Bills Digest no. 118 2008–09
Family Assistance and Other Legislation Amendment (2008
Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2009
WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage history
Purpose
Background
Main provisions
Concluding comments
Contact officer & copyright details
Passage history
Family Assistance and Other Legislation
Amendment (2008 Budget and Other Measures) Bill
2009
Date
introduced: 18 March
2009
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Families, Housing, Community Services
and Indigenous Affairs
Commencement:
The provisions of this
Bill are to commence at a variety of times as set out in the Table
in section 2. In summary the provisions either start on the date of
Royal Assent or on 1 July 2009.
Links: The relevant links to
the Bill, Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be
accessed via BillsNet, which is at http://www.aph.gov.au/bills/.
When Bills have been passed they can be found at ComLaw, which is
at http://www.comlaw.gov.au/.
|
Abbreviation
|
Definition
|
|
Age Pension
|
AP
|
|
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
|
AAT
|
|
A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999
|
FAA
|
|
A New Tax System (Family Assistance)
(Administration) Act 1999
|
FAAA
|
|
Australian Taxation Office
|
ATO
|
|
Authorised Review Officer
|
ARO
|
|
Community Development Employment Projects
|
CDEP
|
|
Disability Support Pension
|
DSP
|
|
Family Tax Benefit
|
FTB
|
|
Family Tax Benefit Part A
|
FTB-A
|
|
Family Tax Benefit Part B
|
FTB-B
|
|
Goods and Services Tax
|
GST
|
|
Income Management Regime
|
IMR
|
|
Indigenous Employment Program
|
IEP
|
|
Newstart Allowance
|
NSA
|
|
Northern Territory Emergency Response
|
NTER
|
|
Northern Territory
|
NT
|
|
Parenting Payment – Partnered
|
PPP
|
|
Parenting Payment – Single
|
PPS
|
|
Social Security Act 1991
|
SSA
|
|
Social Security (Administration) Act 1999
|
SSAA
|
|
Social Security Appeals Tribunal
|
SSAT
|
|
Work for the Dole
|
WftD
|
The Bill has several different
purposes, firstly to amend legislation to require persons claiming
Family Tax Benefit (FTB) to lodge a claim with Centrelink and
remove the option of making a claim with the Australian Taxation
Office (ATO) at the end of the financial year when they lodge their
tax return. Secondly, to allow persons who have their welfare
payments subjected to the Income Management Regime (IMR) payment
arrangements to appeal to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal
(SSAT) and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). Lastly, the
Bill proposes changes to payment arrangements for persons in
Community Development Employment Program (CDEP). These changes
are:
- new persons accessing CDEP on or after 1 July 2009 will have
access to CDEP programs while receiving an income support
payment,[1]
- new persons accessing CDEP on or after 1 July 2009 will have
access to CDEP programs and access to other additional payments
under the income support system but not to CDEP supplement[2], and
- persons continuing as CDEP participants will have access to
CDEP wages[3] and
CDEP supplement up until 30 June 2011, when all continuing CDEP
participants will be transferred to a main stream income support
payment, in most cases Newstart Allowance (NSA).[4]
The government announced the proposal to no longer allow claims
for both Family Tax Benefit Part A (FTB-A) and Family Tax Benefit
Part B (FTB-B) through the ATO in the 2008-09 Budget.[5] Families will no longer
be able to claim FTB-A or FTB-B with the ATO in their tax
assessment at the end of the year. Families will only be able to
claim FTB through Centrelink or through Medicare offices.
The changes will see extra costs for Centrelink and reduced
costs for the ATO. The initiative is estimated to have net savings
in administrative costs of $19.8 million in 2008-09, $25.0 million
in 2009-10, $27.9 million in 2010-11 and $28.5 million in
2011-12.[6]
FTB-A is the main income supplement payment provided to families
with a qualifying dependent child and whose income is below certain
limits. The FTB-A income test assesses the whole family income,
that is, the income of both partners where present. Where the
parent qualifies for an income support payment, they are
automatically qualified for the maximum rate of FTB-A. FTB-A has
its origins in the reforms of family assistance arrangement
undertaken by the Howard Government when introducing the Goods and
Services Tax (GST) from 1 July 2000. FTB-A replaced several
previous family assistance programs being the Family Allowance,
Family Tax Payment Part A and Family Tax Assistance Part A.[7]
FTB-B was introduced with FTB-A and provides extra assistance to
single parent families and families with one main income, where one
parent chooses to stay at home or balance some paid work with
caring for a child. Where the parent is single, the maximum rate of
FTB-B can be paid so long as income is less than $150 000 per year.
