Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Social Security Amendment (Flexible Participation Requirements for Principal Carers) Bill 2010. I would like to start by saying that this bill, which amends the Social Security Act, will improve the participation arrangement for tens of thousands of families on income support—many of whom reside in the south-west of Sydney, my electorate included—with participation requirements that give them the opportunity to gain more skills and improve their work opportunities. I know that the previous speaker, the member for Menzies, just made a series of criticisms of this bill and said it watered down the former Howard government’s stand. Make no mistake: this bill still has at its core mutual obligations with respect to social security. Those are front and centre in this legislation. But we are making sure that those obligations are constructed in a framework of fairness.

As we go through this bill, I want to say that couching an argument based on how tough you can be on people who unfortunately have fallen through the cracks of life is not the way I think you would like to present yourself to an electorate. That particularly goes for an electorate of mine, which has a lot of people who unfortunately do need to be assisted from time to time. These are people we do want assistance to get back into a normal way of life and back into normal society. I get to see the success stories of what we achieve out in the south-west of Sydney as well. I know from speaking with many parents who are on income support that some of them find themselves having difficulty complying with the current job search requirements. They tell me often that the current job search requirements are too rigid, particularly when there are a number of children involved. We are trying to make sure, without removing mutual obligation, that these rules do not act as a block to these people gaining skills to enhance their ability to find work and participate through work in a normal life.

It is all very easy to come in here and trivialise the issue by saying, ‘Let’s ratchet it up and see how tough we can be.’ But the truth of the matter is that not everyone out there has been dealt the same hand in life. Sometimes it is necessary to show some compassion in how we go about helping these people back to where they can fully participate in society. As I said, I get to see the other end of it, where people do come back—having had that degree of assistance—and go on. People have with assistance attended the University of Western Sydney and gone on to be teachers. One young woman I had the opportunity to meet some years back—I actually met her at a homeless shelter—for a range of different reasons was homeless. She was estranged from her parents. With a group of people and with the assistance of the local Rotary club we supplied for her tutoring services. One thing she made very clear to me was this. She said, ‘I’ll bet you assisted your kids with their homework when they were young.’ I thought to myself and said, ‘Of course I did.’ She asked, ‘Who helps us?’

I spoke to the local Rotary at the time. Two people who were key in Ingleburn Rotary, Michael and Sandra Kidd, were both retired high school principals. They started turning up at this refuge and tutoring the kids. This young girl—and I will not name her—contacted me at the beginning of this year to say she had been accepted to do a bachelor of social work at the University of Western Sydney. To simply go out and show how tough on people we could be would decry the sort of success that we are achieving out there.

I understand that what is also in this bill generally reflects positively on the report prepared by the government’s Participation Review Taskforce. It is important to rehash that a little. My colleague Brendan O’Connor, as then Minister for Employment Participation, in May 2008 established the task force to examine how participation requirements for parents—particularly those who were mature age job seekers—receiving income support could be adjusted to better take into account their family and community responsibilities.

By way of background, what was delivered to the government in August 2008 contained some 20 recommendations, including one specifically in relation to mature age job seekers. Importantly, the government has responded to the recommendations made by the taskforce by changes within the bill to make income support more effective by helping parents balance parenting responsibilities with their participation requirements. We know that having a job is a key factor to inclusion. Whether it be socially or economically, it is key in terms of inclusion within our mainstream community. But given the skills and labour shortages we have experienced for a range of reasons, particularly over the term of the last government, which had a significant period of not investing in skills development, we need to assist job seekers, particularly those of mature age, to gain those further skills to re-engage with employment and do it in such a way that it is going to be meaningful.

To do this we will be investing $26.8 million over the next four years to improve the participation arrangements for parents and carers of children that will give them the opportunity to gain more skills and improve their opportunities in seeking employment. Under our initiatives parents will be assisted to better balance work and study and their family commitments. Contrary to what the opposition has been saying, indicated very ably before by the member for Menzies, it should be said that parents will continue to be required to meet their participation agreements in order to receive income support. That is not weakening it; that is actually adjusting it in such a way as to look at value-adding, if you like, our human resource, particularly upgrading skills and making their opportunities for work more realistic and more meaningful. The changes are not designed to make it harder, or for that matter easier, for people receiving income support. The aim is to make income support more effective by helping parents balance their parenting responsibilities with their participation requirements. Another key point I would like to make is that there will be no change in the amount of income support paid to parents as a result of these measures, so that is not a cost, as has been alluded to.

I would like to make a few brief comments about some of the specific features of this bill. It will extend the existing 12-month automatic exemption for families with four or more children, or where there is home or distance education involved, to be eligible until the youngest child turns 19 and completes their secondary education. The government recognises that parents play an absolutely incredible role and an important role in caring for and supporting their kids through education. It is probably not fair to say just we in government recognise it; I think anyone who is a parent or, as in my case, a grandparent would attest to that. By extending the exemption to current large families and home schooling and distance education, that will clearly permit the concentration of that care and support while a child is completing education up to 19 years of age. The government recognises that responsibility that parents with large families do have and that it does not cease when they turn 16. I have got to say it does not cease either when they turn 31, but that is another story. The changes recognise the role that parents have in supporting their children during the final years of their secondary education and the need for parents to balance their parental responsibilities with their participation in the workforce.

