate one thing, and I apologise to Senator Siewert for this. It was only when looking more closely at this amendment that it occurred to me that it might be appropriate for you to consider the sunset provision as applying only to section 19(2)(b) rather than to the entirety of section 19(2) because subsection (2)(a) is in fact the general requirement that a certificate be held. I could be wrong—perhaps the advisers in the minister’s advisers box can confirm it—but it seems to me that if the amendment as drafted proceeds there will be a sunset provision around the certificate of compliance issue. It might be useful if the minister could indicate the government’s position on this while Senator Siewert considers it.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that the government does not support the amendment. The proposal by Senator Siewert, as I understand it, would have a 12-month sunset period after which no new provider could come into the scheme and be given the benefit of 12 months to become compliant. That would seriously disadvantage any new entrant into the area of this particular service provision. There are sufficient protections along the way, and if a new service provider comes along their services will be particularly monitored to ensure that they comply with the high standards that are expected. They will, one would hope, be counselled, assisted or whatever to be able to become certified after that 12-month period.

The reason we have this 12-month window of opportunity for certification is that we believe it is quite a substantial cost for any organisation to get that certification, and to require them to get that certification prior to them getting a contract could put a severe financial burden on them in circumstances where they will not get any return from any contract. Therefore, we believe that if an organisation is deemed sufficiently suitable to be a contract winner then within 12 months they can get the official certification that is required. There is that ongoing standard, but in the first 12 months there will be ongoing monitoring to ensure that the high standards that I would have thought everybody around this chamber would want from any service provider are provided to recipients. That is the government’s desire and intention. These are the reasons we oppose the Greens amendment.

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

The Australian Greens disagree. What this bill provides is an open-ended process for service providers to be able to seek certification. We believe this is too important an issue for the open-ended seeking of certification to be allowed. We believe that, if service providers are serious about entering into providing rehabilitation services, they will start the process of seeking compliance, and that 12 months is a reasonable time for them to achieve compliance. We believe it is about upholding the standards that Senator Abetz was alluding to, and of course I agree with him on that. I think everybody in the chamber expects service providers who are serious about providing some of these services to in fact engage in seeking to comply with the standards required. I am still double-checking as to whether I want to amend the amendment in line with Senator Wong’s suggestions.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Without seeking to prolong the debate on this at all, I note the senator’s suggestion that the certification of service providers should not be open-ended. I absolutely assure the senator in committee that this legislation would not provide any open-ended period for certification. Any new operator or service provider seeking to provide a service who is then successful as to a contractual arrangement with the government would have an absolute maximum of 12 months in which to gain certification. If they did not get certification within that 12-month period it would be over and out. Under the terms of the contract, they would be out and therefore the suggestion that somehow this is open-ended is rejected by the government.

Question negatived.

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

I move Australian Greens amendment (3) on sheet 5193:

(3)    Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (after line 11), after section 20, insert:

20A  Application to Administrative Appeals Tribunal

                 An application may be made by a person to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of a decision relating to his or her rehabilitation program where that program was provided by a non-CRS officer.

This amendment relates to AAT review of rehabilitation programs. I alluded to this issue in my second reading contribution, being the ability of clients to appeal against rehabilitation plans. The clients of private service providers will not have access to the same appeals mechanism as clients of the CRS, which has in place a system which clearly outlines what client rights of appeal are. No clear appeals process is outlined in the legislation for the clients of private service providers, unlike the situation for clients of the CRS. All that DEWR officers were able to offer by way of explanation, when this issue was put to them by the committee, was that if a client were not satisfied with the result of an internal appeal to the organisation that is the subject of the complaint they could attempt to pursue the matter through the Complaints Resolution and Referral Service, although it is unclear what powers, if any, this body would have to intervene and direct or compel a private provider.

