One welfare rule for all: business
By Misha Schubert
Political correspondent
Canberra
March 30, 2005/the AGE
Big business is urging the Government not to relax tests for disabled pensions in welfare changes.
Business has warned against "grandfathering" 700,000 disability pensioners by exempting them from tougher activity tests, arguing that proposed rules should apply to future and current recipients alike.
As federal cabinet today considers the latest blueprint for sweeping changes to welfare payments for single parents and disabled pensioners, the nation's big-business lobby has urged against creating two sets of rules for the one payment.
The Government wants to change the activity test to compel people to look for a job if they can work at least 15 hours a week - halving the current 30-hour limit.
But the new test may apply only to people applying for the payment in future, with a proposal for current claimants to meet the new requirements under a long-term phase-in.
Disability groups have vowed to fight the change unless it is matched with a big increase in support for retraining, job-seeker support and a strong safety net - letting people retreat to welfare without penalty if their job does not work out.
Business Council of Australia chief economist Melinda Cilento yesterday urged the Government to apply its reforms to everyone claiming the Disability Support Pension.
"If you've got the ability to work then you should be supported and encouraged to do that whether you have been on DSP for 10 years or not," she told The Age.
"Improving the flow into it is one thing, but with such a large stock there now, you have to tackle that too," she said.
"Grandfathering is an easy way of saying this is a bit too hard to deal with."
But achieving big changes in the number of disability pensioners returning to the workforce would require an initial outlay from taxpayers, she warned.
"If you are going to make these changes, you have to ensure people have access to appropriate skills and training and we would think the longer-term benefits are there to justify that," she said.
"The cost of that is offset by the cost for individuals concerned."
Among other changes, an inter-departmental committee is believed to have recommended funding increases to the privatised Job Network to work with more job seekers with a disability.
It is also believed to have recommended uncapping Open Employment Services, the Government's disability employment program.
Australian Federation of Disability Organisations chief executive Maryanne Diamond urged the Government to guarantee that nobody would be worse off under their changes.
"Many of the proposed changes are things we would welcome - but we need to see the fine print on all of this," Ms Diamond said.
"But the real test of people's ability to work should not be the number of hours they could work, but whether they would have the support and access to work that much."
A letter in the AGE today in response the business community's support of proposed "reforms" to work/payment arranged for disabled pensioners:
Business doesn't care about disabled
The call by business to subject all disability pensioners to the same compliance rules (The Age, 30/3) is sickening.
I am 43 and have been on a disability pension all my life. I have had a few jobs in my life, with all but one ending as soon as the wage subsidy ran out. When that happened I was put back on the pension.
Business groups don't care about the disabled; all they want is cheap workers to exploit. They will use all the subsidies the taxpayer gives them and when the subsidies cease so will the job.
Remember, this is a capitalist society and capitalism is not about helping those less fortunate: it is about making a profit.
The bottom line is, profits will always be put before people - and this will certainly be the case with the disabled.
~
Well, surprise, surprise, business got what it wanted.:
Tougher test on disability pensions
By Misha Schubert
Political correspondent
Canberra
March 31, 2005/the AGE
The Federal Government says old and new recipients will be treated the same.
Tougher activity tests could be imposed on the 700,000 people now claiming the disability support pension - not just future applicants - after the Howard Government yesterday ruled out creating "two classes" of welfare recipients.
After business spoke out in The Age yesterday urging consistent rules for old and new claimants, Employment Minister Peter Dutton moved to allay fears about a two-tiered system.
"We don't want to draw a line behind those people who are in receipt of benefits at the moment and cut off any support to those people," he said.
"(But) we do want to make sure that we aren't creating two classes of people. The Government is very conscious that we aren't going to do that."
Cabinet yesterday considered uncosted proposals from a special inter-departmental committee on welfare reform, but deferred agreement on key measures.
The senior ministers responsible, Kay Patterson and Kevin Andrews, flew out of Australia straight after cabinet to attend an OECD conference on social policy in Paris.
The reform push includes plans to force single-parent pensioners to work part-time once their children start primary school, and full-time once their children reach high-school age.
Also on the cards is a boost in funding for Job Network agencies and Open Employment Services, the Government's disability employment network, to provide more intensive support to disabled job seekers.
Possibly the most contentious change is a push to slash the work test for disabled pensioners. Those who can work 15 hours a week would be forced to find a job or risk being moved to the lower-paid general unemployment benefit, Newstart. The current test is 30 hours a week.
Mr Dutton also spoke out against extending the two-year period in which disability pension recipients can keep their concession cards and retreat back onto benefits if their attempts at work fail, saying more publicity of existing benefits was all that was required. He rejected claims the Government's approach had too much stick and not enough carrot.
"A lot of people have said this is a cost-cutting exercise. Nothing is further from the truth," he said. "The most cost-effective option for the Government would be to do nothing, but the Government is committed to making an investment in those people who have the ability to work."
Physical Disability Council of Australia executive officer Sue Egan slammed the push to force people already claiming disability benefits to adhere to the the tougher activity test.
