Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (line 1), omit item 4 from the table (commencement of Schedule 3).

(2) Schedule 3, page 6 (line 1) to page 8 (line 31), omit the Schedule.

These amendments regard the changes to the disability support pension. These are amendments that will have the effect of removing schedule 3. Schedule 3, which requires people with disabilities to prove their incapacity to work by participating in training or work related activity before they are assessed as eligible for DSP, is deeply problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly, individuals who are assessed to have a severe impairment which prevents them from working are not required to complete a program of support. However, the method for determining severe impairment does not account for co-morbidity or cumulative conditions. To be judged to have a severe impairment a person must be assigned an impairment rating of 20 points or more under a single impairment table. This means that a person with co-occurring disorders will not be classified as having a severe impairment unless one or both of the disorders rate above 20 under a single table. This is concerning as the impact of co-occurring disorders can be very severe.

Under the proposed legislation, people suffering from co-occurring disorders who are not judged to have a severe impairment will not be put straight onto the disability support pension. They will most likely be placed on Newstart and yet be unable to meet the requirements of participation in a program of support. What we have found in looking at this bill is that it is very difficult to fully evaluate concerns relating to severe impairment when not only are the revised tables not completed yet but the progress of the current review has not been made public.

There is a lot of ambiguity in this bill, and it has raised many concerns with those in the sector and amongst my constituents. When this bill was originally tabled, we received hundreds of calls in my electorate and elsewhere from concerned constituents about how it would impact on them and their loved ones. In particular, it is unclear what the maximum amount of time is a person could wait before being reassessed for disability support. According to the government, programs of support will generally last 18 months, but this is not in the legislation. Considering the impact of these measures on people with disabilities, such ambiguity is unacceptable.

There is no time limit in the legislation and the length of participation would appear to be at the discretion of the government. It is unclear whether providers will be required to contribute to the disability support pension qualification assessment and what the nature of this contribution might be. This is an important issue. If providers become gatekeepers for the DSP it could impact on their relationship with their clients and their willingness to disclose information. It is unclear how and when a reassessment for the disability support pension will take place. There is ambiguity around how long people will be on programs of support, what criteria will be used to assess and if and when people will be reassessed to go on the DSP.

Consistent numbers could not be provided by the government during the course of the Senate committee's inquiry on how many people would eventually be placed on the DSP after initially being rejected. Figures later provided by the department differed from those provided earlier without clear justification. Essentially, this bill unnece­ssarily subjects people with disabilities to financial hardship for an extended period of time. It is a cost-saving measure designed to keep people off the disability support pension and make them try to survive on Newstart. ACOSS, the Australian Council of Social Service, writes that:

… since the alternative payment (Newstart Allowance) is at least $128 per week less than the pension, the Bill would deprive the majority of applicants (those with low employment prospects who still have an ongoing need for income support) of additional income to help them meet their basic living expenses. At $237 per week for a single adult, the Newstart Allowance is inadequate to pay for the essentials of life.

They go on to say that:

Given that most people with disabilities face additional costs (for example, transport or medications), and will incur additional costs while participating in a ‘program of support’ (for example travel costs), it is likely that many applicants would struggle financially until such time as they either secure employment or are granted a pension.

It is for those reasons that I moved the amendment that would have the effect of removing that schedule, and there are further amendments relating to another schedule.

See this speech in context