Dissenting Report - Australian Labor Party, Australian Democrats and Australian Greens

Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and other Measures) Bill 2005

Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work) Bill 2005

1.1       Australian Labor Party, Australian Democrat and Australian Greens Senators agree with the stated aims of these bills which are to assist people who are able to work to move from welfare into work . Work is a fundamental building block of social and economic inclusion. The community and the individual all benefit when more people are able to participate in the social and economic mainstream. However, these bills will not achieve this. Not only is it an incompetent legislative package that fails in its stated aims, but it introduces perverse incentives that will actively discourage people from moving away from welfare payments and into paid employment.

1.2       Furthermore, we believe the extremely short period of time the Committee has been given to hold an inquiry into these bills is unacceptable. The time-frame was in fact so short that the usual Senate processes for advertising for submissions could not be undertaken, and consequently the Committee had to rely on invitation and internet advertising. Within two weeks, the Committee has been required to dissect and consider the detail of a long and complex piece of legislation, process and read over 60 submissions, arrange and hear four days of evidence from government departments and concerned organisations, and produce a report to be tabled in the Senate. The Committee's report will be tabled in the Senate only five days after evidence was taken in the last of the public hearings into these changes, which provides very little opportunity for the evidence to be fully considered.

1.3       Of equal concern to Australian Labor Party, Australian Democrat and Australian Greens Senators is the limited opportunity organisations participating in this inquiry have had to consider the government's package. The National Welfare Rights Network told the Committee:

It has been very difficult to pull this together and to be frank I do not know how it is going to be possible for the Senate to know exactly what it is doing when it is carrying this legislation. Even though we have given it our best bash we are sure we have not been able to fully comprehend what impact parts of this legislation will have and how they all fit together.[203]

1.4       In the few days they were given, concerned organisations and individuals have had to very quickly grasp the implications of a highly complex set of changes and are to be congratulated for contributing so effectively to this inquiry at such short notice.

1.5       There emerged a very clear convergence in the analysis offered to the committee by the range of employment support providers, crisis care services and advocates for the disadvantaged. All agreed that finding those on welfare meaningful work would help them improve their lives, but did not believe that the provisions of this legislation would actually help them to do so. There was a strong consensus that it would have serious impacts for the disadvantaged that would further entrench existing inequalities and would lead to a significant longer-term increase in the numbers living in poverty. Crisis care organizations expressed serious concerns about their capacity to cope with this increase level of demand.

1.6       Given the limited time for this inquiry, we have concentrated our attention on those aspects of the changes comprised in the bills which were the predominant focus of the evidence presented to the Committee. There are a range of matters, such as the changes in respect of mature age and very long-term unemployed, that we have been unable to properly address in the short time-frame.

1.7       These bills represent the most drastic changes to the provision of social security in Australia since the introduction of the Social Security Act in 1947, affecting hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable Australians. By so severely limiting the time frame of this inquiry, the Government has diminished the capacity of Senators, and the community in general, to appropriately consider the details of these changes. Given the importance of these proposed Welfare to Work measures, this should not have been the case.

Fewer incentives to move from welfare to work

From one welfare payment to another, lower welfare payment

1.8       The core of the proposals comprising the bills is a reduction in the income support payments of some of our most vulnerable Australians. From July 2006, these bills effect a reduction in income to many sole parents and people with a disability. People with a disability will face a harsher and more restrictive test when claiming the Disability Support Pension (“the DSP”). Those who are assessed as able to work for 15 hours or more per week, currently or within a two year period will only be entitled to the Newstart allowance. Future applicants for the parenting payment single benefit (“the PPS”) will be moved onto the lower newstart payment when their child turns 8 (for sole parents, 6 for partnered parents).

1.9       Not only does Newstart Allowance provide lower rates, it, has a lower “free” area, is subject to higher withdrawal rates and harsher tax treatment than both the DSP and PPS. The effect of these characteristics will be to place people with a disability and sole parents in a substantially worse financial position than under current arrangements. In addition, they will face far higher effective marginal tax rates which operate as a disincentive to work.

Lower welfare payments for sole parents[204]

1.10      When the Government announced the proposal, its intention was that sole parents would move to Newstart Allowance when their youngest child was six years of age the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling at the University of Canberra (NATSEM) conducted an analysis of the proposal on this basis. Since then, the Government has altered the policy so that sole parents are moved to Newstart when their youngest child is aged eight years. However, the age difference of the child does not affect NATSEM's analysis. The financial consequences are simply deferred for the sole parent by two years.

1.11      NATSEM analysed the proposed payment rate and income test for new sole parents whose youngest child is aged six years and over is summarised in the following table:[205]

1.12      Sole parents with one child and no private income are expected to receive about $257 a week on average in Parenting Payment Single in 2006-07. On Newstart they will receive $29 less. A crucial factor is the scope for combining earnings with part rate income support. In 2006-07, a sole parent with one child on Parenting Payment Single will be able to earn $76 a week without any reduction in income support. For those with more than one child the difference will be even greater, as the ‘free area’ for Parenting Payment Single is increased by a further $12.30 per child per week for each child after the first, whereas the ‘free area’ under Newstart Allowance does not vary with the number of children. For every dollar of income they earn above this threshold, their welfare payment is reduced by 40 cents. Under Newstart, the threshold is $31 a week and the withdrawal rate will be 50 and 60 cents per dollar of private income above the threshold. The tax offset applying to Parenting Payment Single is more generous than that applying to Newstart.

1.13      The combined effects of these differences means that a sole parent working 15 hours a week at an assumed minimum wage of $13 per hour, earning $195 a week will be $91 a week worse off once the parent moves to Newstart, than under current arrangements. Under the government’s proposals, this reduction in take-home income will occur overnight, upon the youngest child’s 8^th birthday, when the parent moves from Parenting Payment to Newstart.[206]

1.14      Parenting Payment provides some financial support for sole parents earning up to $718 a week while Newstart cuts out at $426 a week. At those levels of earnings a sole parent will also lose the pensioner concession card and pharmaceutical allowance.

Lower welfare payments for disabled people[207]

1.15      The proposed payment rate and income test for Australians with disabilities that are assessed as being able to work 15 to 29 hours a week are summarised in the following table:[208]

1.16      People with disabilities are even more drastically affected by the changes than sole parents. Single DSP recipients aged over 20 are expected to receive about $257 a week on average in DSP in 2006-07. The Newstart rate for a single person without children is $46 a week less. A crucial factor is the amount of private income that they can receive before their income support payment is reduced. (‘Private income’ means income from sources other than government cash transfers, such as earnings.) In 2006-07, a single DSP recipient will be able to earn $64 a week without any reduction in the income support they receive, compared with $31 on Newstart. For every dollar of income they earn above this threshold, their payment from government is reduced by 40 cents, whereas on Newstart it is reduced by 50 or 60 cents.