Where the claimant is partnered, the FTB-B income test is applied
to the income of the lowest earning partner. Where the highest
earning partner s income exceeds $150 000 per year, FTB-B is not
payable.
FTB-B was introduced with the GST in July 2000 and replaced
several income supplement and tax programs; the Basic Parenting
Payment (a component of the broader Parenting Payment), Guardian
Allowance, Family Tax Payment Part B, Family Tax Assistance Part B,
Sole Parent Rebate and Dependent Spouse Rebate (with children).
Currently, a person can claim and receive payment of FTB-A
and/or FTB-B in two main ways.
A person can claim for FTB to be paid fortnightly during the
financial year with Centrelink. The fortnightly payment rate paid
is based on the claimant s estimate of their annual adjusted
taxable income.[8] At
the end of the year, when the tax assessments is lodged a
reconciliation is then conducted between the claimant s estimate of
their income and their actual income received, as determined in
their tax assessment. Any underpayment is paid by the ATO and any
overpayment is a debt and is recovered.
The other way a person can claim FTB is in their tax return at
the end of the year. Any FTB entitlement for the year is paid by
the ATO with their tax assessment, reconciling it against any tax
owing or tax payable. Persons can also claim a lump-sum payment
with Centrelink after their tax assessment is done.
The table below sets out a breakdown of how FTB claimants
claimed in the 2006 07 year.
|
Payment
type
|
Number of
customers
|
Per cent of
customers
|
|
Tax Office lump-sum
payments
|
154,164
|
7%
|
|
Centrelink lump-sum
payments
|
62,503
|
3%
|
|
Centrelink fortnightly
payments
|
1,876,044
|
90%
|
Note: Payment information
refers to customers who received assistance for the 2006-07
financial year as at the end of June 2008. Customers who claimed
assistance using more than one payment method during the year could
be included in more than one of the above categories. For example,
a customer may have received fortnightly payments from Centrelink
for part of the year, as well as a lump-sum payment through the
taxation system.[9]
As can be seen, 90 per cent of FTB claimants claim their FTB as
fortnightly payments paid during the year based on their estimate
of their income. The reason for this is that most persons value the
access to regular fortnightly payments rather than waiting for a
lump-sum payment at the end of the year.
Generally speaking the persons who claim FTB as a lump-sum often
do so as they have higher incomes and therefore can afford to wait
to the end of the year to receive payment. This particularly
applies to FTB-B where a partnered person on low income can have
access to FTB-B, so long as their partner s income is below $150
000 per annum. In an answer to a question on notice from Senator
Chris Evans, the reconciliation figures for the 2004 05 year showed
that FTB-A claimants who claim as a lump-sum have higher incomes
that those who claim FTB-A in fortnightly payments.[10]
As mentioned above, the income test for FTB uses adjusted
taxable income.[11]
The definition of adjusted taxable income will change from 1 July
2009 to add back in to net taxable income two extra amounts. These
will be income salary sacrificed into superannuation and total net
investment loses. This change was achieved with the passage of the
Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Act 2009.[12]
Under the proposed amendments in the Bill, a person will no
longer be able to access FTB by claiming a lump-sum payment when
lodging their tax assessment with the ATO at the end of the year.
Claimants will still have the flexibility to claim FTB as a
lump-sum at the end of the year, but they will have to do that
through a Centrelink or Medicare office.
This only affects the minority of FTB claimants. As the table
above shows, most FTB claimants (90 per cent) claim FTB in the form
of fortnightly payments paid during the year.
The Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER) was announced
by the then government on 21 June 2007.[13] The NTER measures involved
substantial changes to the delivery of welfare payments to certain
persons. One of the key changes was introduction of the Income
Management Regime (IMR) payment arrangements.
IMR payment arrangements were introduced with the passage of the
Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare
Payment Reform) Act 2007.[14] Under IMR, a welfare recipient can be required to
have their welfare payments paid into an account controlled by
Centrelink and access to monies from that account is provided to
the individual for needs considered to be priority needs of the
person and their dependants. These needs could commonly include
food, accommodation costs (rent or mortgage payments), utility
costs like electricity bills, costs of transport to and from work,
clothing and household items.
