FAMILY ASSISTANCE AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2011

DISSENTING REPORT

Timing

The Government’s haste in pushing this bill through shows a lack of respect for some of Australia’s most vulnerable people who have not had the opportunity to have their say on the proposed measures.

We the dissenting Senators believe that the implementation of the measures will be haphazard and introduce further complexity without any genuine benefit. For example, past experience suggests that measures dealing with the Disability Support Pension (DSP) to improve the quality of DSP and work capacity assessments are likely to have only a limited impact on DSP numbers. 

This important bill only attracted seven submissions, clearly demonstrating that stakeholders did not have sufficient time to make submissions on disparate measures in this Bill.

Organisations who commented on the lack of time for genuine examination of the legislation included –

The Australian Council of Social Services who said in its submission:

It would have been better if disability and welfare advocacy organisations had been more deeply involved in identifying the problems to be addressed and the policy response to those problems. At the least, it is vital that Government take the time now to consult over implementation of this policy. A September 2011 start date makes this impracticable and even January 2012 would have made it very difficult.[1]

The Salvation Army Australian Southern Territory said:

The seriously compressed timeframes being imposed...restricts consultation and input from the sectors that provide a voice to the most disadvantaged and marginalised members of our communities.[2]

The National Welfare Reform Network (NWRN) expressed:

...deep concerns to the Committee over the inordinately limited time allowed for this inquiry.  The Committee is to report within an extremely short timeframe.  This places an unfair burden, not just on community stakeholders, but on the Committee Secretariat, stakeholders and the Senators on the Committee who are meant to understand and scrutinise the Bill.

Due to timing difficulties, we are unable to appear before the Committee on Wednesday 15 June 2011 at such short notice.  The haste with which the inquiry is proceeding means that many stakeholders are unable to adequately examine the likely impacts and consequences of the measures in the Bill. [3]

The Northern Territory Council of Social Service (NTCOSS) said: 

...our concern at the very short time frame available in which to make a submission on issues of such critical importance.  The short time frame for submissions has made it difficult for disability and other community service organisations to provide an extensive response to these complex policy issues.[4]

The Welfare Rights Centre Inc said:

...we note our concern about the unusually short time-frame permitted for this inquiry. This inevitably has limited the capacity of those with on-the ground knowledge of the real issues facing people with disabilities and/or people who are dependent upon income support, to offer informed comment. Such haste undermines the integrity of the Senate Committee process.[5]

That the Minister Jenny Macklin herself needed to write to a witness and the Committee after the public hearings to attempt to explain facets of the Bill is further demonstration of Government haste.

Indexation

Schedule 2 of the bill makes amendments to indexation arrangements for family assistance.  The bill proposes to freeze indexation of the Family Tax Benefit part A and Part B supplements for three years which will see a quarter of a million of Australian families worse off. 

At a time when Australian families are struggling with the rising cost of living, these amendments will only place further pressure on families.

We call on the government to acknowledge and attend to the impact that this policy will have on Australian families who will have their family benefits eroded or cut off.

Disability Support Pension

While undergoing the hurdles imposed by the Bill, DSP recipients will have their benefits reduced by $128.00 a week. This group of people can least afford a cut to their benefit plus the stress of having to undergo "training" that many are simply not equipped to deal with.

Coalition senators find it offensive that the Government has deliberately engineered a system that appears more designed to delay Government spending on benefits than to genuinely help those with a disability to find and keep jobs. 

FAHCSIA evidence made it clear that more than half those initially refused DSP were expected to be successful subsequent to trying to undertake a program of support.

This was spelt out in the evidence provided by Mr Hartland:

Senator BOYCE: But, nevertheless, costings have been engineered around more than 50 per cent of people ultimately receiving disability support pension after being rejected.

Mr Hartland: Yes, that is right.[6]

There is also confusion about the numbers of people who will not qualify for the DSP at their first application but then will qualify in 12 months' time. 

During the committee hearing on Wednesday, June 15, departmental officers said their costings were based on 6,000 people being rejected but 3,400 ultimately qualifying within the following 12 months.[7] 

The department has since revised this and said that in 2011-12, 14,790 people would be initially rejected from DSP but 2,943 would eventually be again placed on the DSP;  in 2012-13, 17,892 people would be initially rejected from DSP but 5,375 would eventually be again placed on the DSP, in 2013-14, 17,979 people would be initially rejected from DSP but eventually 7,429 would again be placed on DSP and in 2014-15, 18,065 would initially be rejected from DSP and 7,477 would eventually again be placed on DSP.[8]

It is hit and miss and unacceptable when we are dealing with a bill that affects some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable members of society. 

Ms Hobson of the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations (AFDO) in evidence said:

We are concerned that people with disability actually often want to work and they have considerable barriers placed in their way. Those might include lower rates of educational attainment, prejudice from prospective employers and a lack of access to support to help them work, including things like appropriate transport, flexible work hours or a physically accessible workplace. We are also concerned that placing some people with disability who have some work capacity onto Newstart has some inherent problems. People with disability often face higher costs of living because of their disability. That might be because of things that would seem obvious to you or me, like the need to take more taxis or the need to pay for more medications. But it is also things that might not be considered as disability-specific if you looked at them on the surface, such as somebody who has problems regulating their body temperature and needs to have heating and cooling systems running all the time, so they have higher utility bills. For those people, having $128 a week less is going to be a considerable problem. It is also true that some schemes specifically set up to help people with disability, such as travel pass programs that allow for concession passes, sometimes require that people have access to the Disability Support Pension specifically, in order to be eligible to get access to those programs.[9]

Coalition committee members have concerns about a measure that unreasonably delays access to a more adequate level of income support to people who are eligible for that support while, at the same time, putting them through training programs and other hurdles that are of no benefit to them.

We would like to again put on record our concerns about the impact of the haste of this bill. 

There are many questions that remain unanswered or unclear which is creating a sense of anxiety and insecurity in the disability sector.  

There has been no opportunity to analyse the probable consequences of the bill.  For example how effective are the training programs in keeping people in meaningful employment?    Has there been any analysis of the social cost of the bill – the impact it will have on people’s peace of mind and security. 

The uncertainty contained in this bill can only place further strain on the support services people currently access.

We support capacity building policies that improve the employment prospects of people with disabilities on income support, however we do not support adding further complexity and stress to people’s lives and shifting people from higher pension payments to lower payments when they are in fact eligible for the higher payments.

We also concur with ACOSS that it 'makes no sense at all' to introduce the new work requirements ahead of the new impairment tables in January 2012.

Coalition Senators join the majority of submitters to this Inquiry in calling on the Government to delay introducing this measure until further analysis of any impacts and any benefits have been assessed.

Senator Sue Boyce                             Senator Judith Adams

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page