1.17      The Newstart Allowance income test is thus much more restrictive than the DSP income test, and this is reflected in the very different ‘cut out points’ shown in the table. Single DSP recipients will be able to earn up to around $706 per week before their entitlement to part-rate income support is extinguished. People with disabilities on Newstart Allowance will only be able to earn up to about $398 a week before their entitlement to income support is extinguished.

1.18      This means that income support will cease at a much lower level of earnings for those subject to the new Newstart Allowance test than for those on the existing DSP.

1.19      People with disabilities receiving Newstart Allowance will clearly receive lower payments and face a harsher income test than those on DSP: however there are also other, less obvious, factors that will adversely affect them relative to DSP recipients. One is that DSP is not subject to income tax. In contrast, both Newstart Allowance and Youth Allowance are taxable payments. This means that those with earned or other private incomes in addition to their income support are adversely affected by being placed on Newstart rather than DSP.

1.20      A second issue is the receipt of the Pensioner Concession Card. DSP recipients are automatically entitled to a Pensioner Concession Card, which many organisations use as a ‘passport’ to a range of concessional prices for such services as property charges and taxes, energy, water, transport, education, health, car registration, housing and recreation services and so on. While such services are often provided by State and local governments, many private sector businesses also use the possession of a Pensioner Concession Card as the trigger for lower prices for such diverse services as movie tickets and shoe repairs. Similarly, doctors may often bulk bill those with Pensioner Concession Cards, so that they do not have to pay any additional co-payment.

1.21      The Government has stated that those people with disabilities who are placed on Newstart Allowance under the proposed new arrangements will retain the right to a Pensioner Concession Card. However, as the table makes clear, eligibility for Newstart Allowance for people with disabilities will cease at a much lower level of private income than eligibility for DSP - $706 versus $398. As a result, there will be many Australians with disabilities, on a range of private income over $300 per week who would formerly have qualified for the Pensioner Concession Card, but will apparently not qualify under the new rules.

1.22      It appears that those people with disabilities with private incomes above $398 a week will not receive a Health Care Card - and thus will lose their right to concessional pharmaceuticals.

1.23      Those people receiving Mobility Allowance will still receive a Health Care Card, but some concessions are provided by State and local governments and other organisations only to those with Pensioner Concession Cards and not to those with Health Care Cards. In Victoria, for example, Pensioner Concession Card holders (but not Health Care Card holders) qualify for an additional municipal rates concession of up to $160 a year and an additional transport accident charge concession of up to about $170 a year. Thus, the loss of these three items alone could reduce the effective income of some people with disabilities by some $6 a week.

1.24      It also appears that the proposed changes will be particularly harsh for those people with disabilities who are engaged in education as part of their preparation for future workforce participation. They will be ineligible for Newstart while undertaking full-time study and will thus be placed on Austudy. While people with disabilities on DSP receive the Pensioner Education Supplement, currently worth $31.20 a week for a full-time student, it appears that this will not be payable to people with disabilities placed on Austudy. Austudy is paid at lower rates than Newstart, a recipient is not eligible for rent assistance, and people with disabilities receiving Austudy will not receive the Pensioner Concession card or pharmaceutical allowance which would be extended to them on Newstart. Thus, it appears that a person with disabilities in full-time study and no private income who is placed on Austudy under the proposed new rules will face a very substantial cut in income (relative to the payment they would have received under the current system).

1.25      A final issue is that Newstart is much more strictly asset-tested than DSP. In 2006-07, a single homeowner with assets of more than $157,000 loses their entitlement to any Newstart Allowance. In contrast, a pensioner with assets above this level loses $3 per fortnight of DSP for every $1000 by which assets exceed this level. A 50 year old person with disabilities who owns their own flat and who has inherited a $200,000 house from their parents will thus not be entitled to Newstart Allowance, but would be entitled to DSP and the Pensioner Concession Card under the current system.

No evidence that lower payments increase participation

1.26      Despite receiving over 60 submissions and hearing from approximately 60 witnesses over four days of hearings, the Committee was given no cogent evidence that a reduction in income support payments will lead to greater rates of participation in the workforce. The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations was asked to provide evidence that this reduction in payment would lead to higher levels of participation. In response the Department has indicated this was a Government policy decision and subsequently provided evidence to the Committee that described the effects of policy changes that differed substantially from the Government's proposals.[209] Therefore they were of no relevance to the Government’s policy decisions or the Committee's considerations.

1.27      Australian Labor Party, Australian Democrat and Australian Greens Senators find it extraordinary that the government has taken a decision to reduce the income levels of so many Australians without providing any empirical data, nor clear rationale, that such a reduction will enhance participation. This demonstrates that the central policy change contained in this legislation – moving people with disabilities and parents onto Newstart, has no credible justification. In effect, the government is asking the Senate to support these income reductions without any evidence that they will have a positive policy effect. The repetition of broad statements of intent to move people from welfare into work, as is contained in the Explanatory Memorandum, does not mask the lack of coherent policy rationale for these cuts. We do not believe such rhetorical reiteration comprises adequate justification for effecting the harshness of the income reductions for so many Australians that is contained in this legislation.

1.28      Furthermore, the creation of new categories of recipients, different levels of payments and different activity requirements as contemplated by these changes will have the effect of creating a far more complex and inconsistent social security system.

1.29      The evidence presented to the Committee was overwhelmingly to the effect that the changes will increase hardship:

[R]educed payments to sole parents and people with disabilities are unnecessary and counter-productive and will result in increased hardship for groups already facing significant disadvantage. The Bill introduces new activity test requirements for people in these groups but fails to tailor these to individual circumstances and imposes harsh penalties on those who do not meet them.[210]

1.30      The Department of Employment and Workplace Relations confirmed that the changes implemented by the legislation, by 2008, will create 171,000 people who will be on lower payments than under current arrangements.[211]

Other disincentives

1.31      This package makes it harder for people to get assistance and the payments that they do get will in many cases be lower than the current regime. We note the evidence from the St Vincent de Paul Society that these bills, in combination with the industrial relations legislation, will see an increase in poverty levels in Australia and significant growth in the number of working poor.[212]

1.32      We note that the government’s policy decision to alter the budget announcement so that sole parents are moved to Newstart when their youngest child is aged 8 years rather than 6 years as originally announced, simply confirms the lack of policy logic in this package. Further, the package introduces greater inequity into the welfare system where two people in identical situations are treated differently. The following example illustrates:[213]

Cancellation due to earning additional income

Sally and Claire are in identical situations. They share a house and both have a seven year old daughter. They receive Parenting Payment (single) and work 15 hours a week in a minimum wage job at the local childcare centre, earning $200 a week in private income, with a total income of $390 a week from both PPS and work.