An individual can become subject to an IMR for one of the
following reasons:
- for the protection of the child of that individual,
- if the individual is subject to the jurisdiction of the
Queensland Family Responsibilities Commission and the Commission
makes a request for the provisions to be applied,
- the individual is a resident of a specified area in the
Northern Territory (NT), or
- the individual s child is deemed to have unsatisfactory
attendance at school .
The application of the IMR provisions in the NT is unique in
that any person receiving welfare payments, who is living in one of
the specified NTER areas in the NT, will have the IMR provisions
applied to their payments. IMR provisions could also be applied to
another welfare recipient residing outside one of these designated
areas in the NT, under one of the other criteria, such as for child
protection or child non-attendance at school reasons.
As at March 2009, there are 15 204 welfare payment recipients
under IMR provisions in the NT.[15] 30 people have had IMR provisions applied
following a request from the Queensland Family Responsibilities
Commission.[16]
In the 2007 Bill that originated the IMR payment
arrangements,[17]
there were provisions that expressly excluded persons subjected to
the IMR arrangements in the NT, as they resided in a designated
area in the NT, from appealing against the application of the IMR
provisions to the SSAT.[18] In doing this, persons on IMR in the NT as they were
residing in a designated area, were also excluded from appealing to
the AAT. A person can only appeal to the AAT after they have
appealed to the SSAT.[19]
The reason then stated for excluding these normal review
processes for IMR affected recipients was:
The reason for these review arrangements is the
unique circumstances of the emergency response, given that people
still have full external merits review in relation to their
substantive entitlements and rates.[20]
This does not explain why the normal appeal rights to the SSAT
and the AAT, available under the Social Security Act 1991
(SSA) and also the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act
1999 (FAA), were explicitly excluded in the originating IMR
provisions Act. The probable reason was that the IMR provisions
were then unique, had never been previously applied, would probably
be contentious and the government did not want the process slowed
or compromised in any way by a large number of appeals. This could
have especially applied in the NT, where all persons on a welfare
payment in designated areas in the NT were placed under IMR
arrangements. In other cases, the IMR provisions were being applied
on a case-by-case basis. The potential for appeals was large as
under the IMR arrangements people would no longer be directly
receiving all of their welfare payments.
The Rudd Government announced a review of the NTER arrangements
in June 2008.[21]
The NTER Review Board presented its report on 30 September
2008.[22] One of
the recommendations in the Review Board s report was that all
welfare recipients should have access to external merits
review.[23]
Currently, under the legislation there are rights of appeal to the
original decision maker and then to the Centrelink Authorised
Review Officer (ARO) but that is where the appeal steps stop.
The application of IMR provisions is largely done on an area
basis in the NT, that is, persons living in a designated area
receiving a relevant IMR affected welfare payment have the IMR
provisions applied.[24] This Bill proposes to allow individuals affected by the
IMR provisions in designated areas in the NT the right to appeal to
the SSAT and then to the AAT. The most fundamental question will
be: will individuals subject to IMR because they live in one of the
designated areas in the NT be able to appeal the application of the
IMR provisions to themselves?
Section 123UG of the Social Security (Administration) Act
1999 (SSAA) empowers the Secretary to exempt a person in a
designated IMR area in the NT from the IMR provisions. However,
while the list of factors that the Secretary must take into
consideration under section 123UG are not expressed to be an
exhaustive list, by implication they may limit the Secretary s
ability to take into account other factors in the granting of an
exemption see below.
123UG. Exempt Northern Territory
persons
123UG.(1) Each relevant Northern
Territory area
123UG.(1) The Secretary may, by written notice
given to a person, determine that the person is an
exempt Northern Territory person in relation to each
relevant Northern Territory area for the purposes of this
Part.
123UG.(2)
In deciding whether to make a determination under
subsection (1), the Secretary must have regard to the following
matters:
- the person's family and kinship relationships;
- the area in which the person is usually physically present
overnight;
- the area or areas in which the person's assets are
located;
- if the person has travelled outside the
relevant Northern Territory areas:
- the frequency of that travel; and
- the duration of that travel; and
- the reason for that travel;
- the address of the place of residence of the person last known
to the Secretary;
- the postal address of the person last known to the
Secretary;
- whether the person has been physically present in any of the
relevant Northern Territory areas on a temporary basis;
- if the person has been physically present in any of the
relevant Northern Territory areas on a temporary basis the
circumstances that resulted in the person being so physically
present in the area concerned.
Section 123UG does not empower the Secretary to exempt an IMR
affected person in a designated area in the NT just because the
individual thinks the IMR provisions should not apply to them.