The bill will also liberalise the eligibility of the 16-week domestic violence exemption to include parents who remain in a violent relationship, as well as those who have left such a relationship over the previous six months. This is an area which is near and dear to my heart. Through my involvement with the police locally, I get to see that all our crime statistics in the south-west of Sydney are being effectively managed, and we are very proud of that fact. Whether there have been armed robberies or break-ins, the clear-up rates have been very good. The only thing which is remaining stubborn in our crime statistics is the incidence of domestic violence. I mentioned that to a young woman I found in a homeless refuge who was a victim of domestic violence. Regrettably, of all the kids I get to see out there, at least 85 per cent of the young people who find themselves homeless are victims of domestic violence. It is a scourge on modern society. I know that the debate on this bill is not the place to talk about domestic violence but I feel very passionately that we who are in positions of leadership in our community must, at every opportunity, speak up about domestic violence against women and children. It is incomprehensible in modern society that the incidence of domestic violence is at present levels.

The liberalisation of the existing 16-week exemption will provide better assistance for parents, regardless of whether they are in or have left a violent relationship. It acknowledges that parents are unlikely to participate effectively in paid work in such circumstances, while still caring and playing a parental role. That is probably a very hard ask. But there is a requirement that the length of the exemption will ensure that parents who experience domestic violence or family violence will have regular contact with Centrelink social workers and will be provided opportunities for referral to other support services. It is important to note that, should the initial 16 weeks not be a sufficient period, the exemption can be extended at the discretion of the Centrelink social worker. That is something I applaud, particularly in the south-west of Sydney—and I have no reason to look closely at any other electorate. If every member were prepared to scratch the surface in their own electorate, they would probably see that benefit applying similarly to a lot of people, and deservedly so.

The government also recognises an important role played in our society by foster carers, including those who do not have their own dependent children. This bill will introduce a new exemption which will remain in place for the period a child is in a person’s care in a fostering relationship. It also extends, importantly, to up to 12 weeks between foster care placements and, in doing so, it acknowledges that many emergency and respite foster parents find it difficult to participate in the workforce while caring for children, particularly those experiencing difficulties and disadvantage. These changes mean that they will be able to focus on their important role in our society—that is, providing primary care through a foster-caring arrangement. It also means that they will be available to provide emergency respite care after a child has left their care but before that child has been reassigned on a long-term basis. Additionally—and I get to see a fair bit of this in my electorate—the bill will recognise the role of kinship carers through a new exemption for those who care for a child under state and territory case plans.

One of the things that, regrettably, I get to see a heck of a lot of is children being put in the care of their grandparents. It is something that is occurring with great frequency. It is a testament to the love and commitment of their grandparents but, in the majority of cases I get to see, particularly through agencies such as Odyssey House and others, it generally involves drugs or other forms of addictive substances as to why a child cannot remain with the original parent. The support base, particularly offered by grandparents, often comes into the equation. Many of those instances are dealt with formally and that is done on the basis of kindred care arrangements.

Through the introduction of this new exemption, the government acknowledges the high needs of children in kinship care and the difficulties that these carers often face in balancing their participation in work and caring responsibilities and also maintaining overall connection with the family and family stability itself. These changes recognise that kinship care is commonly an alternative placement of children other than into a child protection system and the importance of this form of arrangement is very much in the child’s interest and in the family’s interest. This bill will at least recognise the responsibility of those principal carers under that arrangement.

The second component of the bill will also increase the flexibility for principal carer parents to undertake activities to satisfy part-time participation requirements. These components of the measure will be implemented through the legislative instrument and amendments to the guide to social security law. Some of the notable changes include changes to the rule of voluntary work and the introduction of more flexible arrangements over long school holidays allowing parents to meet their requirements through part-time study of at least 15 hours per week of contract or non-contract hours. It allows combinations of approved activities, part-time work, part-time study et cetera as long as the parent is undertaking 15 hours per week of activity and enables the principal carer parents the participation requirements to participate in the New Enterprise Incentive Scheme on a part-time basis.

Finally, the third component of the bill will provide more flexible methods for parents to report their earnings and participation efforts to Centrelink through expanded access to the existing facilities such as telephone based integrated voice recognition and web based channels. This will reduce the need for people to physically visit a Centrelink office for face-to-face reporting. This is a measure which I know that many busy parents will find very, very attractive. It will allow them to continue with their studies. It will allow them to continue with their efforts in terms of securing employment as well as what they need to do to commit to their caring of their family members. I think it is a very significant addition.

I am very pleased that the issue has been raised by parents in relation to the participation requirements and I acknowledge that, in the participation taskforce report and subsequently in the measures of this bill, it will go a long way to addressing those concerns—certainly the concerns that have been raised with me as the member for Werriwa but I am sure they have been raised with other members of this place—and making sure that people understand their mutual obligations but by doing so from a position of fairness and one which encourages the development of their skills to assist them to develop a more competitive position in terms of employment by giving them better opportunities. This is something which I think will go a long way towards satisfying those concerns which have existed for some time and have been a considerable frustration for people not being able to participate fully in our economic way of life.

See this speech in context