In July 2006, Claire picks up additional hours at the childcare centre and as a result of the additional income her Parenting Payment (single) is cancelled. In November 2006, the childcare centre downsizes and Claire's hours are reduced back to 15 hours a week.

Under the proposed legislation, Parenting Payment will be abolished for new applicants whose children are over eight from 1 July 2006, and the lower Newstart Allowance payment rate and harsher income test will apply. As a result, Claire will receive only $322 a week - $68 a week less than Sally.

Two sole parents in identical situations will receive different amounts of financial support to look after identical families. One will receive around 16% less income than before the changes because she accepted additional work which only lasted five months (ie. more than the 12 week gap allowed before payment is cancelled).

Sole parent families

1.33      Evidence shows that sole parent families have the lowest level of household wealth and experience higher levels of poverty compared with other families.[214] While the proportion of sole parents in paid work has increased over the last twenty years and they have the highest rates of paid employment amongst all welfare recipient groups, they experience significant barriers to undertaking work, despite their desire to do so. These barriers include the following:

• mental health difficulties due to the demands of being the only carer, having a low income, and coping with relationship breakdown. Forty-five per cent of sole parents receiving Parenting Payment (Single) have a mental health problem such as clinical anxiety or depressive disorders—higher than for all people on other benefit types;
• lack of affordable, flexible and high quality child care, including occasional care and after school care. Sole parents are more reliant on non-parental child care and have higher average child care costs than two-parent families, so they are particularly vulnerable to the declining levels of availability and affordability; and
• low levels of car ownership, and inadequate public transport with timetables and routes which do not allow parents to drop off children at school and then go on to work.

1.34      Employment during school hours is sometimes not available; and some jobs require people to work nights or weekends when centre-based child care is not available. Unskilled jobs are often casual, requiring staff to be on call—but child care is not available at short notice.

Tax disincentives

1.35      Sole parents face high effective marginal tax rates (EMTRs): for every dollar they earn from working, they may lose more than 60 cents from benefits and family payments. Currently around half of sole parents with earnings face high EMTRs, whereas 90 per cent of Newstart recipients with earnings face high EMTRs. When sole parents are transferred to Newstart and find casual or part-time work of at least 15 hours, a greater proportion will face high EMTRs.

1.36      Different EMTRs apply across different ranges of additional earnings. However, to take one example, a sole parent’s additional earnings on Newstart between $31 and $76 will be affected by an EMTR of 65 per cent rather than the zero per cent under the current system. This means they will only gain 35 cents of each additional dollar that they earn in this range. By adding in the cost of child care they keep even less from their earnings.

Transitional arrangements

1.37      We are concerned about the transitional arrangements or the savings or grandfathering provisions for the parenting payment. Given the significant difference between payment levels for people who get to stay on Parenting Payment Single and those who end up on Newstart Allowance as primary carers, the legislation does not provide adequate safeguards to ensure that people currently on parenting payment will retain the payment until the youngest child turns 16. The promised savings provisions would appear to be far more restrictive than indicated on budget night and since, and will only apply to those parenting payment recipients who are covered by the transitional arrangements.

1.38      Under these arrangements, virtually any change in relationship status will cancel out any right to return to the original parenting payment:

I would have thought that we wanted to encourage reconciliation of former partners—fathers with their children—and to encourage people to go out and earn. That is supposed to be the thrust of the legislation. But, if you do so, you are off parenting payment single if you are off for more than 12 weeks...12 weeks is not in the legislation in either of those two examples. We think that these narrow provisions may well turn out to be, in fact, extremely counterproductive and create disincentives in people’s attempts to repartner, reconcile or look for work.[215]

Parenting Payment Activity Agreement

1.39      There are serious deficiencies in the legislation as concerns the parenting payment participation requirements. A Parenting Payment Activity Agreement will set out the activities the Secretary of the Department considers a person should undertake in order to remain qualified to receive payments. We have a number of concerns about the provisions surrounding these Agreements, including:

• the removal of the requirement that the Secretary gives written notice of a requirement to enter into a Parenting Payment Activity Agreement (501(5));
• the requirement that a person must comply with the terms of their Parenting Payment Activity Agreement (500A(b)). The current legislation states a person must take 'reasonable steps to comply' (see s501(2));
• the removal of a list of 'approved activities' for Activity Agreements, that currently exists in the legislation. The list provides a legislative safeguard, outlining a range of activities that are appropriate to include in Activity Agreements;
• the provision that states that if an Activity Agreement requires a person to look for part-time work, they must look for work of at least 15 hours per week or hours determined as appropriate by the Secretary (501B). The Explanatory Memorandum explicitly states that a person will not be required to look for work or accept work where the work would involve more than 25 hours per week. Unfortunately there is no legislative protection of the 25 hours as this figure has not been included in the legislation; and
• the provision that requires a person to undertake particular paid work, unless the Secretary is of the opinion that the paid work is unsuitable (502(1)). Section 502(4) prescribes in what circumstances work will be unsuitable. For example, work will be unsuitable for a person if the person does not have access to appropriate care for their children (s502(4)(c)). We are concerned that s502(5) dictates that if the Secretary decides the person has access to appropriate child care, then no regard need be given to whether the parent considers the care to be appropriate for their child. Further, whilst the Explanatory Memorandum states that the Secretary will bear in mind the cost of child care and accessibility when making a determination as to the appropriateness of the child care, this protection is not provided in the legislation.

1.40      The availability of child care is another factor that needs to be considered as part of the Parenting Payment Activity Agreement. In the legislation, appropriate care and supervision of children is deemed to be met by any of the following:

(a)         care provided by an approved child care service and the Secretary considers that the care would be appropriate;

(b)         care that the principal carer considers suitable and could be provided to the child (i.e. informal care by family/friends/neighbours); and

(c)         child attending school and that, in the Secretary’s opinion, is appropriate.