Essentially, section 123UG empowers the Secretary to exempt a
person where it is considered the person is not resident in the IMR
designated area in the NT. The granting of appeal rights to the
SSAT and the AAT for IMR affected persons in designated areas in
the NT will not empower these external appeal bodies to exempt a
person from IMR, outside the matters specified in section
123UG.
The CDEP programme commenced in 1977. Under CDEP, members of a
participating CDEP community or organisation can voluntarily forgo
any individual Centrelink income support payment (except Abstudy or
full time student Youth Allowance) for a group wages grant paid to
the community. CDEP payment arrangements then involve a
consolidated amount of welfare payment sent to a CDEP community
based on the number of CDEP community members on welfare payments.
The CDEP community then hands out CDEP wages to individuals in the
community on the basis of work done or accepted activities
undertaken in the community. Although CDEP has been referred to as
a Work for the Dole (WftD) scheme, there are significant
differences including the ability of all welfare recipients to
participate in CDEP activities. There is also a CDEP
supplement[25] paid
on top of CDEP wages that is not available to NSA recipients. There
is a WftD supplement,[26] but that is only paid to unemployed jobseekers
undertaking WftD activities.
CDEP wages are paid by a different
method and often different amounts to those receiving mainstream
income support payments under the SSA. There is no set rate or
amount for CDEP wages and amounts paid to individuals and they can
vary for individuals inside a CDEP community and between CDEP
communities. Some CDEP participants may be receiving more income
than just CDEP wages (and also from other income sources like sale
of art works) than they would otherwise receive when on an income
support payment.
As part of the NTER, all NT CDEP
programs were informed that from 1 July 2007 their funding
agreements would be reduced from 12 to three months. On 23 July
2007, the Howard government announced further changes to the CDEP
arrangements in the NT including that the program will be replaced
with real jobs, training and mainstream employment programmes
.[27] One of the
most significant elements in these announcements was the start of
the moving of CDEP participants from CDEP wages to mainstream
income support payments and the cessation of CDEP payment
arrangements, that is, group amounts paid to CDEP communities.
Persons who were paid CDEP wages were to be moved to receiving
individual welfare payments, as applies outside CDEP communities.
This was considered necessary given the IMR provisions that were
introduced for the NTER reforms. The impact of the IMR provisions
would be limited if welfare payments to CDEP participants were not
included in the welfare quarantining. The fact sheet accompanying
the media release at the time stated:
moving CDEP participants onto income support
will allow a single system of quarantining to apply to welfare
payments. This initiative will stem the flow of cash going towards
alcohol and substance abuse and ensure that money meant for
children s welfare is used for that purpose.[28]
Shortly after being elected in November 2007, the Rudd
government announced the cessation of the cancellation of CDEP
arrangements.[29]
The announcement essentially placed a moratorium on the cessation
of the CDEP arrangements in the NT that had been commenced by the
Howard government from mid-2007. IMR arrangements were continued in
some CDEP communities to reduce the amount of cash from government
payments that could be spent on drugs, alcohol and gambling in
communities. The government did commit to continue the reform of
CDEP arrangements.[30]
The government announced reforms to CDEP arrangements on 19
December 2008.[31]
The Minister stated in announcing the reforms:
This announcement follows an extensive national
consultation process, involving 1600 people in 56 locations around
Australia. The Government also received 86 written
submissions.[32]
Essentially the reforms involve the phasing out of CDEP payment
arrangements and persons not being paid CDEP wages but paid
mainstream income support payments commencing 1 July 2009. These
SSA income support payments will mainly be NSA but could also be
Parenting Payment Partnered (PPP),[33] Parenting Payment Single
(PPS),[34] Age
Pension and Disability Support Pension (DSP).[35]
The aim of the CDEP payment reforms is to eventually have all
unemployed Indigenous jobseekers on mainstream income support
payment arrangements, not on CDEP payment arrangements. The
government has said:
The reforms are key to making progress on the
Government's aim of halving the employment gap between Indigenous
and non-Indigenous Australians within a decade.
Meeting our target means that an additional
100,000 Indigenous Australians will need to find and keep jobs over
the next 10 years, requiring major reforms to Indigenous and
mainstream employment services. Employment contributes strongly to
personal, social and economic development.[36]
So the Government doesn t want to continue the CDEP payment
arrangements but wants unemployed Indigenous jobseekers provided
with mainstream income support payments and requirements and
assistance.