While the vast majority of service providers delivering government funded services to other parts of the social services sector are doing so in a responsible and ethical manner, for those areas there is a degree of accountability and oversight not contained in this bill. We believe it is important that all clients should have access to an appeals mechanism. Those going through the CRS do. We are seeking to provide an appeal mechanism for the clients of private providers as they are in circumstances where they are being required to undertake rehabilitation services. If they go to a private provider, the private provider will develop their rehabilitation plans. The clients may not agree with those rehabilitation plans. As I have said, I am sure that in the vast majority of cases everything will be straightforward, satisfactory and above board. But there is the potential for clients not to agree with the plans and for the private provider not to be okay, and there may be a time when clients do want to appeal. Under the CRS there is a provision, complicated though it may be, but for the clients of private service providers that is not so, so we are seeking to put in place a provision whereby those using private services have the right of appeal. This is what this amendment seeks to do.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to put the government’s position now, and it is not to support the amendment. VRS participants who are social security recipients will have access to exactly the same review mechanisms as those available to other job seekers in other employment assistance programs, moving them into the general social security framework. These include Centrelink review, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I am advised that there have been only three Administrative Appeals Tribunal appeals under part III of the Disability Services Act 1986 in the last three years and that these have all been related to the closure of the participants’ VRS program. Voluntary participants can choose not to participate in VRS. Voluntary participants can end their participation at any time. There is also an independent complaints mechanism in place available to participants dissatisfied with the services provided. That is the Complaints Resolution and Referral Service.

I would agree with Senator Siewert that it is important that people be able to appeal and have decisions reviewed. All I think we are really talking about here is the mechanism by which they are able to do that. We say that the threefold review mechanisms of Centrelink, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal provide appropriate vehicles for the vast majority of beneficiaries and that putting these recipients under the same framework does not prejudice them.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Labor Party is inclined to support the Greens amendments in the interests of ensuring that persons who are subject to a rehabilitation program do have an appropriate appeal mechanism. I note the minister’s contribution in relation to this amendment, and there are a number of questions I would like to ask him. He describes three appeal processes: Centrelink, SSAT and AAT. I would like to ask him, very specifically: do those appeal mechanisms enable a review of a decision in relation to the design or conduct of a rehabilitation program? If so, where is that spelt out? In particular, will those appeal processes enable a review of a decision relating to a rehabilitation program provided by a non-CRS officer after the passage of this bill?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The advice I have received is that, if that which is appealed about is within the activity program, those matters can be appealed to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, which can refer it back to Centrelink, which would then be going back to the service provider. That is the chain. Matters in relation to the design of the rehab program, if it is part of the activity requirements, can be appealed.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So only those aspects of a program that are actually part of someone’s activity requirements under relevant social security legislation are appealable or reviewable. That is one qualification. The second question was regarding non-CRS providers after the passage of this legislation.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that this applies to any provider, both CRS and the private companies.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, there was a further question. Did you get back to us about whether it applies to non-CRS provision as well?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I read that out, I thought. That applies to—and I have a written note in front of me—any provider, both CRS and the private companies.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wonder if the minister can clarify precisely where those appeal processes are identified. While he is getting that advice: the answer appeared to be in relation to activity requirements, so to what extent does that extend to, for example, the design or the implementation of the program? If the activity requirement is something as general as ‘you shall participate in a rehabilitation program provided by X provider’, does that then enable the participant to seek a review of issues around the design of the program or its implementation?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

First of all, I indicate—and I am not sure whether this is going to be satisfactory to Senator Wong, but I will try—the appeals mechanisms are those in the Social Security (Administration) Act, but I thought you might know that. Were you inquiring as to where reference is made in this particular legislation?

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought that was the case. There is no specific reference in this legislation because these people are income support recipients—I think that is the correct term—and therefore they fall under the Social Security Act and therefore they fall within the sweep of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While the minister is getting advice, I also asked for clarification of the extent to which the right to review activity requirements extends. Does that enable a participant to review the design and implementation of a rehabilitation program provided pursuant to an activity agreement?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am advised that the Social Security Appeals Tribunal can review the terms of the activity requirements.

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

Sorry, I am still not clear. My understanding of the process as it is now is that rehabilitation programs are actually signed off by the secretary for CRS, and that is no longer going to apply for private providers. We are not talking about the activity statement; we are talking about the rehabilitation program. Will people accessing private service providers be able to specifically appeal the provisions of their plan? That is the actual nub of the question.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The short answer is yes.

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

And that is under the provisions that you have already articulated—Centrelink, the social security process?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Question negatived.

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

by leave—I move Greens amendments (4) and (5) on sheet 5193 together:

(4)    Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 19), before item 18, insert:

17A  Subsection 5(18) (and the heading)

Repeal the heading and the subsection, substitute:

Principal carer – a child may have more than one principal carer

      (18)    Where:

             (a)    a court orders that more than one parent has a significant proportion of responsibility for the care of a child; and

             (b)    the difference in percentage of responsibility for the care of a child between the two parents is 12% or less;

both parents must be treated for all purposes of this Act as a principal carer for the child.