1.41      We are concerned with these provisions for the following reasons:

• a delegate of the Secretary has no qualifications to determine whether child care is appropriate;
• children may be forced to move between child care providers and thus be denied continuity of care;
• children may be forced to move schools;
• principal carers can be forced to undertake activities when only informal care may be available – this is too great a burden to place on the carer and support network. Furthermore, it cannot be assumed that an informal carer can always be available when required. This will place inordinate stress on children, principal carers and their support networks.
• any requirement to undertake activities during school hours must include time allowed to travel to and from school, as well as the venue where the activity is to take place; and
• deeming school as suitable child care does not take into account pupil free days, school holidays, public holidays.
• parents may have difficulty in accessing appropriate vacation care, particularly in rural and regional areas

1.42      While the legislation provides for exemptions from participation requirements for people in limited circumstances and for restricted periods of time, there are problems with some of these.

The various exemptions to activity requirements that are meant to be embedded in the legislation are not in many cases, and the ones there are inconsistent as they are presented in the legislation. Who gets exemption and who gets the top-ups if you are exempt? Despite the acknowledgment that you cannot work or look for work because of your circumstances and therefore will not be able to get work and the money that goes with it, only some people get a top-up. Others do not get that top-up. These are inconsistent and incoherent provisions that seem to have been hastily drawn up and inserted at the last minute in response to what we consider to be valid political concerns.[216]

Families are treated inconsistently

1.43      Labor, Democrat and Greens senators are concerned by the inconsistency as to activity requirements and income support levels for parents contained in this legislation, and alluded to in the above evidence. The government has determined to provide automatic exemption from the move onto Newstart for certain specified categories of parents being home educators, those engaged in distance education and foster carers. Parents within these categories are not only automatically exempt from participation requirements, they are also eligible for a top-up payment to restore their immediate income level to the PPS level.

1.44      While we agree there is a strong policy argument for such exemption and top-up in relation to parents in these categories, we consider equally strong arguments exist in relation to parents in other circumstances. Why, for example, will a victim of domestic violence have to seek an exemption on a temporary basis, whereas a home educator will attain an automatic exemption?

1.45      Furthermore, parents who achieve a temporary exemption from activity requirements due to circumstances such as domestic violence or homelessness will not be eligible for a top-up payment. If the rationale for the top-up payments for the automatically exempted categories is that their circumstances prevent them from working, surely this applies equally for a parent who is unable to work because of an experience of domestic violence? We regard the Government’s approach to exemption and top-up payments as lacking policy rationale and consistency.

1.46      We further note that the top-up payment will not protect the exempted categories of parents from a worsening of their financial position. Due to the difference in indexation applied to Newstart allowance, over time it is inevitable that their payment levels will decline relative to what they would have been had they been retained on the parenting payment. In addition, the substantially higher effective marginal tax rates faced by Newstart recipients create substantial financial disincentives should these parents engage in any part-time work. We see little policy logic in this position.

1.47      We also note these bills alter the point at which a PPS recipient will move onto Newstart from that announced in the May Budget. The relevant age of the youngest child has moved from 6 to 8. We make the point that the same concerns regarding the financial position of these vulnerable families which underlies this change remains true for families whose youngest child has turned 8.

People with disabilities

1.48      The proposed changes to the Disability Support Pension (DSP) are likely to reduce income for people with disabilities. The change in eligibility means that 60 per cent of new applicants for DSP will be rejected, compared with 40 per cent at present. About 26,000 people per year will go onto another benefit (mainly Newstart Allowance). Single people will be at least $40 per week worse off.[217]

1.49      Those on Newstart will also face harsher taper rates of 50 per cent or 60 per cent rather than 40 per cent under the DSP. This means that a person working 15 hours per week on Newstart, for example, will be $93 per week worse off than if they were on the DSP and working the same hours.

1.50      Furthermore, by redefining 'educational or vocational training or on-the-job training' in paragraph 94(3)(a) of the Social Security Act 1991, the bill will make it very difficult for a person to qualify for Disability Support Pension. This is because the bill inserts a much wider definition into the Act so that where a training activity would enable a person to find work some time in the next two years, then that person is ineligible for DSP. As noted by Mr Michael Raper of the National Welfare Rights Network:

The majority of people with disabilities, even those with a severe disability, would be able to undertake a training activity, given its broad definition in section 94(5) of the bill. They would be able to undertake a training activity if it were available and locally accessible. In many cases this could lead to work of at least 15 hours.

The problem is, however, that without that training activity, they have little or no capacity to work, and that training activity is unavailable to many people, particularly in rural and remote communities. If the training is not available, they will not be able ultimately to qualify for the disability support pension.[218]

1.51      The insertion of new section 94A into the Act introduces an alternative means of qualifying for Disability Support Pension. However, it does not address the issues for people with disabilities who do not have access to a 'training activity' in their locally accessible area.[219] It introduces a “Catch-22” situation as illustrated by the following situation:

Basically, for eligibility for Disability Support Pension, they will have to assess whether, if you got some disability specific training, it could maybe get you a job in the next few years—if you have, for example, cerebral palsy and they gave you training that could help you work that specifically addressed that disability. If it could, then you are not going to get Disability Support Pension at the moment. That is how the legislation reads: ‘We will put you on Newstart at the moment, and the theory is that you will do the training for two years that we have identified would be great for you and if, at the end, you still can’t work 15 hours a week or more you go onto Disability Support Pension.’[220]

1.52      By transferring people to the Newstart Allowance if they are assessed as being capable of working for at least 15 hours per week, the legislation, contrary to its aims, puts people in a position where they would be encouraged to understate their capacity to work. Many people have significant costs associated with disability and are likely to be in a far more precarious financial position than those without disability. This creates a strong perverse incentive for them to qualify for DSP rather than the lower payment of Newstart.

The minister reports that 82 per cent of jobless disability support pensioners would prefer to work, and I do not doubt that that is true. But if you are faced with the financial consequences of being assessed as able to work 15 hours or more and lose the pension, you face what is called a perverse incentive, which is not to risk overstating your capacity to work because of the desperate need to qualify for the pension, which at least provides some security.[221]

1.53      Ms Julia Perry submitted that the proposals to move DSP recipients onto Newstart instead of applying the activity test to them will recreate a 'welfare trap' and strong disincentives to work that were features of the Invalid Pension (the pre-cursor of the DSP).[222] The replacement of the Invalid Pension with the DSP was intended to overcome these problems where pensioners had a strong reason not to risk testing their capacity to work in case they lose entitlement.

