Senator STERLE (2:12 PM) —My question is to Senator Abetz, the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Is the minister aware that today’s report into the government’s welfare changes by the respected NATSEM institute has found that the Howard government will take back as much as 75c of every dollar a person with a disability earns? Why does the Howard government find it acceptable for people with a disability to work for an effective return of $2.27 an hour? Does the minister seriously expect Australians to believe that he would work for that kind of money? If the minister would not work for $2.27 an hour, can he explain why the government is insisting that people with a disability should?

Senator ABETZ (Special Minister of State) —It is a pity when those opposite do not get their question time tactics in order, because it is quite clear that the honourable senator’s question is a virtual repeat of that which Senator Wong asked, containing all the same misrepresentations that were in Senator Wong’s question. I say to the new senator opposite: a great test is that if a shadow minister gives you a question, ask them, ‘If it’s that good, why aren’t you asking it yourself?’ I think that might be a very good lesson for the honourable senator opposite. First of all, no-one currently on the disability support pension is going to be affected.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator ABETZ —Senator Wong interjects and says that I am giving the same answer, and she is very perceptive. I have been asked basically the same question.

Senator Chris Evans —Mr President, I raise a point of order on relevance. Twice now, Senator Abetz has been asked about conclusions drawn in a NATSEM report. I accept that he may not have read the report. He is not terribly well briefed normally. If he has not, I am happy for him to take the question on notice, but he does have to be relevant to the question asked. He made it clear that he wanted to lecture the senator about his question, but could you bring him to order and ask him to answer the question? This is about question time and ministers answering questions.

The PRESIDENT —Senator Abetz, I would remind you of the question.

Senator ABETZ —Thank you, Mr President. I think the only purpose of that point of order was to try to allow Senator Wong to recover from her embarrassment. The simple fact is: yes, I do have the report and the press release in front of me. Just because a particular report says something does not of itself mean that we as a government necessarily accept its findings.

Senator Chris Evans —Here’s your chance to refute it. Tell us why it’s wrong!

Senator ABETZ —If Senator Evans was genuinely interested in the answer, he would know that I have already set out why the report—or rather, the representation of the report by those opposite—is wrong. First of all, all those people who are on a disability support pension today will not be affected. As a result of that, those who might come onto the disability support pension will come in under a new regime as of 1 July 2006. Under that new regime, we as a government made a conscious decision to concentrate on people’s abilities as opposed to their disabilities. Therefore, if a person is deemed by the appropriate authority to have the capacity to work for 15 hours or more, they will be given appropriate incentives to be able to undertake work and re-engage with the mainstream community. Indeed, there are already one million Australians with disabilities engaged in the work force. What we are trying to do is encourage a few more across—for their benefit, for Australia’s benefit, and for the whole community’s benefit.

I said before, in answer to Senator Wong, and I will repeat it in my answer to the new senator’s question as well: we as a government are concentrating on people’s abilities. We want to encourage them. That is why we are investing $555 million in our efforts to assist these people who are currently disabled, or who are disabled as of 1 July 2006, into work. I would have thought those opposite would have said that that is a good, laudable approach that deserves opposition support. But, as with every single one of our major reforms, all we get from the Labor Party is nay-saying without any alternative policy being placed on the table.

Senator Chris Evans —So you haven’t read the NATSEM report and you have no idea.

The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Evans, your colleague is on his feet.

Senator STERLE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. After that answer, I am still not sure if the minister would work for $2.27 an hour or not, but my supplementary question is: doesn’t today’s damning report come on top of NATSEM’s previous research which showed that sole parents who earn $195 for working 15 hours a week at the minimum wage will keep only $81, while the Howard government helps itself to the other $114? Now that we know how much they will destroy the incentive to move from welfare to work, haven’t the government’s extreme proposals lost all credibility?

Senator ABETZ (Special Minister of State) —I do not think the vast majority of Australians listening in to this question time would suggest that our policy of concentrating on people’s abilities and providing them with incentives to get into work are somehow extreme policies. I will tell you what the extreme policy is: to forget the disabled, throw a pension at them, and then—Pontius Pilate-like—wash your hands and claim that you no longer have any social responsibility toward them. We as a government believe that we do have a social responsibility. That is why we want to concentrate on their abilities and that is why we are spending $555 million in our package—actual cost to the taxpayer—to encourage these people into the work force. Surely that is a laudable objective, and surely the party that used to represent the workers ought to support our proposals.