(5)    Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 19), before item 18, insert:

17B  After subsection 5(19)

Insert:

   (19A)    Notwithstanding subsection (19), where a court orders that more than one parent has a significant proportion of responsibility for the care of a child and the difference in percentage of responsibility for the care of a child between the two parents is 12% or less, the Secretary must make a determination that each parent the subject of the court order is the principal carer of the child.

These amendments relate to a separate issue from that which we are talking about, but I am taking the opportunity to try to make some amendments to the act to address the significant problems that many people in the community are facing at the moment related to shared parenting, where the court orders that parents have shared equal parenting. Last year the government brought forward legislative changes to family law which were a source of major community concern and the subject of much debate in this place.

The bill required that the court, when considering issues around parenting, take as a starting point the concept of equal shared parenting. These changes are now law and people are anticipating that the outcome of the implementation of the legislation will be greater shared equal parenting, which means that separating couples will have fifty-fifty care, or close to it, of their children. However, under the Social Security Act the appointment of the principal carer is not consistent with this concept. Under the act only one parent is deemed to be the principal carer and therefore that person has fewer participation requirements and has access to things like medical benefits and other benefits that are available only to the principal carer. This is manifestly unfair to the parent who is not nominated as the principal carer.

We have children that are living with one parent for 50 per cent of the time and another parent for 50 per cent of the time. If both parents are income support recipients, only one gets the benefit of the principal carer provisions of the act. When the other parent has residency and care of the child, they do not have access to those provisions. They therefore have greater participation requirements under Welfare to Work. They do not have access to pharmaceutical benefits, healthcare cards and other things that are available to the principal carer. This seems to us to be unfair. When living with the parent who is not the principal carer, the child is in fact the one that suffers.

This amendment seeks to enable both parents to be nominated as the principal carer of the child so that the child has the same support and advantage when they are in either parent’s house instead of the situation that exists at the moment, where in one household the child gets the support provided by the principal carer provisions and in the other household they do not. It seems to the Greens that it is entirely inequitable and unjust that this situation has been allowed to develop. We support the concept of shared equal parenting. We were very concerned, as we articulated at the time, about some of the amendments that were made to the Family Law Act, but the fact is that those are now law. The Social Security Act should reflect the principles now held in family law—that is, shared equal parenting. Surely that means shared access to the principal carer provisions of the Social Security Act.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor will be supporting these amendments. I want to briefly make a contribution on this issue, which Labor followed up in Senate estimates in November last year. This is one of those situations where it appears one arm of government is not clear about the impact of its policy changes or legislative changes on another arm, with potentially poor impacts on children.

Family law changes went through this parliament in 2005 or 2006. My recollection is that Labor supported those. Amongst other things, those changes encouraged couples to enter into more shared care arrangements. Yet under the Welfare to Work changes we have a situation where it appears that potentially one parent in a shared care or fifty-fifty care arrangement will be significantly disadvantaged because the government is insisting that only one parent can be identified as a principal carer. It seems rather bizarre that, on the one hand, the government will be arguing that parents need to spend more time with their children and share more responsibility and yet, on the other hand, they will be putting in place restrictions and requirements under their social security legislation which make it more difficult for parents to do that. Of course, the group that will be most disadvantaged by this are the children, who, in such a scenario, will be in situation where one of their parents will have activity requirements and may also, as Senator Siewert pointed out, be financially disadvantaged as a result.

I actually raised this issue in estimates in November 2006. I asked the department about this issue. I asked how, under the family law changes, if there was a fifty-fifty care and custody arrangement, the principal carer would be determined under the government’s policy. Essentially, the department answered in this way: it is the first person who identifies as the principal carer. I asked, ‘What do you mean by the first?’ The department answered, ‘The first person who puts in the claim for payment.’ I made the point in the estimates hearing that it appears that the government’s policy decision around this comes down to a race as to who first puts in their claim for income support and that, if there is a disagreement about that, the delegate from Centrelink will make a decision. Unless the minister is going to indicate that the policy position of the government has changed since November, it did not appear from the answers at estimates that there were in fact any policy parameters around that.

It is important when we are dealing with policy change that we do look at how various aspects of policy overlap and also at their cumulative impact. Certainly, when it comes to children, one would hope we could get away from a silo mentality within government and actually look at how the totality of legislative and policy reform affects children. It appears the government has failed to do that. It is something that needs to be addressed in the interests of both the children and the parents concerned. We are supportive of the amendments moved by Senator Siewert.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not support the amendments moved by the Greens on this occasion. For income support purposes, the government will continue to recognise only one parent as the principal carer of a child at any point in time. There are in fact two reasons for that and they depend on how you look at it. This is to help ensure that there are not two part-time earners or households caring for a child, as this would lead to reduced financial circumstances for the child if they were both deemed to be the part-time earners or households caring for the child. The other approach is to consider them both as principal carers, and of course that would provide an advantage to separating couples that would not necessarily be available to other parents who have not separated.