This is not just notional; this is exactly what happened under the old invalid pension. I was in the disability policy area just subsequent to 1991. [Invalid pension] required less than 15 per cent capacity and anyone who tried to test their capacity to work risked losing the pension. They were stuck in what is called a welfare trap. The disability support pension was brought in specifically to overcome that welfare trap and to give people some chance of testing their capacity. If you applied the activity test to people on disability, they would have nothing to lose and a lot to gain by testing their ability to work. But the plan to go back to this invalid pension style restriction is going to backfire if the government wants to see more people come into employment. That, to me, would be disastrous in terms of helping people to get on the road to full independence.[223]

1.54      There are also problems in assessing disability. Ms Perry told the Committee that this area is the most imprecise of all decisions in the income support system and the largest source of appeals to the Social Security Appeals Tribunal.[224] It involves not only assessing current impairment but predicting the future of a person's condition over the next two years, estimating the potential effects of education, training and rehabilitation and rating that against a person's ability to undertake any sort of work that exists in Australia now and for the next two years.

1.55      The Comprehensive Work Capacity Assessment (CWCA) estimates people's capacity to work certain spans of hours per week (ie 0 to 7 hours, 8 to 14 hours, 15 to 29 hours and 30-plus hours), now and into the future. The level of uncertainty in making those decisions is not compatible with making accurate specifications in all of the fine bandwidths that are required. Ms Perry contends that the assessments will not reflect reality.[225] We are concerned because the consequences of incorrect assessment are so great for individuals under this legislation. Around 370,000 people will undergo assessments in 2006-07.[226] Even if the error rate is only 3 per cent, more than 11,000 assessment or referral decisions will need to be rectified.

Changes to Newstart Allowance

1.56      Given the significant increase in the number of people who will be in receipt of Newstart Allowance as a result of the changes to the Disability Support Pension and Parenting Payments, there are a number of proposed changes to the Newstart Allowance that concern us.

1.57      The introduction of RapidConnect imposes obligations on, and requires people to undertake activities before they are even on a payment. This means that as soon as a person either lodges a claim or contacts Centrelink with an intention to claim, they can be required to attend an interview with a specified person or organisation at a time and place specified in the requirement and/or be required to enter into an activity agreement. According to Mr Raper from the National Welfare Rights Network:

In all our experience, clients do not understand any requirements, activities or anything that is being sought to be imposed on them until they have their income sorted out. They generally leave it while trying to struggle off their own incomes. When they become unemployed or their circumstances dictate that they need to go on payment, all they need is to get on payment. It is not the right time to tell them about their activity requirements or what is going to happen to them if they do not fulfil them. RapidConnect may seem desirable but, in our view, imposing requirements on people before they are even on payment is absolutely fraught with difficulties...[227]

1.58      For a person who is in receipt of the Newstart Allowance, the legislation removes the ability to negotiate the content of their activity agreement. Rather, the activity agreement will require the person to undertake one or more activities that the Secretary regards as suitable for the person. The Secretary's discretion in this matter is only limited by new subsections 606(1A) and (1B) which prevent certain requirements from being included in agreements. These prohibited requirements are to be included in a legislative instrument. According to Mr Raper, this situation is unsatisfactory:

The proposals leave only a non-legislated document to determine what a person should not be reasonably compelled to undertake. It seems to be coming at this backwards. We are going to set out in a legislative instrument what a person may not be reasonably required to undertake. How comprehensive is that list going to have to be? It seems that it would be far better to move back into the legislation the list of things that are currently in the legislation as to what can be reasonably and legitimately required of a person.[228]

This report considers the use of legislative instruments in more detail in a later section.

Failure to encourage and support skills acquisition

1.59      Having an appropriate set of job-ready skills is vital to a job seekers' prospect of successfully finding employment. Unfortunately, the majority of welfare recipients have a low skills base. The Government's proposed measures serve to move a large number of relatively unskilled (or with skills that are outdated) Parenting Payment and DSP recipients into the job search market without offering adequate opportunities for them to update their skills in order to be ready for the workforce.

1.60      In its submission to this inquiry, the Brotherhood of St Laurence highlighted the disparity between the Bill's intent and the realities of labour market competition:

We need to build the capacities of those least able to compete in our modern economy and ensure they are able to live with common dignity whilst we do. Without measures of this type we find no vision of a fairer society in what the Government is proposing.[229]

1.61      Under these proposed changes, parents and people with a partial capacity to work will be forced to look for 'suitable employment' in order to meet their activity requirements and receive their Newstart Allowance. However, this does not recognise that many of these people are lacking the skills to find such employment. According to the National Welfare Rights Network:

People who have dependent children or a disability may have been out of the workforce for some time and or have additional barriers to obtaining employment. Making these people solely look for work in order to comply with their activity agreement without allowing other types of activity, such as training, will be counterproductive. If people are not currently employable, making them seek work could be demoralising and pointless and will in no way improve their workforce participation. There needs to be a recognition that job search should not be the only activity that would meet the activity test.[230]

1.62      Before welfare recipients that have potentially been out of the workforce for many years are forced to seek employment, their capacity for successfully doing so needs to be improved.

1.63      Sole parents have lower rates of formal education compared with coupled parents, with half having finished school at Year 11 or earlier. Sole parents are also less likely to have post-secondary education and may lack the qualifications for many jobs. Three-quarters of sole parent mothers have no post-secondary qualifications, but the proportion increases gradually so that by the time their youngest child is 15 years old they are just as likely as coupled mothers to have a degree. It is clear that they use the time from when their youngest child starts school to undertake further education.

1.64      Ms Julia Perry, former Director of Disability Policy and Director of Sole Parent and Family Policy in the Department of Family and Community Services, told the Committee that of those on the Disability Support Pension, a high proportion did not complete Year 12 or have post-secondary level education. She stated:

This is a disadvantage in the labour market, particularly for those who are incapacitated for manual work. The labour market is suffering from skills shortages and requires higher education levels among the potential workforce.[231]

1.65      During this inquiry, the Committee was informed that the Bill fails to provide adequate mechanisms to ensure that those entering the job search market are able to sufficiently build their capacity to be ready for employment. Critical to this failure is the activity requirement focussed entirely on seeking 'suitable employment', where a period of part-time study or training would often be more beneficial to a person's employment prospects.

