Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak about this report. I commend my two colleagues the member for Bruce and the member for Paterson for their contributions in outlining some of the flaws in Centrelink eligibility for the DSP. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit's inquiry into Commonwealth risk management was based on the Auditor-General's report Qualifying for the disability support pension. This report and its recommendations have been put together by a government committee, and I have to say, from what we have heard from the other speakers and from what I have heard and read in this report, it does not paint a pretty picture. But let's be honest: when you look at the Turnbull government's track record when it comes to Centrelink, it is not exactly glowing. Since the election, we have seen Minister Tudge and Minister Porter preside over one scandal after another—and I will go through them very quickly. There was the robo-debt fiasco, which is still continuing, the leaking of private information from Centrelink, the blowout in Centrelink call waiting times, continuing efforts, as we have heard, to cut pensioners' allowances, 5,000 jobs being cut from the DHS workforce and staff having gone three years without a pay rise. When you take away 5,000 people over the last few years from a department, the pressure on staff is enormous, and they do the best they can under the conditions that they are working in.

This is a further damning report, which again raises questions about the competence of this government to manage Centrelink and the services provided to our most vulnerable citizens. Here we are, nitpicking with some of the most vulnerable people in this country, while at the same time we give glowing praise for a $65 billion tax cut to the top end of town. These are people who are the most vulnerable in our society—people who have severe disabilities, who have gone through workplace accidents or motor accidents and who have been born with ailments. These are the people we should be doing everything we can to assist and make their lives a little bit easier, not nitpicking and trying to get them off the system so we can save a few dollars.

The disability support pension provides support to permanently disabled Australians who are unable to work or unable to work many hours. The DSP is a lifeline to people who are often facing enormously difficult situations. I have heard from many constituents in my electorate who are frustrated by the rejections and by having to jump through hoops, being made to feel like they have no need for the DSP; yet these people are ill. I have spoken to them and seen them. They are disabled and, in some cases, will never be able to work again. I will come back to these constituents in a minute.

I highlight the fact that this inquiry raised a number of concerns. These concerns still remain unaddressed by the government. The committee recommended, for example, that the Department of Social Services and the Department of Human Services conduct a complete end-to-end review of the administration of the entire DSP program. Recent data showed that only 1.6 per cent of the recipients subject to the scattergun approach in the 2016 and 2017 reviews have been moved from the DSP. That is a minute little amount—1.6 per cent. This raises a question. It raises the possibility that poorly targeted, costly reviews are actually costing the taxpayer more than they are saving by doing this nitpicking with some of the most vulnerable people in Australia.

The committee also found that the time to complete assessments and reviews has increased. I go back to the DHS cuts to the workforce. Obviously, this has an enormous effect on people and waiting times, leaving people hanging in uncertainty for lengthy times, for months on end in some cases.

The report recommended reviewing the eligibility conditions for the DSP, particularly for the chromosomal disorders such as Down syndrome, about which we heard from the member for Bruce, who spoke very well about it earlier. He was saying that a lot of these people will never, ever be able to work, and here we are putting pressure on people with Down syndrome.

It also recommended improving data sharing between the federal departments and state and territory governments so that the eligible and other severely disabled recipients could be excluded from different reviews et cetera. It recommended undertaking 'a transparent review', including input from independent experts and stakeholders, of the government's recent changes to the DSP assessment process and also considering increasing the time given for clients under review to provide documentation. As we heard, 21 days has proven to be totally inadequate when it comes to doctors' reports, for example. Sometimes we see people waiting for three months before they see a specialist, let alone 21 days, and especially in the public system.

These are some of the things that we have been hearing. I will highlight some of the cases in my electorate of how this system is failing vulnerable Australians. One of my constituents came to me very frustrated over having been rejected for a DSP despite suffering from a long-term chronic medical condition, including severe osteoarthritis in the hands and knees—he had a knee replacement—and a degenerative disease of the lumbar spine, amongst other ailments. Just looking at this gentleman, you could see that he was in excruciating pain. Despite medical practitioners confirming that he is unable to work as a result of these conditions and will never work—that was the medical practitioners' report—he was refused a DSP. My constituent thought that the entire process was unnecessarily long and challenging and has resulted in a great deal of stress, and the stress has added to his ill health.

Another constituent came to me incredibly stressed and frustrated for his son. He came to see me on behalf of his son, who has been rejected for a DSP. His son was involved in an accident which left him with severe physical disabilities. In fact, at the time they thought he would never walk again. It has also contributed to his mental health issues. Advice provided by the treating hospital absolutely confirms that the problems with his back and leg are degenerative and permanent and will become worse over time. He is in excruciating pain. He is on painkillers. He is unable to work or stand for long periods, and he is on antidepressants as well. Despite overwhelming expert advice from medical doctors—not a bureaucrat—my constituent is not eligible for the DSP. He has been denied repeatedly. This is compounding the already significant health and psychological problems that he has.

Another constituent came to me in desperation. Following a workplace injury, this constituent was unable to work and was confined to her home. This constituent was a waiter in a hotel. The trapdoor was left open. She turned around, walked back and went straight down into the cellar. She went into hospital and they operated on her spine—again, another one who basically did not walk for months and months.

The interesting thing about this is that, going back a few years, this particular constituent was granted a DSP because of this workplace accident. Her husband then increased the bonuses or something with his workplace, earning more money; therefore she was cut off the DSP, which is fair enough, because the income was fairly high. He is now retired. There is no income. She has gone back, and they have refused her. After her being on a DSP, being eligible and on a pension, being considered to be severely disabled, now they are refusing to give her a pension and saying, 'Go out and look for work.' She can hardly walk, let alone work. Most of her time is spent managing her pain. This particular constituent went from being a strong, productive employee who had worked most of her life as a waiter in pubs around Adelaide to someone dealing with constant, unrelenting pain. This constituent, the second time round, did not qualify for the DSP.

There are countless such stories, and I know that we on this side of the House will continue to fight for those vulnerable people—for people with disabilities, people who are at the bottom of the ladder when it comes to income and when it comes to their lives. We are very lucky to have our health, to be able to walk, to be able to work. There are people out there who, through no fault of their own—through accidents and ill health—do not have that ability.

As I said, our duty as members of parliament is to look at how we can make people's lives better, not worse. What the current government are doing with these DSP guidelines is making people's lives much harder, adding to their health issues and adding to the problems they have. This should be stopped. Like the member for Bruce, I would like to see the impact statement. Why won't the government release the impact statement? If there is nothing to hide, they should show it to us. We need to do what we can. The government are a truly heartless government, and incompetent.

See this speech in context