Senator HARRIS (12:55 PM) —The Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Disability Reform) Bill (No. 2) 2002 [No. 2] is designed to reduce the current 30-hour a week inability to work test to a 15-hour a week inability to work test. This means that a person with a disability who works, or who is judged to be able to work, more than 15 hours per week will be unable to access the disability support pension and, more importantly to many, the benefits which go with that pension.

The purpose of the bill clearly is to reduce the significant number of recipients of the disability support pension which began to increase during the nineties. In 1990 there were around 312,000 disability support pension recipients; today we have around 650,000. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that the majority of these people—that is, 54 per cent—are aged 50 years and over. The government blames this increase on the assertion that it is too easy to get the pension, but there are many other more cogent reasons. Late last year, the Australian Council of Social Service released a report on the key causes of the rise in disability pensions. Their analysis found that 20 per cent of the rise was due to government policy changes, which cut off access to other social security benefits. This theory is backed up by statistics which show that the most dramatic growth was amongst mature aged women, 50 years and over, who presumably were able to access the disability support pension as the age limit for receipt of the age pension increased from 60 to 65.

The tightening of reporting requirements has pushed more people onto the DSP rather than unemployment benefits. This has provided the government with a short-term political benefit: it allows it to boast about reductions in the rate of unemployment. The single greatest disability experienced by recipients of the DSP is musculoskeletal and connective tissue conditions, such as arthritis. As people unable to satisfy stringent work search tests go onto the DSP, we are left with government employment statistics which look very rosy—masking the real hidden level of unemployment in Australia. Forty per cent of the increase has been attributed to an overall growth in the number of people with disabilities. Possible reasons for this include a generally ageing population, better medical diagnosis of health conditions, particularly mental illness, and better medical treatment resulting in lower mortality rates amongst people with severe disabilities.

The remaining 40 per cent of growth in DSP recipients is thought to be attributable to a number of different factors, including minimal employment growth during the early 1990s and the subsequent difficulties in finding suitable work faced by unemployed people with disabilities. The rate of employment amongst people with disabilities is only half that of the broader community, and long periods of unemployment detract further from the ability of an individual to re-enter the work force. On top of that, there are the significant costs associated with a person with disabilities actually entering the work force, such things as electric wheelchairs, continence aids and other accessibility requirements.

The government now wants to address the problem by implementing tighter restrictions on just who can get the DSP. The government ignores the reality that, for many people, this is the only option left. Every other door has been firmly closed. If the government closes this door, then clearly many will go back onto newstart and it is highly probable that we will be back here in the chamber in three years time debating some other bills designed to curb the dramatic increase in the number of newstart recipients.

For those potential DSP recipients who will be able to get the newstart allowance, there will be an increased financial hardship and erroneous reporting requirement, which many, due to their intellectual or psychological disability, will be unable to comply with. For example, it is simply not practical or just to expect a person with chronic mental illness to comply completely with the current work test. The very nature of a psychiatric illness is cyclic. During periods of wellness and compliance with medication regimes, a person in fact may be able to hold down a job. However, in reality, too often the support mechanisms, including specialised employment programs, break down and the person experiences a relapse in the illness, resulting in hospitalisation. Under the proposed changes, this would probably entitle them to receive the DSP. As they become well again, they would be put back onto newstart, and so the job cycle begins again. In the meantime, the person is so traumatised that they are unable to face the fact or the prospect of employment. So the cost to the health system balloons out of control. The pressures on the person's natural support—that is, their family and friends—becomes unbearable and the person becomes even further marginalised and stigmatised.

It is similar with physical disability. Let us take an example of a young man who experiences a spinal injury in circumstances where there is no compensation payment. That could possibly be diving into a creek. He spends nine months in a spinal unit and is then returned to his family with little or no support. His wife is his primary carer and receives a minimal carers pension for the 20-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week job that she does. That is on top of caring for their young children. His employer offers him his old job back part time, for 25 hours per week. Around the demands of his physical care, the carer and the employer make the appropriate workplace adjustments. This person is a hard worker. He is intelligent, dedicated and reliable. He has to pay a support person to assist him. He can travel to work only by wheelchair-accessible taxi because, as he lives in a rural Australian area, there are no wheelchair-accessible buses. So he spends the majority of his income on the direct costs of his disability—that is, on transport, medication, mobility aids and equipment, therapy and personal care. He is on the waiting list for recurrent lifestyle support funding, but he is told that it will probably take about four years for that to eventuate. But he loves the job that he has. It makes him genuinely feel a part of society and the community benefits enormously from his skills and experience. He can have this life only if the disability support pension and its associated benefits enable him to support his family. Without it, he simply cannot afford to be employed. He could decide to work only 15 hours a week, but that would not cover his costs and he risks being deemed capable of working more and losing the pension anyway. Unemployment leads to depression, family breakdown and a huge increase in costs to the taxpayer in the form of the health and community services necessary to ensure his basic survival.

The community sector is in crisis. Demand for services outstrips the supply and the ability to provide those services. The latest Australians Living on the Edgesurvey confirms that, in the last 12 months, community welfare agencies have reported an increase of 12 per cent in the number of people receiving a service and an even greater percentage of people seeking but not receiving a service. Also, 42 per cent of community organisations report that they are expecting to be unable to meet the expected costs and the demand for services in the next 12 months. Although we have around 650,000 current DSP recipients, less than 64,000—or about 10 per cent—currently receive a Commonwealth-state disability agreement funded service. The potential for the demand to blow out if these changes to the DSP are passed is obviously enormous.

The government proceeds with the bill on the assumption that too many people are rorting the system. There is no doubt that broader welfare reform is necessary for sustaining economic growth and budgetary stability. But this bill will not address that issue. We are at risk of actually throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It is simply not good enough to say, `Go and get a job.' The government proposes to put savings from these amendments into increased employment services and disability support services. What it will actually do is force people out of jobs that they already have. It will take away their independence, it is diametrically opposed to our principles of human rights and full inclusion, and it is a travesty of justice.

On behalf of the disabled community, I urge the Senate to reject this bill until the real cause of the growth in number of disability reform pension recipients can be analysed and addressed. There must be a realistic assessment mechanism put in place which factors in the huge cost of disability to an individual, while recognising and genuinely valuing the contribution of people with disabilities in the workplace. I place very clearly on the record that One Nation will not support this bill.