I am also advised that, of all the single recipients of the parenting payment, only 1.5 per cent share care of their children where the gap in the level of care between the two parents is between 45 and 55 per cent. So we are talking about a relatively small cohort of the population. Having said that—and I hasten to add this—just because they are a small cohort of the population does not mean that they should be dismissed or that their concerns should not be taken into account. The concerns of this small cohort of 1.5 per cent are in fact taken into account.

I am advised that the guide to social security law dictates that, in circumstances where parents have between 46 and 54 per cent of the care of a child, Centrelink determines which parent should get principal carer status. I am not fully cognisant of the discussion that Senator Wong had at Senate estimates about what might be called ‘the race to riches’ or ‘first in, best dressed’ in relation to the principal carer status, but I am advised that the factors that are taken into account in those circumstances are factors such as income from other sources and future employment prospects or assets. These are used by Centrelink to determine which parent is deemed to be the principal carer parent of a child. As I understand the situation, other factors are in fact taken into account other than the person who first presents themselves to the counter.

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

There are a number of issues there. Firstly, at the moment there may be 1.5 per cent; the fact is that the law comes into effect this year. The law now requires that the starting point when determining shared care arrangements is fifty-fifty shared equal parenting. If that is now the basis for negotiation that the court is required to do, one would expect to see a significant increase—if the law is being effective—in the number of parents who are sharing care. That is the first point. So one law was changed last year but the other laws are not being updated to take account of the law about shared equal parenting of children, despite the fact that 1.5 per cent still means that a lot of children are affected by these unfair provisions.

The sorts of provisions we are talking about are the continuation of pharmaceutical benefits, concession cards, telephone allowance, education entry payments, limited activity tests, less earnings per week, less access to suitable child care and not being subject to the provisions about travelling to work for more than 60 minutes. All these issues are very important when you are looking after children. The reality of this is that one week a child will be living with the parent who has principal carer status and will therefore get the benefit of that parent not being subject to the more intense participation requirements in looking for work; the next week the child will go to the parent who does not have that support—who is on the provisions of Newstart, for example, and has more intense work requirements, may not have the capacity to be able to access the provisions around suitable child care, may be forced to travel further for work requirements, may not have access to pharmaceutical benefits and may not have the same access to concession cards.

The children are being substantially disadvantaged in those situations. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the government does not understand this. Children are being disadvantaged by this provision. On the one hand, the bottom line is now shared equal parenting, but, on the other, that does not come down to how the government provides income support for the parents of these children. I cannot understand why such a simple fact cannot be understood by the government. Children are being materially and emotionally disadvantaged by this provision. It is fairly simple.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am wondering if the minister is going to see fit to respond to any of the issues that were just put onto the Hansard record.

Kay Patterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will intervene here to give the minister some time. I feel that the intonation in Senator Wong’s voice suggested that she was saying, ‘Will he deign to respond,’ basically, to put words into her mouth. These are quite complex issues. This is not the minister’s portfolio area. He is, I believe, answering questions as they come up with advice from the departmental officers. I think it is reasonable to expect that he get that advice from the departmental officers given that he is not the minister actually responsible. From my experience I think that the minister is giving very clear answers.

My answer to the question that Senator Siewert has asked is that from all of the work that Professor Parkinson did on the Parkinson report, we can see that, when you are at the point of shared care of 35 per cent or over, the relationship that has broken down is usually still at a stage where people can actually cooperate. All of the evidence showed that those people actually take into account the children and the issues facing the children. So it is not as big an issue as when there is a total breakdown. Also, our family relationship centres have been designed to try to assist families to discuss these sorts of issues that face children in families. So I think the claim that we are not taking account of children is not valid. I do think that, when you have a fifty-fifty shared arrangement, you would find greater cooperation than you might otherwise expect.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I look forward to the minister’s response. We would have been happy, as we have been, Senator Patterson, to wait for the minister to get advice. But, at the time, the question was being put and the minister had his back to the chamber. I appreciate that he has to get advice. But the point is that we on this side of the chamber do have a view that this is an important issue for the children concerned. The issues that were placed onto the Hansard by Senator Siewert do deserve a response.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the face of it, what Senator Siewert has been raising I think is a relevant and serious issue. The difficulty, as I pointed out before, is that the only way to look at this is either that both parents are part time or they are both principal carers. If they are both part time, there is clearly a financial disadvantage to the now separated unit, if I can call it that, of the two parents and the child. If you were to deem them both principal carers, there would be a financial benefit to the unit and a disadvantage to the taxpayer.