The CDEP reforms are starting on the same date as the
commencement of the new employment assistance arrangements - Job
Services Australia.[37] The government wants unemployed Indigenous jobseekers
on income support payments where they are required to look for work
in the open labour market and can also access the benefits of the
$764 million committed over five years to the Indigenous Employment
Program (IEP).[38]
The provisions in this Bill provide
for two main elements from 1 July 2009:
- new starters of CDEP programs will receive income support
payments and still be entitled to access CDEP programs, and
- continuing CDEP participants will continue to receive CDEP
wages from CDEP providers up until 30 June 2011 and in some cases
also receive the CDEP supplement.
Other features of the reforms to CDEP arrangements from 1 July
2009 are:
- $764 million is committed to the IEP for services more
responsive to the specific needs of Indigenous jobseekers,
Indigenous businesses and employers,
- CDEP will cease in non-remote areas with established
economies,
- in areas of established economies Indigenous jobseekers will be
assisted by IEP and the new universal employment services (also
commencing from 1 July 2009), and
- new employment services providers will have contract
requirements to provide an Indigenous employment strategy.[39]
The CDEP program and payment arrangements have been a matter of
vigorous debate for many years. One of the main claimed virtues of
CDEP arrangements is that CDEP currently
represents the only opportunity to obtain work in which
participants can achieve a sense of satisfaction in contributing to
the wellbeing of their communities. This especially applies in
remote communities where there are very limited or no open labour
market employment opportunities. The CDEP payment arrangements have
allowed communities to pool income resources and to initiate and
provide community development and maintenance work and also to fund
community activities.
The criticism of CDEP is that it doesn t generate paid
employment in the open labour market and the CDEP wages paid are
often very low compared to wage rates for the same work in the open
labour market. CDEP had become a destination rather than a training
phase or a transition phase to employment in the open labour market
and with the resultant self-support. This was certainly the view of
the Howard government:
"While acknowledging the role that CDEP has
played in many communities, it has become a destination for too
many. We need to do much better to improve the long-term prospects
for economic independence for those living in the remote areas of
the Northern Territory."[40]
The decline of CDEP arrangements initiated by the Howard
government in late 2007, followed by the partially reversed CDEP
arrangements of the Rudd government in 2008 and onwards has led to
confusion in CDEP communities.[41] However, the NTER Review Board report said:
The single most effective step taken over the
past 12 months to secure non-CDEP employment for
the Aboriginal residents of the communities associated with the
NTER, has been the decision by the Australian
and Northern Territory Governments, along with the new shire
councils, to discontinue subsidising their services with
CDEP and paying full wages with full
entitlements to their employees.
This step alone has earmarked funding for the
transition from CDEP to 1536 jobs in Australian
Government funded service delivery positions and 400 in Northern
Territory Government positions. By June 2008 former
CDEP workers had taken up just over two-thirds
of these jobs (1300). The various programs supporting these
initiatives are commended and should be continued.[42]
In regards to CDEP, the NTER Review Board report stated:
While policy makers and social researchers will
continue to engage in a debate about the place and value of
CDEP in any future welfare reform agenda, the
Board would strongly suggest that for many Aboriginal people,
CDEP currently represents the only opportunity
to obtain work in which they can achieve a sense of satisfaction in
contributing to the wellbeing of their communities.
Any government will have difficulty in transitioning
communities, especially remote communities from the long-standing
passive welfare CDEP arrangements to open employment. Many CDEP
arrangements are in remote communities and have been in place in
these remote places for many years. These remote communities are
places of very limited, or even zero places of open employment
opportunity and participation. This is mainly due to their
remoteness and their associated lack of economic activity. For a
long time, work and community functions have been funded by CDEP
and performed by CDEP paid workers, but paid at reduced pay rates
than normally applies in the open labour market. To transition
these remote communities to open employment and to create open
employment jobs will require the expenditure of public monies.
The revised CDEP payment arrangements presented in this Bill
essentially mean a softer and slower phase out of CDEP payment
arrangements than previously envisaged by the Howard
government.
Item 1 deletes subclause 20(3) of Schedule 1 of
the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 (FAA).
This subclause ensured that where a person claimed FTB with the
ATO, then any arrears of child support paid to that person for that
year was regarded in their rate calculation of FTB for the year.
Child support maintenance received by a person affects their rate
of FTB payable under the maintenance income test. Now that people
will not be able to claim FTB with the ATO, the clause is no longer
required. Maintenance income received will still be counted as
income under the maintenance income test for any rate of FTB
payable, as calculated by Centrelink.
