Senator NETTLE (1:18 PM) —The Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Disability Reform) Bill (No. 2) 2002 [No. 2] is the third attempt by the government to secure parliament's support for significant changes to the disability support pension. The government modified its original proposal in the wake of overwhelming political and community opposition to the measures, but the changes do not go far enough. Consequently, the Senate rejected the Family and Community Services Legislation Amendment (Disability Reform) Bill (No. 2) 2002 in November of last year. Now the government has brought back the bill as a potential trigger for a double dissolution election. The Australian Greens will continue to oppose this bill and we trust that other crossbench senators and the Australian Labor Party will do likewise, because these measures do not deserve to become law.

This bill proposes to change the work test for people who claim the disability support pension after 30 June this year and for previous claimants who, after a period of not receiving their particular pension, then reclaim payment. Anyone deemed capable of working at least 15 hours a week will be ineligible for the disability support pension and will be required to rely on the Newstart allowance, the income support payment for unemployed people.

The effect of this change is to reduce the amount of income support by $26 a week, deny access to other financial concessions available to people receiving disability support pension and impose stricter income and assets testing. In addition, the harsh work test requirements and punitive breaching or fining regime that applies to people who are unemployed will apply to people with a disability who are no longer eligible for the disability support pension. Under the breaching regime, the government has stolen $1 billion from some of the poorest people in our community since 1996, according to figures compiled by the National Welfare Rights Network a few months ago.

The idea of assisting people with a disability to earn income clearly is reasonable, and measures to facilitate this would be supportable, but we know that this is not the motive for this bill. This bill is about cost-cutting by moving people from one form of income payment to another that provides less money. We know this because the government has not addressed the reasons for the increase in the number of disability support pension recipients. The number of people receiving disability support pension rose from 334,234 in 1991 to 652,170 in March last year. This payment cost the Commonwealth $2.8 billion in 1991-92, and the estimated cost for the current financial year is $6.9 billion.

Research by the Parliamentary Library shows several factors driving the increase in the number of recipients. Most of them are related to structural labour market issues, such as marginalisation of unskilled, semiskilled and older workers, increased incidence of early retirement, reduction in access to alternative income support payments, ageing of the population and work force and increased incidence of some acquired disabilities like spina bifida and head or spinal injuries.

So the disability support pension provides income support for people with acquired disabilities and work related injuries and for people who are unable to work or to find work who are ineligible for other payments. All these groups stand to lose under this bill. Rather than address these sorts of factors, the government prefers to blame individuals and impose mandatory work tests—in short, to make life harder for vulnerable and disadvantaged people. This is easier than engaging in the much more challenging task of investing in measures that address the obstacles to more people with disabilities participating in paid and unpaid work, addressing structural impediments to earning income or admitting to the Australian people that there is not enough paid work for everyone who wants it and then getting on with the task of working out a way to redistribute work and wealth.

The government needs to explain to the public that other ways of contributing to society are acceptable and that this society has an obligation to support those who cannot earn an income. The extra employment assistance that the government has promised does not contribute to creating additional jobs for people with disabilities or provide the practical support required for people with disabilities to engage in paid work. This additional employment assistance should not be tied to regressive measures or cuts to income support in the absence of earned income.

Peak disability and community groups have told the government that it can assist people with disabilities to participate in paid work without forcing them onto a payment with less support. Demand for employment assistance far exceeds available services, and the government's efforts would be better directed towards reversing this situation. The Commonwealth should be addressing employer discrimination, accessible transport, personal care and accommodation, and funding through the Commonwealth State Territory Disability Agreement, which to the government's shame expired last year and which it has taken almost 12 months to finalise, although agreements with some states remain outstanding.

This bill is further evidence of just what this government stands for: stealing from the poor, the disadvantaged and the vulnerable while it stokes the flames of a perverse envy—envy of the disadvantaged. We are talking about people who are among the poorest in our community and who face all sorts of physical and social barriers to caring for themselves and being involved in society. Australian studies have shown that people with disabilities and their carers have a higher risk of financial hardship compared with other recipients of social security payments.

The latest survey of disability, ageing and carers, conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, found that about 3.6 million Australians have some form of disability and that most of these people experienced some kind of restriction with respect to daily activities, employment and schooling. It seems incomprehensible that anyone could resent the meagre assistance that we provide to people who find themselves in such circumstances, circumstances in which any one of us might find ourselves through chance.

We certainly do not provide enough funding. The ABS survey found that about 24,000 people with a profound or severe disability received no assistance at all and that a further 41,000 primary carers were receiving no support or assistance. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare unmet needs for disability services study last year concluded that, even with the additional funding that the Commonwealth and states injected between 2000 and 2002 for unmet need, there were more than 12,000 people still needing accommodation and respite services and more than 5,000 people needing employment support.