This is something that we as a government, in fairness, I think, need to consider further. What I would say to Senator Siewert and to the committee is that I think that is a real issue for us to give further consideration to. But at this stage of the proceedings I am unable to take the matter any further.

It is the consequence of potential double payment by making both parents the principal carers that would be potentially a growing burden on the taxpayer. I am not the portfolio minister, but what Senator Siewert said—that this 1.5 per cent cohort is likely to grow because of the changes to the Family Law Act—on the face of it makes sense. This might be a naive hope—having practised in the area of family law in the dark, distant past, the idea of separating couples cooperating is sometimes something which one would hope for but which does not actually occur—but, if the court presumes and the parents are happy to have a fifty-fifty shared parenting arrangement, one would hope that there was a fair degree of cooperation between the separating couple. One would also hope that our family relationship centres, for example, might be able to provide some counselling and assistance to them in sharing the financial income and burdens in relation to that.

On the face of it, I think the senator has raised a public policy issue which I cannot answer on behalf of the government at the moment, but I do undertake to give the portfolio minister the benefit of Senator Siewert’s contribution. There may well be some cut-through answers in relation to the matters that she has raised that have not raised themselves in my mind at the moment. I do not want to raise any false expectations in any way, shape or form, but what I do say is that, on the face of it, to me, at this stage there does seem to be some cogency in what the senator says. I am happy to take that back to the portfolio minister and see what might develop from there.

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

I thank the minister for his answer. I take on board the fact that he has not made any promises but I do appreciate that he is taking the issue back to the portfolio minister. These are very sensitive issues. I appreciate the comments about cooperation; however, I am aware, both from my own life experience and from the experiences of a number of my constituents who have approached me, that the reality is that there are a number of parents who find it impossible to cooperate. In a perfect world, of course, we all would seek that. In a perfect world we would not be in a situation where parents are at loggerheads, but the fact is that in the real world that happens. In many cases they do not cooperate. In fact, the relationship can break down further when they are trying to sort out these issues.

Senator Abetz was talking about them still being a unit even if they are separated—that the separated parents plus the child are still a unit. The fact is that the separated parents do not see it that way. The separated parents see it as each parent now being a unit in themselves. So it is unrealistic, I think, to make the presumption therefore that they are like an expanded unit and that resources can be shared between the parents. The fact is that in many cases that cannot happen. We are talking here about parents who are on income support. They have very limited resources and access to resources. In those circumstances the taking away of a small amount of money can have significant consequences for that parent and the child or children involved.

I do appreciate the fact that you are now taking the issue back. I have also been raising these issues in Senate estimates. In fact we have had toing and froing on this on a number of occasions. I am glad now that the government will at least give it further consideration.

Question negatived.

The Greens oppose item 4 in schedule 1 in the following terms:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 22) to page 4 (line 11), TO BE OPPOSED.

I will not rehash the argument again. We went through that slightly earlier. I will just reiterate that, despite some of the answers that we were given, the Greens still have strong concerns about this provision.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Similar to Senator Siewert, I would refer those following this debate to—chances are—about two pages back in Hansard.

Grant Chapman (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that item 4 in schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition opposes items 19 to 32 in schedule 1 in the following terms:

(1)    Schedule 1, items 19 to 32, page 7 (line 22) to page 9 (line 3), TO BE OPPOSED.

The Temporary Chairman:

Senator Wong, you are quite at liberty to speak to all of those as a block. There can be separate questions put at the time of voting.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is fine. I will speak very briefly on this—given that it is the last day of sitting, I do not intend to hold up these proceedings too much. We have articulated, both in the other place and in this chamber during the second reading debate, our views in relation to the pensioner education supplement. I want to emphasise that this is a broken commitment by the government. The government indicated when it introduced its Welfare to Work changes that persons who were put onto the lower payment as a result of these changes who were receiving the pensioner education supplement for the purposes of completing a course would continue to be able to receive it. The government now seeks to put another provision through which will effectively limit their capacity to continue to receive the pensioner education supplement. So this is another broken commitment from the Howard government.