1.66      For sole parents or people with a partial capacity that wish to improve their skills through study, there are no viable options provided by these bills. Austudy is available for full time study only (except for people with substantial disability) and cannot provide an income supplement to parents who are only able to undertake part-time study. This disincentive is exacerbated by the fact that Austudy represents a lower level of assistance than Newstart, and is intended to contribute to the cost of textbooks and other costs of education. It is also critical to note that in being moved to Newstart, sole parents lose their access to the Pensioner Education Supplement (PES) that supports many through the process of improving their qualifications and work-readiness. When the Department was asked to explain why PES would not be available for sole parents and people with a partial capacity on Newstart, their response was that it was only available to pensioners. This is an inadequate rationale, and ignores the fact that these people will retain other pension-specific benefits such as the Pensioner Concession Card.

1.67      In this package, the government has announced employment assistance measures (through the Employment Preparation Service) to improve the skills of those that will be required to seek work. However, evidence received by the Committee indicated that this will be insufficient to properly address the extent of the skill shortages of these new job seekers, many of whom will have a Year 10 education or less. Without an improvement in skills, many will become entrenched in low-skill, low paying jobs without any prospect of gaining higher paid work.

1.68      Furthermore, a sole parent with a child turning eight will be required to look for work, equivalent to the 15-hour part-time work search requirement. However, the legislation does not specify whether vocational training and education, particularly beyond twelve months duration, will satisfy the Howard Government's Newstart activity requirements under the welfare changes. We consider that the legislation should provide that single parents and people with a disability can discharge their obligations by trying to improve their skills.

1.69      ACOSS submitted to the Committee that the Government's assistance was inadequate to overcome the barriers to employment this new group of Newstart recipients face:

... the bulk of the places available are in lower-level employment assistance such as an interview a month and ‘self service’ job search. This is unlikely to remove entrenched barriers to employment such as poor education and skills [and] lack of recent employment experience... .[232]

1.70      It further stated that vocational training places were too scarce:

There are 180,000 jobless parents with school age children, and approximately 30,000 who will enter the new ‘activity test’ regime each year. Most have year 10 education or less, but there are only 5,000 extra places a year in vocational education and training.[233]

1.71      The National Employment Services Association (NESA) also told the Committee that the Employment Preparation Service would not be sufficient to meet the skills needs of single parents who have been out of the work force for some time:

Employment preparation is supported by a $300 job seeker account investment. However, there is quite a substantial expectation in terms of what that account will actually do and there is quite a range and suite of options available to both the job seeker and the provider in terms of the expenditure of that account.[234]

1.72      It further noted that only after one year of unemployment will parents moved onto Newstart be eligible for customised assistance, which attracts just over $800 in their job seeker account. According to NESA, unskilled parents would benefit from being eligible for customised assistance from the beginning, as this 'will enable you to make some genuine progress on behalf of the job seeker'.[235]

Inadequacy of support

1.73      Any initiation of an increase in participation requirements for welfare recipients must be accompanied by the provision of intensive services to assist such people to meet their potential or increased obligations. The Committee was told that this is especially important as the unemployment rate drops and the number of people entering the workforce diminishes. The solutions for each person who is a disadvantaged job seeker need to become increasingly individualised.[236]

1.74      The Committee was told that although there will be increases in places across various programs to assist people to move into the workforce, the level of spending per client for all of their employment, education and mental health needs is not sufficient to be able to achieve good outcomes.[237] Additionally, there is wide concern amongst the employment services industry that the provisions within the new Employment Preparation Service will not be sufficient to meet the ends of many parents:

The industry is very clear and unanimous in its belief that Job Search Support provides inadequate support for parents making the welfare to work transition.[238]

1.75      Furthermore, the job seeker classification instrument, which is used to assess a job seeker's level of disadvantage, and therefore the level of funding to which they are entitled has been amended so that people now need to be more disadvantaged than before to be eligible for higher levels of support through Customised Assistance.

Lack of protection for vulnerable Australians

1.76      Indigenous Australians remain the most disadvantaged and marginalised group in Australia and are the most profoundly affected by lack of employment opportunities. This package fails to acknowledge the particular barriers to employment that Indigenous Australians face with regard to generating sufficient jobs where many Indigenous people live and in assisting Indigenous people to be ‘'employment ready”. Given that Indigenous people suffer a greater burden of ill-health than other Australians, the changes to the DSP eligibility in combination with the lack of job opportunities in remote areas means that Indigenous people are likely to be disproportionately impacted by moves to the Newstart allowance. Additionally the lower levels of literacy within Indigenous populations mean that the harsh and punitive penalty system will have a comparatively greater effect on Indigenous people.

1.77      The increasing lack of employment opportunities between rural and regional areas mean that the impact of income support cuts will be exacerbated in rural and regional areas. Regardless of lower employment, education and training opportunities, many potential welfare recipients in rural and regional Australia will face less income support.

1.78      The Government's proposed changes risk placing the most vulnerable Australians in a position where they may be compelled to accept employment with below-award conditions or lose their benefits. We are concerned that as a component of the test for suitable employment, the entitlement to refuse a job that does not meet award standards, has been removed. Here, the proposed legislation before the Committee intersects with the Government's workplace legislation, which removes existing award conditions and replaces them with a minimum wage rate set by the Fair Pay Commission and the inadequate protection of four other minimum conditions.

1.79      This generated considerable concern for a number of organisations. Catholic Welfare Australia submitted that:

The interaction of the welfare to work legislation with the Government's proposed industrial relations changes potentially create a situation in which an income support recipient is required to accept employment which does not include penalty rates, overtime and leave loadings for casuals, under threat of losing payment for 8 weeks.[239]

1.80      The St Vincent de Paul Society also feared vulnerable Australians would be driven 'out of the frying pan and into the fire':

Our concern lies primarily with the way in which the combination of these two reform agendas will result in some of the most vulnerable members of the community being pushed off social security and into low-paid jobs that will be offered on the proviso that an Australian Workplace Agreement be accepted, even if that Agreement results in a lowering of real income and a loss of conditions such as penalty rates. The potential for those AWAs to wreak havoc on the lives of Australian families, especially the precarious positions of single-parent families, is very real and profoundly disturbing.[240]

1.81      In effect, single parents or those with a partial work capacity could be presented with a stark choice: accept a job below current award standards or lose your benefits.

