Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Disability Support Pension Participation Reforms) Bill 2012. The key purpose of this bill is to implement the disability support pension reform which was announced in the budget last year. Principally, these measures relate to workforce participation for DSP recipients. This reform is covered in schedules 1 and 2. This bill also amends the part of the Social Security Act which relates to the overseas travel of people with a severe and permanent disability. This aspect is covered in schedule 3. Schedule 4 makes some minor amendments to the act.

The first measure in this bill alters the work rule for DSP recipients. It will allow some recipients to work up to 30 hours a week without losing eligibility for the DSP. In the past they were only able to work up to 15 hours a week before losing their eligibility. This schedule aims to encourage recipients of the DSP to return to work where possible by allowing recipients to engage in work for longer hours without penalising them. This bill seeks to provide an incentive for DSP recipients to maintain a presence in the workforce.

These incentives are important because there are many people who are currently on the DSP who could achieve a much better quality of life through participation in the workforce. I think we would all agree that the DSP should not be seen as a destination payment. People should not be parked on the DSP; they should be encouraged and assisted to participate in the economy. We know that economic participation in the workforce is an important social engagement for people as well. At some stage in their life, an individual may qualify for the DSP. That does not mean that they should be parked there for the rest of their life. Schedule 1 recognises this important truth and seeks to encourage DSP recipients to find suitable employment without the threat of losing their pension.

Schedule 2 seeks to implement participation requirements for some DSP recipients. These recipients will be required to attend an interview upon request and will be provided with assistance to develop an individualised plan aimed at enhancing their employment opportunities. The requirements apply to DSP recipients aged under 35 or those who have been assessed with a work capacity of eight hours or more per week. These requirements are not intended to force DSP recipients to jump through hoops. Rather, they are designed to provide people with the tools to re-engage with the workforce and enjoy the benefits employment brings. It is not good enough for government to overlook any citizen's capacity to work. It is important to work with individuals to help them find the best way to participate. In addition to the benefits to each individual who is able to obtain employment as a result of these measures, you would expect the economy as a whole to benefit through the boost to productivity.

The third schedule of the bill relates to the portability of the DSP. It will allow those people with a severe and permanent disability who have no further realistic prospect of work to permanently receive their DSP while overseas. Currently, these people are subject to the 13-week rule under which their DSP cannot be taken overseas for a period of over 13 weeks. This schedule will mean DSP recipients who fall into this category will no longer lose their payment if they spend more than 13 weeks overseas.

Schedule 4 contains some minor amendments. Firstly, it amends references within the act to the data on average weekly earnings collected by the ABS, because the publication of this data has changed in frequency. This schedule also removes incorrect or redundant references to the pension age in the act. Finally, this schedule aligns some provisions of the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986 with corresponding provisions in the Social Security Act for the purposes of household assistance under the Clean Energy (Household Assistance Amendment) Act 2011.

It is important for governments of all persuasions to do what they can to help DSP recipients obtain a better quality of life through employment participation. I am happy to indicate that the opposition does not take issue with this legislation.

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

While the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Disability Support Pension Participation Reforms) Bill 2012 contains schedules the Greens support, we are greatly concerned about schedule 2, the participation requirements for disability support pension. As I said, there are some positive measures contained in the bill, such as partially rectifying the limitations on the portability of DSP and allowing people on DSP to work up to 30 hours before having their payments suspended or cancelled. However, the bill is still a product of the Welfare to Work reforms. This participate or perish mentality is evident in the new requirement for those with partial capacity to work to complete a participation interview and develop a participation plan.

The impact of this bill must also be measured in light of other changes that have been implemented to the disability support pension, particularly over the last two budget cycles. We have to remember that the government has changed the process for applying for DSP, and you have to now have 18 months worth of failure to find employment with a disability before you are allowed to apply for the disability support pension. I have articulated in this place on many occasions the deep concern we have about the impact this is having on people with a disability and the fact that they have to struggle on Newstart for 18 months while they try to find work with either a very substantial disability or a partial capacity to work. Then of course we have the changes to the impairment tables around eligibility for DSP. So we are actually already seeing significant impact on people living with a disability trying to find work and struggling to survive. We have to look at those changes in that light.

The present legislation and reforms further squeeze people living with a disability without properly addressing the barriers to their employment. We believe this continues the punitive mentality that was admittedly begun by the coalition but has been adopted with gusto by this government. Subsequent bills that we will be talking about today further implement the welfare to work mentality. I would like to focus my comments particularly on schedule 2, which is the participation requirements for people with DSP. As I have said, we support the other elements of this bill, particularly increasing the ability to work to 30 hours before people start losing their disability support pension. Under this bill, to continue to qualify for DSP a person who has a capacity to work and is under the age of 35 will have to fulfil additional participation requirements. These requirements will include attending a participation interview at Centrelink and developing a participation plan for people that Centrelink decides need one—but then what is the point of the government thinking they need a participation plan if it is not going to compel them to meet the requirements of the plan?