Apart from that, there is the broader policy issue which really demonstrates the different approaches to welfare reform: that taken by the government and that argued for by the opposition. We are of the view that mutual obligation must be matched by opportunity. We are of the view that people do not get a job unless they have the skills that an employer needs. We believe that the government should encourage, help and support those people who want to move from welfare to work to get the skills they need to get a job. We think that is in the national interest. It is also in the interests of those people on income support.

We agree—I think all parties in the chamber agree; certainly the opposition and the government are of the view, and I assume the minor parties—that moving people who are able to work from welfare to work is absolutely in the national interest and in the interests of the individuals concerned. But we think it is important that the government actually also puts its shoulder to the wheel. Obligation must be matched with opportunity. We fail to understand why it is that the government wants to cut access to this entitlement. It is not a princely sum. My recollection is that for full-time students it is approximately $60 a fortnight and around half that for part-time students. But for people on these levels of income this provides very important support for the cost of education—for books and associated costs—for them to get the skills they need to get a job. That is what we are talking about: we are talking about people on income support who are trying to get the skills they need to move from welfare to work. That is something that should be supported by governments. That should be something governments assist with. Instead what we see is the Howard government putting roadblocks in the way of people seeking to gain the skills they need to get work.

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

The Greens also have an amendment on the pensioner education supplement. I articulated in my speech in the second reading debate our deep concern about this and the impact it will have on people on the disability support pension. We are not talking about a large amount of money; but, as Senator Wong said, it is a large amount of money if you do not have much money in the first place. We cannot see why the government is actually proceeding with this amendment. It seems to us to be something that will impact quite unfairly on a relatively small group of people—but a group for whom this amount of money is very important.

On our reading of it, a provision in the bill means that basically, as soon as a person has had their second review, they automatically lose their entitlement to PES. This supplement is a very important top-up to people who are trying their best to improve their skills through education, and here we go with another whammy on those who are already some of the most disadvantaged in our community. We have an amendment to oppose this provision in the bill. Obviously, we support all the opposition amendments but specifically the amendment that deals with items 21 and 28, because it is identical to the Greens amendment.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also indicate the Democrats’ support for this amendment and, while I am on my feet, the previous amendments. I covered this issue in my second reading contribution, so I will not repeat all those comments now. My understanding is that the measure in the legislation regarding the pensioner education supplement will impact on only a very small number of people, but for that small number of people it will be detrimental and will be income that they could certainly find valuable.

It is worth noting the comment in the committee report made by government senators that the amendments are:

… the latest measures to improve workforce participation and improve employment rates.

If the minister can come up with a rationale as to how this particular measure that this amendment addresses increases workforce participation and improves employment rates, I would be interested to hear it. But removing somebody’s entitlement to the pensioner education supplement, which I think is about $31.20 a week, does not seem to me to be particularly beneficial in that respect; it does not seem to be beneficial in any respect at all, frankly.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not find itself able to support the amendments that are being proposed. They would allow people in the disability support pension transition group to retain their transition group status indefinitely. That is contrary to the government’s intention that people would no longer be in the transition group once they had had their first review after 1 July 2006 and is against the new rules. Accepting the Labor-Greens amendments would discriminate against other DSP recipients—that is, DSP recipients who are not in the transition group who also receive the pensioner education supplement. Other DSP recipients do not have the benefit of retaining their entitlement to the pensioner education supplement if they lose their entitlement to DSP.

The government remains committed to assisting people in the DSP transition group who lose entitlement to DSP when assessed against the new rules and move to Newstart or the youth allowance. The government introduced the special provision to retain the pensioner education supplement for this group to ensure that DSP transition group recipients who have been undertaking a course of study in preparation for work are not disadvantaged because of their transition group status.

However, DSP transition group recipients should also not be advantaged indefinitely over all other DSP recipients, which is what these amendments seek to do. The government believes that there are many benefits of working, such as increased income, access to on-the-job training, improved self-esteem and greater confidence. People on Newstart and the youth allowance are assisted to look for work that matches their capacity and they have access to appropriate vocational training through Job Network and the other providers of Australian government employment services. This gives people who have substantial work capacity the opportunity to reduce their reliance on welfare payments. Alternatively, people who wish to study can apply for Austudy or the youth allowance.

Senator Wong referred to the different philosophical approaches of the government and opposition. I would say that I think we are in heated agreement in relation to that—that we, in fact, do have different philosophical approaches—and we make no apology for our proposals to get people off welfare and into work. However, those debates have been previously had and, as Senator Wong showed great self-restraint in developing that any further, I will reciprocate by also showing restraint in not rehashing the arguments.