1.82      Many people are currently not managing financially on their existing payments. A reduction in income caused by enforced transfer to the Newstart Allowance will exacerbate their already grim financial situation. Demands on welfare services will increase. The legislation is likely to have major impacts on two of the most vulnerable groups - people with a disability and sole parents - who already constitute approximately 70 per cent of the home visits of the St Vincent de Paul Society:

I think [people with a disability and sole parents] will just find life harder than it was before. I do not think there is any doubt about that. They will come to us more often seeking help and we will do our best to help them—we and others.[241]

1.83      Australian Labor Party, Australian Democrat and Australian Greens Senators are astounded at the inflexibility in the legislation that will suspend people's benefits for a period of 8 weeks for 3 breaches of the compliance regime, including for administrative breaches. This, despite a claim in the Explanatory Memorandum that the new compliance framework to be introduced on 1 July 2006 focuses on re-engagement as its key principle.[242] The suspension of benefits for a period of this length is unduly harsh and will potentially cause extreme distress to those who are most vulnerable:

I need to stress that we are talking about new, vulnerable groups that are not used to this system. We are talking about parents who are primary carers and about people with partial capacity – people with episodic mental illness and psychiatric disabilities who, until 1 July next year, would be on disability support pensions. These people are exposed to this system. Within two fortnights they could be off payment for eight weeks. They may be going through an episode that they are not able or willing to disclose to Centrelink – not able to articulate why that is preventing them from undertaking the activities that they have been slammed for not undertaking.[243]

1.84      In addition to imposing harsh 8 week non-payment periods, this Bill will impose a 10% penalty on earnings debt, regardless of whether this debt was incurred intentionally or through the provision of deliberate misinformation. Given the complexity of the social security system, confusion as to obligations is common and it is unreasonable to additionally penalise welfare recipients for inadvertent errors. Additionally, it is indefensible to apply such a provision retrospectively.

1.85      Employment service providers are highly concerned that the impact of the compliance regime could result in increased levels of personal, family and social dysfunction such as self harm, domestic violence, family breakdown, increased crime and the like.[244] When an individual is going through traumatic times and crisis such as bereavement or family breakdown they will be challenged in their ability to comply with activity requirements.

1.86      Temporary activity test exemptions will need to be actively sought by people experiencing traumatic circumstances such as domestic violence, family separation, death of a spouse, court proceedings, homelessness, or serious illness of a family member or other circumstance where a person could not reasonably be expected to meet an activity test. The legislation would require people to pro-actively manage their activity test status at a time of extreme distress. Those who fail to properly manage their activity test status will be subject to payment suspensions and reductions forcing them to retrospectively seek exemption from an increased distress and poverty status. People with poor English literacy, cognitive impairment, mental illness or physical illness will be particularly vulnerable.[245]

1.87      Further, the list of exemptions is too narrow. For example, there is no exemption for a parent of a child that has been abused:

There is no exemption for cases where the children have been abused, as opposed to the parent. If a child has been the victim of violence or sexual abuse, there are often quite a lot of problems for which they really need the parent who has taken them away from the situation to care for them.[246]

1.88      It is also clear that many individuals are not adept at conveying their circumstances clearly. For example research indicates that the majority of people who are homeless do not identify themselves as such. These job seekers are highly vulnerable in the compliance regime but as there is no diagnosis or health support in place, they may be labelled as merely non compliant.[247]

1.89      While there needs to be provision for those who are recalcitrant so far as their obligations are concerned (although the size of such a cohort is a matter of some conjecture), there must also be flexibility and a capacity to judge cases on their merit. We recognise the importance of the human factor in administering the welfare system. Additionally, flexibility and fairness in approach is especially important under the new compliance regime because it is being extended to people with disabilities and parents who are highly vulnerable and unfamiliar with Centrelink and Job Network procedures.

1.90      The National Council of Single Mothers and their Children Inc. argues that the legislation will increase financial hardship and reduce social security protections for vulnerable families.[248] Children in single parent households will have reduced access to parental care and income support can be more easily stopped with fewer protections from unfair and ill-informed decisions. The legislation seriously erodes the social safety net for single parents and their children and the consequences of this will have the highest adverse impact on the children whose families are further impoverished.

1.91      Furthermore, the planned expanded use of Newstart Allowance in place of specific payments for particular need groups – single parents and people with disabilities – will erase the specific provisions which have enhanced the effectiveness of Australia’s social security safety net. Newstart Allowance was designed for the short-term income support of individuals without significant caring or health or disability issues seeking full-time employment. We consider that trying to make the payment fit the needs of people with family obligations, health and/or disability issues and with part-time or intermittent availability linked to these circumstances is going to be a continuing problem that will be played out across the lives of people who are already experiencing disadvantage and hardship.

Departmental guidelines

1.92      During the course of this inquiry, a number of organisations expressed concern that much of the detail of these wide-ranging changes is absent from the legislation. Instead the Committee has been informed that, for sections of the legislation where significant discretion has been granted to the Secretary, guidelines will be formulated to provide assistance to Commonwealth officers interpreting sections. In evidence to the Committee, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations (DEWR) indicated that the guidelines would reflect the intent of the legislation, and be developed by the Secretary and approved by the Minister.

1.93      This is clearly not an appropriate manner to approach such an important piece of legislation that has the potential to profoundly affect people's lives. Essentially, the Government is asking the Senate to pass this bill in the hope that the guidelines will reflect the policies articulated in evidence by the Department. Although DEWR indicated that where discretion exists in the legislation the guidelines would ensure that unreasonable demands would not be placed on Newstart recipients, these are merely verbal assurances. They are not concrete guarantees enshrined in the legislation that this Committee has been given the task of examining. Instead, these substantial guidelines will be developed and applied at the discretion of the Secretary.

1.94      In evidence, ACOSS outlined its concerns over the lack of parliamentary oversight into some important provisions in the bill:

When we are talking about the rights of pretty disadvantaged people, we need to be ensuring that there is parliamentary oversight in relation to these provisions. Right now, we know that these provisions can be changed by the secretary. Given that what we are talking about is a large shift in the way that the social security system is working, we think that within that large shift there will be intended effects which are negative but also many unintended effects. It is much better that it is very clear in the legislation so that there can be some parliamentary oversight in relation to the outcomes of those rulings.[249]

1.95      This comment correctly highlights that not only are significant aspects of this package unable to be examined as part of this inquiry process, the proposed guidelines will not be subject to parliamentary oversight and scrutiny after their implementation. This affords the guidelines with a certain degree of malleability that will not be subject to any parliamentary input. Departmental guidelines can be easily changed.

