Stephen Parry (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Social Security Amendment (Flexible Participation Requirements for Principal Carers) Bill 2010 follows on from recommendations in the Participation Review Taskforce report published in August 2008 and implements a related 2009-10 budget measure relating to more flexible participation requirements for parents. The bill alters or creates exemptions available to principal carers on income support. I wish to make it clear that the coalition sees these exemptions as reasonable ways to address some oversights in the legislation. However, I wish to also restate the coalition’s very firm commitment to the principle of mutual obligation.

Mutual obligation breaks the cycle of idleness and habits of apathy that can develop during long periods on welfare, which I am sure all those in this chamber would agree. It allows people to give back in return for welfare assistance. It gives welfare recipients new experiences, including positive work experiences—sometimes for the first time in their lives. It also makes welfare a disincentive for those who may see it as an excuse not to work.

The Labor government has been soft on mutual obligation. The proportion of Newstart allowance recipients having an obligation to work has declined under Labor. The coalition does not believe that this is necessarily good public policy for a variety of reasons. According to industry sources, the number of individuals on income support gaining exemptions from mutual obligation requirements has increased from a low of less than 10 per cent under the Howard government to in excess of 30 per cent in some areas. Also, the number of penalties imposed for breaches of mutual obligation requirements fell from 32,000 in 2007-08 to 19,406 in 2008-09.

The ‘three strikes and you’re out’ penalty has not been rigorously applied. The Labor government has done away with the requirement for jobseekers to be present at Centrelink and from 1 July unemployed people will not have to be present to hand in forms in person at Centrelink offices; instead, Newstart recipients will be able to report online or by phone. Under this government the Work for the Dole timeframe extended from six months to 12 months and Work for the Dole numbers have been slashed from 22,362 in 2005 to 12,695 in 2010.

The mutual obligation is the cornerstone of our welfare system. To ensure that the system is functional, the Australian people need to have information about the number of people fulfilling their mutual obligation requirements, what sort of requirements they are fulfilling and those with exemptions. On behalf of the coalition, I move a second reading amendment that has been circulated in the chamber:

At the end of the motion, add:

                 but the Senate:

             (a)    expresses its grave concern about the lack of enforcement of mutual obligation participation requirements under the Rudd Government; and

             (b)    calls on the Government to regularly publish transparent statistics regarding the number of benefit recipients with no participation requirements.

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

The Greens will be supporting the Social Security Amendment (Flexible Participation Requirements for Principal Carers) Bill 2010 because it shows that the government is taking a more compassionate approach to foster carers and to the people who will benefit from these amendments, while winding back slightly the punitive Welfare to Work approach of the former government. I will continue to say this until it is fixed: this amendment does not go far enough in dealing with the issue of principal carers. It is an issue I raised when the Welfare to Work legislation was brought in by the former government, which was around the same time that the changes were made to family law.

There is a group of principal carers who I believe are still not being given the income support they should, such as parents who have the equal shared care arrangements that are now the presumption under the family law. We can have an argument about whether the family law changes actually say that, but there is a de facto presumption of equal shared care in our family law as it stands now due to the changes by the previous government.

Some exemptions where granted under Welfare to Work for situations where you have two principal carers. In other words, if you have parents who have equal shared care, under the Social Security Act only one of those parents can be a principal carer. Therefore, one parent will not get the same benefits and will continue to struggle under the more punitive Welfare to Work arrangements and cannot get the benefits of being a principal carer. Even though that parent provides equal shared care they still cannot be designated as a principal carer.

In other words, there are two conflicting pieces of law: there is one that sets up equal shared care and another that does not recognise the arrangements of equal shared care. I know that in estimates the government said there is only a handful of people affected by this, but those people are important—those children are important. They should have the benefits. If they are being recognised for equal shared care under our family law and those arrangements are made, our other law should reflect that and give those parents the ability to provide the benefits to their children and have the benefit of recognition as a principal carer under our social security law.

I know I have made this point a number of times. I commend the government for bringing in these particular changes, which I support, but they have missed another opportunity to make it fair for those parents who are currently missing out. Whether there is a handful or not, they are still important and their children are important. I believe that the government should have taken this opportunity to recognise all principal carers and rectify the anomaly between these two pieces of legislation.

They know I will continue to pursue this, but I will put on the record that we will support this legislation. I will also put on record that we do not support the second-reading amendment moved by the opposition. The opposition appear to be continuing the approach of demonising those on income support. Their punitive legislation did not work. I am glad the government have made some previous amendments about participation requirements and have taken a new approach, which I think is much more compassionate. Again, they did not go as far as we wanted them to go but it is a much fairer and more compassionate approach.

Those people who were being breached under the previous approach, which Senator Parry referred to, suffered substantially and I believe there were many people who dropped out of income support, particularly many Aboriginal people. We know from the statistics that were published that the previous arrangements impacted on Aboriginal people particularly harshly. I think it has been recognised that that approach does not work. The Greens and I think a more compassionate and caring approach is a much better approach. So we will not be supporting the opposition amendment.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senators for their contribution in the debate. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.