However, one issue that I do need to engage in is the suggestion that we have somehow broken a promise in relation to the pensioner education supplement. I simply repeat: there has been no change to the government’s commitment that people in the DSP transition group can continue receiving the pensioner education supplement for the duration of their course, if they are receiving that supplement when they are reviewed against the new rules.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is the last day of session and we have a few things to do, so I will not have another one of my long arguments with Senator Abetz. I make just two points. One is that we believe there is a very strong case for work-focused education and training that, in fact, gives people the chance to get the skills they need to get a job. We have a skills shortage in this country. If you look at any economic analysis of the profile of people who are not in the workforce, clearly their skills acquisition or attainment is the most significant factor for most groups.

I just indicate, in the interests of expediting this bill being dealt with in the relevant time frame, that I am not going to call a division in relation to this aspect of our amendments. We will be calling a division in relation to one of the three and I suggest probably it is most appropriate for the set moved by both the Australian Labor Party and the Greens. I do not want anyone to believe that there are any reasons other than technical ones for not calling a division in respect of the other two. I want to re-emphasise very strongly that Labor believe the approach being put forward by the government is short-sighted. We see no policy justification for it. We want to emphasise also that this is inconsistent with the announcements that were made in the Welfare to Work budget.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I invite Senator Wong and the committee to defer the amendment the opposition are thinking of calling a division on until the very end of the committee stage, rather than calling senators in for two separate divisions?

Grant Chapman (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I suggest that, subject to the Democrat amendment, we could deal with schedule 1, items 19 to 32, in one block, providing it meets Senator Siewert’s requirements. Senator Siewert, you are involved in 21 and 28. Is that acceptable?

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

Yes.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To clarify: you are now suggesting that the three separate sets of amendments from the opposition and the Australian Greens amendment can be moved together and voted on together.

The Temporary Chairman:

Yes.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That would seem to be appropriate.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I invite the committee to move to the other amendments and then return to the vote.

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

I move Greens amendment (8) on sheet 5193:

(8)    Schedule 1, item 50, page 11 (after line 27), after subsection 1228(3), add:

        (4)    Subsection (3) only applies in cases where:

             (a)    the primary income support payment is restored part way through the 8 week penalty period; or

             (b)    the person had undeclared income at least at the level of their normal income support entitlement.

This amendment relates to the restrictions on deductions of overpayments of benefits. This is specifically about the recovery of overpayments from what is a discretionary scheme which does not have a statutory basis, which we believe provides a number of problems. When the payment is discretionary and the parameters surrounding it are not explicit, it becomes very difficult to determine what is an overpayment. To address this problem, I am proposing an amendment to allow only for an overpayment to be collected in the following circumstances—that is, where the primary income support payment is restored part way through the eight-week non-payment period and where the client has undeclared income, at least at the level of their normal income support entitlement.

Under those circumstances, which are consistent with what was recommended by ACOSS in the Senate inquiry process into this bill, as I articulated in my speech in the second reading debate, the Greens have concerns that, while the other mechanisms of income support payment are obviously covered in the statutes, this one is not. It is a discretionary payment, and now we are putting in the legislation provision for overpayments of that discretionary payment to be collected. We are moving an amendment to clarify and to put parameters around the manner in which and the circumstances in which an overpayment of financial case management payments can be collected.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government is unable to support this amendment. I note, if I am correct, that this amendment would in fact conflict with a Democrat amendment and I am wondering whether it may be possible to consider those two amendments together for the sake of time management. While the Democrats and the Greens are thinking about that, I indicate the government’s opposition to both the Greens and Democrat proposals. The proposed amended provision excludes some—I think the Democrats would exclude all of them whereas the Greens amendment excludes some—financial case management debt that should clearly be the subject of recovery action. For example, under the amended provision, withholdings would not be available in all cases where a person committed a fraud. The government, and I would have thought Australian taxpayers, simply could not support that outcome. The government believes that the provisions in the original bill are clear in their intent and will allow financial case management debt to be recovered from social security payments in all cases where this is appropriate.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, if I am correct, you have spoken to the Greens and to the Democrat amendment on the last sheet. Is that correct?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Technically only to the Greens amendment but the same arguments would apply to the Democrat amendment.

Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I understand the Greens amendment, it relates to the same principle but has a narrow scope with regard to the so-called overpayments that it addresses. Perhaps in the broader spirit of time management and the moderated tone with which we have managed to conduct the debate, I signal that the issues are the same and the concerns of the Democrats are the same. If the Greens amendment is not successful—if the outside chance happens—then I will not proceed with the Democrat amendment. The issues that the Democrats have with this measure being in the legislation are simply, firstly, the principle of what is being done here and, secondly, how widely you try to restrict what is being done—from my point of view, the key aspect is that it is being done at all.