I have very deep concerns about this approach because I think it is a demonising approach. The assumption that people under the age of 35 with a disability do not want to work is an erroneous assumption. I have spent a lot of time talking to people with a disability and to people living on income support, and this fallacy that seems to be promoted by both of the major parties in this place that people on income support do not want to work and choose to live on the paltry income support that they receive is a flawed approach and is a very deliberate strategy by both the coalition and the government to demonise people on income support. This legislation applies the same belief because they believe that people with a disability do not want to work. I certainly have not met such people with a disability; in fact, I have been lobbied very heavily by people with a disability who ask whether we can please do more to help them find work and put policies in place to support them in the workplace. First and foremost, these measures do not address barriers to employment for those living with a disability. People with a disability or a partial disability have many barriers to work. The cost of this measure is $92.8 million, and we believe that should be better dedicated to measures that actually assist people on DSP gain employment or training, with a better focus for DES providers and case managers, improved transport and better support on the job. Instead, the money is being spent on this expensive administration exercise.

I have been to several disability conferences over the last week and a half, and some figures have been quoted at those conferences. Australia is ranked 21 out of 29 OECD countries in employment rates for people with a disability and is ranked 27 out of 29 OECD countries for risk of poverty for people living with a disability. Furthermore, if this particular provision is not implemented with the utmost sensitivity, this measure could lead to serious negative outcomes for many people living with a disability. Of particular concern are those with poor or limited communication skills, those with mild intellectual disabilities or episodic or mental health issues and those whose capacity is rated just in excess of eight hours per week—remembering that this applies to people with a capacity to work eight hours a week, which is essentially one day a week. These people mostly have not been subject to participation requirements and may experience difficulty explaining, particularly to Centrelink, the circumstances and barriers they face to employment.

I spent a lot of time in this last break talking to people living on income support—those living on DSP and particularly those living on Newstart. The constant refrain I heard was that there are problems interacting with Centrelink. I will be talking more about that later in the day. We believe care and a level of flexibility is necessary when considering imposing requirements on people living with a disability even if they are attending a Centrelink office, because this group of people is already vulnerable. Special care is especially necessary for people with a disability under the care of a guardianship or related tribunal or a nominee or carer. While exemptions can be granted under certain circumstances, this will not be effective if people are unable to explain why they have a right to a benefit because of poor communication or lack of understanding. As we know, Australia's social security system is extremely complex. I take the trouble to read many documents produced by Centrelink, and sometimes I have trouble understanding what they mean and I misinterpret what they mean. Other people who have poorer literacy or numeracy skills, or have not had excessive interaction with the bureaucracy, will find this even more difficult to understand.

We are also deeply concerned about areas in the assessment process. As was articulated during the Senate inquiry into both the impairment tables and the government's changes to the process for applying for DSP, there is a significant variation in assessment processes and I do not believe those pro­cesses have been adequately reformed. This continues to foster complex participation requirements on vulnerable people. This is not new, I acknowledge, but it is continuing the process started by the Howard govern­ment and adopted with gusto by the present government. In the past 18 months, as I said, we have seen changes to the participation requirements for the majority of the DSP applicants and they are going through a process now where they have to keep applying for jobs and keep bailing, and then perhaps they will be considered for DSP. While we very strongly support approaches to help people with a disability into employment, fostering a process which leads to a sense of hopelessness does not help people when they are trying to gain employment. One of the key things which comes out of long-term engagement with Newstart is a sense of helplessness. So the longer people are living in poverty is yet another barrier to employment. We already know there are significant barriers to employment for people with a disability. Even where people with a disability find employment, keeping that employment in the face of significant barriers created by their disability is extremely concerning as well.

During the Senate inquiry we heard of simple things which people who do not have a disability do not even question—for example, access to transport. If you are living in a regional area or in the outskirts of a metropolitan area, transport issues are even more magnified. We also know that for people living on a limited income finding accommodation in cities is very hard. They are driven to the outskirts or to regional areas because that is where they find affordable accommodation. As I said, there are multiple barriers to people with disabilities gaining employment in the first place. We should be addressing those barriers rather than saying to people under 35, 'We actually don't think you want a job, so this is going to force you into looking for work.' We do not believe that is an appropriate approach. We should be coming from an incentive basis rather than a punitive basis.

We believe this approach further disempowers people and fuels negative stereotypes. This is the reason that so-called 'tough love' rhetoric is counterproductive. It reinforces stereotypes and builds up myths about the unemployed—which invariably could strengthen the negative attitudes employers could take to people with a disability. A survey of employers undertaken by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations in 2008 found widespread reluctance to consider employing long-term unemployed people, people with disability and mature age people. Subsequent work has also reinforced those findings. We believe this is a significant barrier, which the government should use more measures to address rather than making it worse. I would like to quote from a submission to the disability employ­ment services inquiry:

The task of finding meaningful work for people with disability requires creative, flexible and innovative approaches. Increasingly it is being recognised that best practice in disability service provision requires a person-centred flexible approach that enables service providers to respond to the diversity of individuals and their needs.