Items 2 to 5 basically remove
references to the ATO in parts of the A New Tax System (Family
Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (FAAA) that are there as
the ATO was a party to the FTB claim and assessment processes.
Items 6 to 10 make both
consequential and housekeeping amendments to section 14 of the
FAAA, which deals with a person lodging a FTB claim for a past
period. Under section 14 a person can claim FTB as a lump-sum up to
two years after the end of the year for which they are claiming.
For example, a person claiming FTB for the 2009-10 year can lodge a
claim up to the end of the 2011-2012 year.
Item 11 repeals paragraph 118(1)(d) which
refers the ATO as a party to decisions concerning FTB.
Item 12 ensures decisions made by the ATO on
FTB claims before 1 July 2009 have their rights reserved and
claimants affected can have decisions reviewed under the FAAA.
Item 1 repeals section 144(ka) from the SSAA.
Section 144(ka) is the section in the SSAA that excludes persons,
subject to the IMR provisions because they live in a designated
area in the NT, from being able to access external review of IMR
decisions.
Item 1 repeals subsections 1188B(1) and (2) of
the SSA which currently defines who is a CDEP participant. The
proposed replacement subsection 1188(B)(1) basically details that a
person can only be a CDEP scheme participant if they were entitled
to receive a CDEP payment on 1 July 2009. This means CDEP scheme
participants will not be entitled to CDEP scheme wages if they
start being a participant on or after 2 July 2009.
Concluding comments
The move to remove the ATO as a place where a FTB claim can be
lodged is essentially streamlining of FTB claim processes and an
administrative cost cutting measure. 90 per cent of FTB claimants
currently claim through Centrelink, either by way of fortnightly
payments or as a lump-sum at the end of the year.[43]
The move to allow IMR affected welfare recipients residing in
designated areas in the NT access to external review will only
allow these recipients to appeal to the SSAT (and the AAT),
challenging the assessment that they are a resident of a designated
area. It will not change the application of IMR provisions in the
designated areas in the NT very much.
The phase out of the CDEP scheme wages payment arrangements is
gradual. Those on a CDEP scheme payment arrangement on 1 July 2009
will continue new CDEP scheme participants from 2 July onwards will
be required to individually qualify for an income support payment.
It is a more gradual phase out of CDEP scheme payment arrangements
than originally envisioned by the previous Howard government.
Members, Senators and Parliamentary staff can obtain further
information from the Parliamentary Library on (02) 6277
2413.
[8]. Adjusted taxable income
refers to net taxable income with three additional elements added
back in, being foreign income, employer-provided fringe benefits
and the value of net rental property losses.
[27]. M
Brough (Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous
Affairs) and J Hockey (Minister for Employment and Workplace
Relations), Jobs and Training For Indigenous People In The
NT, media release, Canberra, Australia, 23 July 2007,
viewed 27 March 2009,
http://parlinfo/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=;group=;holdingType=;id=;orderBy=customrank;page=0;query=hockey%20Date%3A20%2F07%2F2007%20%3E%3E%2031%2F07%2F2007%20Dataset%3Apressrel;querytype=;rec=1;resCount=Default.
[35].
Disability Support Pension is payable to a person with an
impairment of 20 points or more who is assessed as not being able
to work or be retrained for work of at least 15 hours per week
within two years because of their illness, injury or
disability.
[40]. M
Brough (Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous
Affairs), and J Hockey (Minister for Employment and Workplace
Relations), Jobs and training for Indigenous people in the
NT, media release, Canberra, 23 July 2007, viewed 30 March
2009,
http://parlinfo/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=;group=;holdingType=;id=;orderBy=customrank;page=0;query=brough%20and%20CDEP%20Dataset%3Apressrel;querytype=;rec=9;resCount=Default.
Peter Yeend
28 April 2009
Bills Digest Service
Parliamentary Library
© Commonwealth of Australia
This work is copyright. Except to the extent of uses permitted
by the Copyright Act 1968, no person may reproduce or transmit any
part of this work by any process without the prior written consent
of the Parliamentary Librarian. This requirement does not apply to
members of the Parliament of Australia acting in the course of
their official duties.
This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian
Parliament using information available at the time of production.
The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the
Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal
opinion.
Feedback is welcome and may be provided to: web.library@aph.gov.au. Any
concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary
Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the
contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff.
To access this service, clients may contact the author or the
Library’s Central Entry Point for referral.
Back to top