The Democrat amendment is based on the suggestion contained in the submission from the Welfare Rights Network to the Senate committee inquiry. It really goes to the point that was made in the opposition senators’ minority report from the Senate committee that examined this legislation, which was that the aspect that is contained in the bill will create an inconsistency in the legislation whereby the right to recover overpayments is outlined in the law but the making of payments themselves under financial case management is not. My view is that, until you get that consistency correct, an imbalance is being put in place. It means, in effect, that there is a legislative regime covering the government’s ability to recover payments but there is no legislative detail set out about entitlements to financial case management payments. There is no appeal mechanism for people who feel they should be entitled to such a payment and do not get it, the amount of it or how it is applied.

It is very much an administrative bandaid measure and in my view it is a very flawed measure. A bandaid is better than nothing when you are in serious trouble, so I am not suggesting that we would be better off without financial case management. But I think the system is so lacking in transparency and consistency that it does present significant problems. Even if they are not massive problems as yet, I think the longer it is in place, the more potential there will be for problems to occur. It is quite problematic to be putting in place legislative criteria for recovering what are deemed to be overpayments under that mechanism.

Those are the reasons behind the scope of the Democrat amendment. I understand the argument for having a narrower scope to it, as has been put forward by the Greens amendment that is before the chamber at the moment. I did go into this issue in some detail in my second reading contribution, so I will not repeat the points at length. But it is worth making the point that people who receive financial case management, unless there is deliberate fraud or misrepresentation happening, on the whole are people who are in quite significant financial difficulties, which are of course exacerbated by the fact that they are having their general payments withdrawn. If, down the track, the withdrawal of those payments is reversed, it is unnecessarily stringent for people in that circumstance, frankly, to have those sorts of payments clawed back. They could be rent payments, electricity payments or food voucher type payments.

As I said in my second reading contribution, St Vincent de Paul do not go running after people to grab food voucher money back from them. Once people get on their feet or get their payments restored, people may choose to donate back to St Vinnies or others, but it is not standard practice to say, ‘You’ve got some extra money now, so give it back.’ If we were a nation that was in significant fiscal difficulty and stringency was being applied left, right and centre, it might be more justifiable, but frankly, given the difficult circumstances these people are in, the fact is that even when payments get restored they are still living below the poverty line in terms of their day-to-day income. I think it is unnecessarily harsh to be putting in place a system to recover that money—unless perhaps it is fraudulently obtained—given the current lack of regulated consistency in the financial case management system.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I outlined in my second reading contribution, notwithstanding our concerns about aspects of the system, Labor do support this aspect of the bill; therefore we are not able to support the Greens or Democrat amendments. That is on the basis that we do agree that the principle that overpayment should be recovered is a sensible one. We have made some suggestions to the government about improvements in the transparency of this regime and the review mechanisms associated with it. We would take a different approach in government to how these matters were dealt with in terms of transparency, but there is a general principle here that overpayments ought to be recovered.

In relation to the Greens amendment, I understand they have picked up some suggestions from ACOSS. I make the point that the ACOSS submission in relation to this bill did not indicate that the circumstances outlined in the Greens amendment were exhaustive; rather, it stated that circumstances suited to the recovery of overpayments included those specified. We believe there are a range of circumstances which might warrant recovery of overpayments in addition to those outlined in the Greens amendment—for example, if the amount should not have been paid, the person did not fit any eligibility criteria for either financial case management or the original income support payment, or if the amount paid through FCM was greater than their entitlements.

Labor believe there needs to be a compliance system with appropriate penalties that encourage people to meet their obligations. However, as I have said previously in this place and publicly, we consider the eight-week non-payment penalty to be simply too harsh. One important factor is that it does not encourage people to make amends. Even if they are meeting their obligations after being breached, they are still unable to get their income support, which seems to fly in the face of the notion that penalties should try and encourage appropriate behaviour. So in those circumstances we are not in a position to support either the Greens or the Democrat amendment, given the principle that overpayments, we believe, ought to be recovered. However, I make it very clear that we do think there is a very strong case for much better transparency in this system and a much better system of review.

Question negatived.

Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that schedule 1, item 50, stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

The Temporary Chairman:

We will now deal with postponed items 19 to 32. The question is that schedule 1, items 19 to 32, stand as printed.

Question put.