Yet an international review of employment programs said of Australia, 'Despite a change in the employment service system in Australia, the compliance centred regime persists and this works against the development of a personalised approach to assisting jobseekers.' We need information and support, on-the-job training and mentoring for both the employee and the employer. Such measures will have a much more positive impact on outcomes than forcing people to go for interviews and making a plan. We acknowledge that the government has injected some resources into addressing issues around employment for people with disabilities. No further money for employment was announced in the budget yesterday. This is not enough. The money being spent here on essentially administrative processes would be better spent overcoming the barriers people living with a disability face when gaining employment. Forcing people to participate in this manner assumes that people do not want to find work and is a more demeaning approach, rather than the encouragement of an incentive based approach.

We do not support schedule 2 of this bill. We do support the other schedules of this bill. We urge the government to reconsider the approach they take to people living with disability because we do not believe they are supporting people enough to find employment. Our position in the OECD countries is an embarrassment and we need to do more. The government seems to recognise that we need to do more but they are not taking the right approach which is an incentive based and supportive approach rather than a demonising approach. I know the government are going to say that that is not what this is about, but they obviously have not had the same phone calls and emails I have received from people expressing extreme concern, feeling they are being picked on, feeling they are being demeaned and that the government are implying that people are not trying to find work when in fact the reverse is true. Certainly communications I have received in my office and face-to-face communications with people with a disability reveal that they want to find work but need more support to find work. The current provisions are not sufficient to help people find work and stay in work. We do not believe this is an appropriate use of money. We do not support schedule 2. However, as I said, we support the other schedules.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank senators for their contributions to this debate. The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Disability Support Pension Participation Reforms) Bill 2012 introduces two key reforms to the disability support pension announced in 2011-12 federal budget as part of the Building Australia's Future Workforce package of measures. These significant reforms will, for the first time, introduce new participation requirements for certain disability support pensioners and allow disability support pensioners to work more hours without having their payment suspended or cancelled. This improved support for Australians with disability will help them into work wherever possible while making sure there is an essential safety net for those who are unable to support themselves fully through work. Many people with disability are great contributors to the workforce and many more want to work. This bill contains three disability support pension measures, all effective from 1 July 2012. In the first measure, more generous rules will allow all disability support pensioners to work up to 30 hours a week without having their payment suspended or cancelled. These people will be able to receive a part pension subject to usual means testing arrangements. Since the previous government's introduction of the Welfare to Work changes on 11 May 2005, newly granted disability support pensioners can work up to only 15 hours a week before their payment is suspended or cancelled. The 15-hour rule can make it difficult for disability support pensioners to find work limited to less than 15 hours a week. People will now be able to take up work or increase their hours, if they are able to do so, and the change will help address the low workforce participation rate of people with disability. The second measure will introduce new participation requirements to encourage disability support pensioners with some capacity to work to engage with the workforce. Disability support pension recipients under the age of 35, with a work capacity of at least eight hours a week—that is an important proviso—will be required to attend regular participation interviews with Centrelink to develop participation plans tailored to their individual circumstances. Senator Siewert, I think that is an important phrase: 'tailored to their individual circum­stances', helping build their capacity. Participation plans could involve working with employment services to improve job readiness, searching for employment, or undertaking training, volunteering or rehabilitation. There will also be the oppor­tunity to connect disability support pension recipients to other services and supports that they may need to overcome barriers to participation, such as drug and alcohol rehabilitation, mental health services and other community services. Exceptions to these participation requirements will apply to disability support recipients who have a work capacity of zero to seven hours or who work in an Australian disability enterprise or under the supported wage system or who are manifestly eligible for disability support pension.

The third measure introduces new, more generous rules to allow people receiving disability support pension who have permanent disability and no future work capacity to travel overseas for more than 13 weeks while retaining access to their pension, excluding certain add-on payments such as rent assistance. Existing portability rules will continue to apply to disability support pension recipients who may have some ability to work. Other working-age payments will not be affected by these changes to portability arrangements.

In closing can I say that the government refutes absolutely the assertion that Labor is of the view that people with disability do not want to work. Of course we know that people with disability are desperate; they really want support to get into the workforce. We are of the view that these measures will certainly assist people with disability into employment. This measure is designed explicitly to support people with disability into employment and to retain employment when they have it. It is designed to remove the barriers.

We should recognise that this measure should not be viewed in isolation. This measure came as a package of measures in the previous budget and includes a range of other measures to support people with disability into employment. You will recall that our government have uncapped the disability employment services. We have increased funding into disability employment services to the total value of $3.4 billion over four years. We have introduced a range of wage subsidies that people with disability have taken up in good numbers. The National Disability Strategy is designed to encourage people with disability into all aspects of community life, including employment.

Last week I was very pleased to be at the Every Australian Counts rally in Brisbane. There were 2½ thousand people there, joining thousands and thousands of people right around the country. I observed that the loudest applause occurred when any of the speakers spoke about the fact that an NDIS could potentially assist people into employment. That is what people with disability want. They want to get into jobs, they want to retain those jobs and they want to be supported to do it, and this measure will assist in that process.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.