Dana Wortley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Vocational Rehabilitation Services) Bill 2006. While Labor oppose this bill, we are committed to welfare reform; but our commitment is to real welfare reform—welfare reform that addresses the reasons someone is not working and delivers practical solutions, welfare reform that provides opportunities for people to get the skills that an employer needs, welfare reform that encourages employers to give people with a disability the opportunity to demonstrate their ability, welfare reform that acknowledges that being a parent is an important job in itself and that work helps to make families more secure, and welfare reform that ensures people receive a fair reward for their effort.

Labor believe that those in the community capable of working should do so, but unlike the government we believe in a system that properly assists people make the transition from welfare assistance to active and ongoing employment. What concerns us about the legislation before us today is that this legislation fails to do this. What concerns us is the way the Howard government has approached welfare reform through its Welfare to Work changes. It is that to which I intend to speak tonight.

This bill amends the Disability Services Act 1986, the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. Under this legislation, those who receive Newstart allowance or youth allowance will generally have to engage in activity in return for income support, and in some cases it will be necessary for them to attend a vocational rehabilitation service.

As it stands today, vocational rehabilitation services are provided by the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Service. The government wants the rehabilitation services to be contestable to enable private providers to tender for contracts. Labor does not oppose, in principle, competitive tendering in the vocational rehabilitation services market, provided that it can be consistently proven that services are not diminished. Unfortunately, the government seems to hold the principle that competition alone will ensure quality of service. This conviction is evident in this bill, as it fails to introduce adequate safeguards and regulations, as Labor senators reflected in their Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee inquiry report. The welfare sector demonstrated similar apprehensions in their submissions to the bill’s inquiry.

Herein is the problem: many private providers are not compliant with the provisions of the Disability Services Act, but if this legislation goes through it will mean that the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations will be in a position to allow services to be provided by some providers who do not hold a certificate of compliance. Concerns were raised by advocates of people with a disability that this could be problematic, particularly when dealing in the area of mental health. It opens the door for providers who do not hold a certificate of compliance and therefore may not have the necessary expertise to be dealing with clients with complex mental health issues. This is not acceptable.

Labor senators were in agreement with the Mental Health Council of Australia that this will not assist in any way to ensure an initial high standard of service, appropriate consideration for people with mental health conditions or confidence in the accessibility of the site for people with disabilities. This is just one example of where this legislation fails. It fails also to provide a guarantee that vocational rehabilitation services will be accessible to clients with a range of disabilities. It fails to guarantee that expertise through a vocational rehabilitation provider will be available to all clients.

The National Association of Community Based Children’s Services and the Community and Public Sector Union highlighted concerns that the lack of safeguards could lead to a reduction in services, poorer rehabilitation outcomes and fewer specialist services. The concerns raised are numerous and serious in their impact. There is a lack of adequate appeal mechanisms, through the removal of the statutory right, to appeal the content of individual rehabilitation programs through an internal review process or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That has been removed without an alternative safeguard being put in its place. This could have a significant impact on individual cases where an activity agreement comprises a compulsory rehabilitation program. A failure to meet the requirements could result in a significant non-payment period.

There is a failure to guarantee that vocational rehabilitation services will be accessible to clients with a range of disabilities. There is the possibility of so-termed difficult cases being passed over by rehabilitation providers in favour of less complex ones. There is the probability that rural and regional areas or small regional centres will not benefit from the increased choice of providers. The bill will only give choice to people in areas wealthy enough to sustain the profitability of a private provider. Further to this, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations has also not ruled out private providers replacing CRS Australia altogether in some areas. This, in effect, is merely a change of providers as opposed to a choice.

Labor remain concerned about the lack of assurance that people with a disability who are in genuine need of vocational rehabilitation services will get the help they need. But the concerns do not end there. We have concerns about the restriction of access to the pensioner education supplement. Over the next three years, through the Howard government’s Welfare to Work changes, approximately 81,000 people with disabilities will be put onto lower payments, mainly Newstart allowance. We are still waiting for an explanation on how reducing access to education and training and income support payments can help someone to get a job or increase rates of participation in the workforce.

Labor senators made it clear in the opposition senators’ report on the inquiry that any restriction to the PES will discourage people trying to move from welfare to work and that, instead of further restricting access to the PES, there should be a concerted effort to better support people to move from welfare to work through education. A person who is seeking to improve their skills base should be encouraged and provided with assistance in trying to achieve their goals. A person doing this in an attempt to move from welfare into the workforce should be encouraged and supported where possible. They should be rewarded for their effort and for taking positive steps towards workforce engagement. People on the edge of discarding welfare dependency should be given a level of assistance that ensures they make that final leap, not be cut off before they reach the other side, not have the last few hurdles raised to the point where they are impossible to jump over and not be disadvantaged to a point where they give up. This government’s welfare changes reduce the financial rewards from work and make it even more difficult for people to get the education or training they need to move into the workforce.

Debate interrupted.