1.96      The Committee was also told of the risk of departmental guidelines being given varying interpretations at the local level. The National Foundation of Australian Women warned that codifying the intent of such legislation in departmental guidelines naturally led to 'idiosyncratic local decision making'.[250]

1.97      The Committee received evidence outlining a number of circumstances where the bill left wide discretion to the Secretary; matters which the Committee has been informed will be clarified in the department's guidelines. The extent of the discretion granted and the uncertainty as to how the guidelines would be drafted was of significant concern to these organisations.

1.98      The National Foundation of Australian Women told the Committee that:

We know that guidelines do not have the same status as regulations, and we think it is important when these policies are finally put in place that, to the extent feasible, there be parliamentary scrutiny through the regulation process rather than through simply having guidelines. Guidelines are just that – guidelines. They do not have a lot of status.[251]

1.99      The Committee heard evidence expressing concern over the Secretary's discretion when determining whether or not work is 'unsuitable'. In the context of single mothers, this of course closely relates to issues of availability of appropriate child care. In June 2005, the Prime Minister assured single parents that:

If no suitable child care is available, or the cost of care would result in a very low or negative financial gain from working, the parent will not be required to accept the job.[252]

1.100         The Explanatory Memorandum to the bill states that:

The Secretary will bear in mind the cost of child care and accessibility of the child care when making a determination as to the appropriateness of the child care.[253]

1.101         Unfortunately the bill itself does not protect parents - when required to accept work when not deemed to be 'unsuitable' - from incurring child care costs resulting in low or negative financial gains from working. Again, the Committee is left to rely on assurances by the Prime Minister and DEWR that the guidelines will address this concern, rather than being able to turn to the provisions of the bill before it.

1.102         Other examples of government legislating through the Explanatory Memorandum or as yet undrafted guidelines include assurances that single parents will not be required to look for, or accept, work that would involve working in excess of 25 hours per week,[254] or jobs in which more than 10 per cent of the income is eaten up in travel costs. Why could protection from these instances not be enshrined in the legislation?

1.103         As mentioned previously, there were also a number of concerns over job search activity requirements. Significantly, the Committee heard that there is no legislative guarantee that, as part of an activity agreement, job seekers would not have to undertake unreasonable measures to satisfy their job search requirements. In evidence to the Committee, ACOSS stated:

The bill leaves too many aspects of activity requirements and the penalty regime to guidelines or administrative discretion. For example...the Newstart activity agreements may require a person to undertake, and I quote from item 63 schedule 7:

...one or more activities that the Secretary regards as suitable for the person.[255]

1.104         Without the guidelines, the Bill's requirement for job seekers on Newstart to undertake 'one or more activities that the Secretary regards as suitable' offers no indication as to what these activities might include, or be limited to. ACOSS recommended:

...that schedule 7, item 63 be removed and that the existing provisions of 606(1) to (1AC) remain.[256]

Indeed, under the current legislative arrangements (s606(1) of the Social Security Act 1991) there are parameters specifying the activities that may included as part of a job search requirement. These are:

606(1) A Newstart Activity Agreement with a person is to require the person to undertake one or more of the following activities approved by the Secretary:

1. a job search;
2. a vocational training course;
3. training that would help in searching for work;
4. paid work experience;
5. measures designed to eliminate or reduce any disadvantage the person has in the labour market;
   1. subject to section 607A, development of self-employment;
   2. subject to section 607B, development of and/or participation in group enterprises or co-operative enterprises;
   3. an approved program of work for income support payment;
6. participation in a labour market program;
   1. participation in a rehabilitation program;
   2. participation in the PSP;
7. another activity that the Secretary regards as suitable for the person and that is agreed to between the person and the Secretary.

1.105         The Government has decided to remove these provisions and leave the activities that may be included as a job search requirement to the discretion of the Secretary. This has understandably generated considerable concern over the types of activities that Newstart recipients may have to undertake. For example, could a person be required to move house, or to go on a diet, to make them more employable? Similarly, how many job searches will single parents be required to undertake if their current employment falls just under the fifteen hour threshold? Will the activity requirements regarded as suitable by the Secretary place a greater burden on that parent's parenting time than would a 15 hour per week job exceeding the minimum requirement?

1.106         Although these specific examples were ruled out as possible scenarios by DEWR in evidence, the bill contains no protection for Newstart recipients being subject to similarly harsh determinations.

Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work) Bill 2005

1.107         This Bill amends the law in relation to the number of hours of Childcare Benefit (CCB) families can claim. It was not the primary focus of discussion by presenters to the Committee. Amongst other aspects, it has the effect of increasing the number of hours for which a family can receive CCB, where one or both parents do not satisfy the work/study test. We note the concerns raised by Catholic Welfare in relation to some aspects of the legislation [257]. However we see no compelling reason to oppose this Bill.

CONCLUSION

1.108         While these are the most drastic changes to the social welfare system since the introduction of the Social Security Act in 1947, they have failed any test of welfare reform.

1.109         Real welfare reform looks at the reasons someone isn't working and delivers practical solutions. But at their cold heart, these changes cut the household budgets of vulnerable Australian families. Instead of helping to move people from welfare to work, these changes simply dump people from one Centrelink database to another. These incompetent changes will not reduce the growing number of Australians who rely on welfare payments but will instead increase their hardship.

1.110         More people will end up on lower payments than will gain work, and those who gain work may end up worse off working than on welfare because they will be giving most of their earnings back to the Howard Government. We are particularly concerned with the effect on children in those families who face such reductions in income.

1.111         There is simply insufficient support and reward for current and future welfare recipients to move from welfare to work.

1.112         Several submissions made suggestions to try to improve the bill, by reducing the disincentives to work, reducing the hardship for vulnerable Australians, and increasing support measures.[258]

1.113         However, Australian Labor Party, Australian Democrat and Australian Greens Senators believe that for all these suggestions to be adopted, the bill would essentially have to be re-written. The necessary amendments amount to a complete redraft of the bill, and a reversal of the Government's priority of dumping people onto lower welfare payments.

1.114         Therefore the Australian Labor Party, Australian Democrats and Australian Greens Senators recommend that the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and other Measures) Bill 2005 be opposed.

Senator Claire Moore
ALP, Queensland

Senator Chris Evans
ALP, Western Australia

Senator Jan McLucas
ALP, Queensland

Senator Helen Polley
ALP, Tasmania

Senator Rachel Siewert
AG, Western Australia

Senator Penny Wong
ALP, South Australia

Senator Andrew Bartlett
AD, Queensland

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page