Ms HALL (1:19 PM) —I come to this debate on the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Other Measures) Bill 2005 and the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work) Bill 2005 with actual experience in working as an advocate for people with disability, helping them to get work—to get the jobs that the member for Riverina spoke about. I can tell her that her contribution to the House today showed her total lack of understanding of the issues that people with disabilities face on a day-to-day basis when they seek employment. They do not need this kind of legislation. They need legislation that will actually do something to assist them to get into the work force. I am quite disappointed in the contribution of the member for Riverina.

This legislation, coupled with the government’s workplace relations legislation, will change the face of Australia. The government’s draconian workplace relations legislation will attack the security of wages and conditions for ordinary Australian workers. This legislation wages war on some of the most disadvantaged people in Australia—people with disability, single parents and mature age workers, all groups of workers who have difficulty in obtaining employment because of the barriers which exist, barriers which prevent them from securing a job.

Why are we debating this legislation? Why has the legislation gone so far? The answer is quite simple. The government has the majority in the Senate. It can ram through the legislation. It can blatantly and arrogantly disregard the needs of people who elected it to this place to look after their interests. I am quite disgusted that the government is going down this path and has introduced legislation that is going to actually impact on the ability of people with disability—I mention that in particular because it is an area that I have had a lot of experience in—to re-enter the work force.

I agree wholeheartedly with the government that a person who is able to work should be able to work. I believe that it is the role of government to create real opportunities for people to do just this. I do not believe that the emphasis should be on moving a person from one benefit to another benefit. I believe that reform should be real reform; it should not just be a blatant exercise in cost cutting and saving money, and that is what I believe underlies the whole of this legislation.

The government in its budget and in its rhetoric has identified that there has been a growth in the number of people receiving disability support pension. It sees that as an issue that needs to be addressed—an issue that is contributing to the cost of government. Similarly, the ageing population is identified, by the Treasurer in particular, as a cost to government. Here we are looking at issues that are affecting peoples everyday lives. A person with a disability on disability support means they have a significant impairment that affects their daily lives and their choice of jobs. But the government sees it as a cost. It sees the fact that a person is on the disability pension as something that is abhorrent and is looking to get people off disability support.

Through this legislation the government will be moving people from the disability support pension to Newstart. It is all about increased compliance and increased requirements. But it is not getting to the core of the issue. It is not looking at solving the issues that people with a disability or sole parents face every day. This is a government of ideologues driven by an extreme and ultraconservative philosophy. It is a government that is bereft of any compassion and committed to the cult of the individual. It is a government that promotes in-groups and out-groups in our society. Today it is attacking a couple of groups that have been identified as out-groups.

This legislation is a testimony to this, as it will create an underclass in our society comprising people who are already struggling to survive. The government is not tackling the reasons that people are not in the work force; rather, it is saying: ‘You must be in the work force. If you’re not, you’re going to be punished.’ All that will do is force people from one benefit to another.

People who receive a disability support pension or a single parent benefit represent some of the poorest households in the country. These families do not have great financial resources. This legislation will cut their budgets and really cause hardship. Around 300,000 Australians will be worse off after these changes. Only 109,000 will gain work, and many of those that do gain work will be worse off. I find that totally unsatisfactory.

I believe a government’s role is to create opportunities. If there is a problem that has been identified, the government should look to solving the problem; it should not try to sweep it under the carpet—it should not try to cut costs to create an image it is doing something. In this case it is doing something, but it is not doing what it states: creating opportunities for people with disabilities, single parents and mature age workers to enter the work force.

The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations in his speech referred to mature age workers. He said that the legislation would place the same requirement on them as younger jobseekers and that they would be required to undertake voluntary work and meet the same sorts of activity tests that other workers meet. If the minister thinks this will address the issue of mature age unemployment, I would like to disagree with him. The minister sat on the inquiry with me which produced Working for Australia’s future: increasing participation in the work force, and I do not think that was the message that we received. I have before me a paper that was written by Sol Encel, a very eminent researcher in this area. He says that the principal difficulty experienced by older workers is the attitude of employers who constantly give preference to younger workers. I think you will find that that also applies generally to people with a disability.

I would like to touch on the issues surrounding sole parents and the fact that in future a parent will be put on Newstart or, as the government likes to call it, the dole, once their child reaches the age of six. Instead of helping parents who are in that situation, the government will be punishing the children of those families. It would be wise for members on the other side of this House to look at the impact that this legislation will have on the families as a whole; the impact will not just be on the person who is receiving that payment, be it the mother or the father of those children—or the grandparents for that matter. This legislation will ensure that there will effectively be less disposable income for those households. I find that abhorrent—and I know the member for Sydney, who is sitting at the table at the moment, has identified the very real issues that surround child care.