The government should be addressing these needs, rather than promoting `job readiness' for work that does not exist. The latest figures show almost eight people seeking work for every vacancy. Yet this government for seven years has fomented resentment for disadvantaged people among other Australians who find it difficult to make ends meet. In doing so, the government has laid the groundwork for its absence of commitment to social justice and its retreat from international human rights commitments. We have seen this wreaked upon refugees, asylum seekers, Indigenous Australians, unemployed people and, now, people with disabilities.

The Prime Minister has publicly acknowledged significant unmet need for people with disabilities, which means more funds are required. Yet the Commonwealth, under the direction of Minister Vanstone, has been prepared to make the disability agreement hostage to the passage of this bill. This is a reprehensible tactic that is unprecedented with this funding agreement. The Commonwealth might have thought it was punishing the state and territory governments, but it is really hurting people with disabilities, their carers and service providers. Nothing can justify punishing people in need in such a way.

The government's commitment to supporting people with disabilities is further brought into question by its proposal to abolish the positions of specialist commissioners, including the Disability Discrimination Commissioner, within the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, under a separate bill now before the parliament. In fact, the commission told the Senate's inquiry into that bill that it had decided not to fill the Disability Discrimination Commissioner and Race Discrimination Commissioner positions when they became vacant as part of measures to cover the $7.3 million cut in real terms in its budget under this government.

We have seen the scandalous situation of the position of Disability Discrimination Commissioner being filled on an acting basis since 1998. The last permanent appointment was Elizabeth Hastings. I know that the people who have been acting in this role have done a professional job, but that is not the point. They have also been responsible for other matters at the same time as acting in the role.

This situation reflects poorly on the government, because it is the government that has cut HREOC's budget and refused to appoint a permanent commissioner responsible for disability discrimination. Just last April, the Attorney-General extended for a further 12 months the current acting commissioner's appointment, but he is also the Human Rights Commissioner. The government's behaviour speaks volumes about its commitment—or lack thereof—to redressing disadvantage and improving the circumstances of people with disabilities.

This is the context in which we need to consider the bill before us, and it alarms us because of the implications for the future of income payments. The government's own discussion paper on simplifying income payments for people of work force age, released last December, acknowledges that anomalies exist in the current payments system. People in similar circumstances are treated differently, with different levels of benefits and associated assistance, for no good reason. Yet here we have the government perpetuating unwarranted discrimination at the very time that it has suggested to the Australian people that such discrimination should be removed. The move to reduce people's payments by shifting them from the disability support pension to newstartallowance is also contrary to the commitment that Minister Abbott gave, when he released the government's discussion paper, that simplification would not leave people worse off. Of course, we were told that about the government's industrial relations agenda too.

A speech the minister gave to the Young Liberals in South Australia in January this year provides insight into the government's intent. Minister Abbott said:

So instead of concentrating on structural impediments to work or the problem of increasingly insecure, low-paid work, the government would prefer to push people into taking any work. There are several problems with this policy approach. The first I have canvassed already—that is, the scarcity of paid work. The second is of a more philosophical nature. Once we accept that there is not enough paid work for all those who want it, on what moral grounds do we impose obligations on people in return for income support? We often hear the argument from the conservative side of politics that people should be better off with earned income than if they are not earning income—the rationale being that this provides the incentive for people to `get off welfare', to use the vernacular, with its overtones of unworthiness.

Paid work provides many benefits—social contact, meaningful activity and money for necessities and some comforts. But if paid work is simply not available or, in the case of people with disabilities, if engaging in paid work is not possible, what moral right does this government or this parliament have to make life harder for people? That is what this bill would do: make life harder for many people without just cause, reducing their income support and other financial assistance to force them to find some earned income, no matter how inappropriate or how difficult.

Last month the government delivered another large budget surplus and $2.4 billion worth of personal income tax cuts, hailed as a remarkable achievement in the face of drought, slowing world growth and an unjust war. In all this wash of money it could find only $160 million over four years for disability employment services, and $26 million of that is to come from projected savings from reducing income support payments. The government forecast no change to a six per cent unemployment rate, even with anticipated economic growth of 3.25 per cent. Yet somehow it expects thousands of people receiving the disability support pension to miraculously find paid jobs.

What is the value of a budget surplus secured through the running down of public services like health and education spending to support those in need? The point of government is not to direct ever more wealth, advantage and power to those who already have these in abundance; it is to improve the circumstances of the poor, the disadvantaged and the vulnerable members of our community and, by doing so, make ours a more just and compassionate society. This bill does not bring us a single step closer to that goal. The implicit threat to send this country to an early election, should the Senate reject this proposal again, cannot shake us from our view that this bill fails the Australian Greens' test of good government. Accordingly we oppose it and urge the Senate to reject it.