As I indicated at the beginning of my contribution, I have worked with many people who have disabilities. I assisted them to re-enter the work force or to enter the work force for the first time. Contrary to the belief of members on the other side of this House, those people are not shirkers and they are not bludgers: they are people that would really like to enter the work force. Moving them from disability support benefit to Newstart will hardly achieve that. What a person with a disability needs is a comprehensive program. They need a job that will not exacerbate their injury and they need support while they are establishing themselves in that job, and they need employers who are prepared to accept them and to offer them the opportunity to work for them. I have spent many hours on the phone ringing employers, asking them to give an opportunity to a person with a disability to work for them—where they do not have to pay a wage and where they are covered for workers compensation. I have been refused time and time again simply because of the attitudes that those employers have to people with disabilities—the stereotyping that takes place.

In the contributions from those on the other side of the House, people have spoken about issues like bad backs. The Treasurer even mentioned bad backs in his budget speech in May this year. I have news for people on the other side of the House: bad backs and back injuries are very debilitating. Bad backs prevent people from going to work. If a person who has a back injury finds employment and that employment is unsuitable, they exacerbate their injury. So not only does this legislation have the ability to force people back into the work force and into unsuitable jobs but it also could create further injury for those people. It is very important that any person with a physical disability has a proper work assessment, a proper physical capacity assessment, before they enter the work force. This government is very big on promoting myths that the only reason that people are not re-entering the work force is that they are being encouraged to be welfare dependent. I believe this legislation will encourage that dependency, because people will not be prepared to take the risk.

I refer to the budget submission made by the MS Society. ‘Andrew’ has had MS for 12 years. He lives alone because his disability is such that he has some cognitive impairments which make it impossible for him to live with other people. He works 20 hours a week and he gets $600 a fortnight. So he is a guy who is in there having a go. You might ask what this legislation will mean to him. Currently his disposable income is $970. He pays $480 rent. His medication and modified diet costs $130 a week. His food and household expenses are $220 a week. His car and fare expenses are $155 a week. His total expenditure is $985 a week. Thus he has a shortfall of $15 a week. He relies on his family to meet that shortfall. If Andrew were on Newstart instead of DSP, his fortnightly disposable income would drop to $736 or only $368 a week. That would leave him $249 per fortnight worse off. If this legislation has been designed to assist people with disabilities, that is not the case when you look at an example like Andrew.

In the UK they have introduced a new deal for people with disabilities, but that is a voluntary program that is aimed to help people with health conditions and disabilities to obtain and sustain employment. That is a very different type of program from the program that we are looking at here. I think the government could learn a lot by looking at that. I do not have the time in this speech to detail that program; needless to say, this government’s approach is not the approach that has been undertaken over there. Rather, this is an approach that moves more towards one of blame.

We need to look at the government’s performance in the area of disability. No area demonstrates more graphically than the Public Service the government’s failure in the employment of people with disabilities. When I was working with people with disabilities, the federal government had a very strong policy of creating employment opportunities for people with disabilities. They were very proactive in that area. Under this government, unfortunately, the number of people with disabilities in the Public Service has declined dramatically. A number of the people with disabilities that I assisted into work in the Public Service have subsequently been sacked or given a redundancy.

One young woman—and I find this quite heartbreaking—was a deaf girl who worked for the department of social security. Once this government started to introduce efficiency measures, she was one of the first to go. She was no longer employed. She also developed diabetes. Within a month of her being made redundant, she was dead. I feel that she was a victim of this government’s cost cutting and discrimination against people with disabilities.

The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation inquiry into increasing participation in the work force received a number of submissions from people with disabilities, and that area of employment in the Public Service was highlighted. The minister was a party to that inquiry, and I do not know how he can bring down legislation like this. It shows that he had blinkers on and that he was not listening.

Mr Barresi —You are misrepresenting him.

Ms HALL —If you listen to statements made by people with disabilities, you would know—as would the member opposite—that people with disabilities need support, security and assistance. They do not need to be transferred from one welfare payment to another, and that is what this legislation is about. It is about transference from one benefit to another, not about creating real and new opportunities for people with disabilities.

People with disabilities, single parents and mature age workers are the most disadvantaged people in our community. This legislation is set to extend that disadvantage and increase their level of disadvantage. They have less bargaining power than other workers, and the new workplace relations legislation will make them prime targets for exploitation. They have limited ability to negotiate AWAs, and, as for unfair dismissals, we all know who will go first. As a person who has worked with people with disabilities and fought for them to be given the opportunity to get a job, I know how difficult it is for them to find a suitable job—one that they are able to perform, that is within their physical capabilities and where they have a supportive employer. I believe this legislation will act as a disincentive for people with disabilities to take the risk to enter or to re-enter the work force. (Time expired)