"That's like taking the ladder away after someone had climbed up onto the roof and saying 'you can't get down now, we've changed the rules'," she said.
"Because many employers don't want to hire people with disabilities, chances are you will just shift people into Newstart, blowing out the unemployment figures."
Garry Davison, chairman of ACE National, the peak body for disability employment agencies, said New Zealand had just waived its 15-hour activity test.
"I can't see what these changes will do other than push many of these people onto Newstart and increase the unemployment rate," he said.
Govt targets bad back syndrome
April 1, 2005 - 8:16PM
The federal government will target people receiving disability benefits for bad backs as it tries to kickstart a campaign to encourage pensioners back into the workforce.
Federal Treasurer Peter Costello said there were now more than 700,000 Australians on the Disability Support Pension (DSP) and the most common cause was muscular-skeletal or back pain.
A radical back-to-work test for disability pensioners and single parents was discussed by cabinet on Wednesday as the federal government tries to finds ways to slash its $20 billion welfare bill.
Today, Mr Costello said nobody was talking about genuinely disabled people being worse off.
But he said the number of people on disability pensions had skyrocketed in recent times.
"Now it's hard to think there are so many more disabled people with bad backs in our society today than there were say 10 years ago or 20 years ago," Mr Costello told radio 2GB.
"We've seen this real increase, this very, very substantial increase in people registered as disabled.
"So what we've got to do, I think, is we've got to protect genuinely disabled people, obviously.
"But for people who've got bad backs, or maybe they've claimed disability pension because they've had stress, we need to encourage those sorts of people to look for work, to get part-time work if they can and try and get them back in the workforce."
The government today launched a study into the way people with a disability were being assessed for their suitability to work, with up to 1000 volunteers in Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia being asked to take part.
It will look at ways to streamline the assessment process to ensure people get practical support rather than being told the pension is their only option.
Mr Costello later in the day said single mothers pension recipients with school aged children should look for work in a similar way to those on unemployment benefits.
He rejected suggestions the government was unfairly targeting single mothers by not including all mothers in the return to work push.
"We don't treat them equally because single mothers get a benefit that married mothers don't," he told reporters in Melbourne.
"Single mothers get the parenting payment that is only available for single mothers.
"Married mothers would be entitled if they were low income (earners) to get the married rate but they are not entitled to the single mothers pension."
But National Council of Single Mothers and their Children convenor Elspeth McInnes said the proposal would force single parents of primary school-aged children to choose between meeting the compliance demands of their pension and their children's interests.
"Sole parents need support to enter and remain in the workforce, but they are also responsible for family needs and children must have the right to parental care when they need it," Dr McInnes said.
"A focus on inventing new requirements and punishments misses the point because it does nothing to change the barriers to workforce participation but it will increase stress on already stressed families.
"Concerns about households where no parent is working are not as problematic as a household where no worker is parenting."
Opposition employment spokeswoman Penny Wong said Mr Costello was trying to use sole parents to distract attention from the government's poor handling of workforce participation.
"Peter Costello is attempting to hold sole parents responsible for the Howard government's skills crisis," Senator Wong said
"The Howard government has created the absurd situation where Australia faces chronic skills shortages and record job vacancies, while over two million Australians are officially unemployed or want more work."
AAP
.... Shadow treasurer Wayne Swan accused Mr Costello of using "the stick" to force sole parents back to work.
He said only 4 per cent of sole parents now qualified for the Jobs, Education and Training program to help them re-enter the workforce.
In a speech to a conference in Melbourne put on by The Australian and the Melbourne Institute, Mr Costello flagged the crackdown to help expand the workforce and fill vacant jobs. .....
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Sole-parent-work-plan-attacked/2005/04/01/1112302237906.html
What on earth is Costello talking about here?
A crackdown (on single mothers & disabled people) to "help expand the workforce and fill vacant jobs"? That is just bizarre. We've been told time & time again that there's a shortage of
skilled workers & tradespeople ... The situation having become so serious that there's constant talk of importing these workers from overseas. I doubt that many of the folk on disability pensions would qualify for these positions. In the meantime it would be really enlightening to know what the REAL unemployment figures are in Oz. Where are the statistics that can tell us just how many "employed" people there are working in (very) casual positions with no job security what-so-ever? (You only need to work 2 hours per fortnight to be classified as "employed" by this government.) The unemployment statistics have been cooked for so long that we can only guess at the real numbers. There are thousands of people out there wanting real jobs, or would welcome re-training to be eligible for some of the job vacancies that Costello keeps talking about. Why pretend that this planned "reform" of the welfare system is anything but a cynical cost cutting measure on the part of the government?
As I see it, Peter Costello can't have it both ways. For years the real level of unemployment has been hidden, in all sorts of ways: Like dodgy, doctored unemployment statistics & the transference of many long-term unemployed to disability benefits. The fact is Costello went along with all this, taking credit in the supposed fall in unemployment numbers. Now his chickens are coming home to roost & what is he going to do about it? As Professor Gregory from the ANU said in the above article:
"In my view, the Treasurer has to come out openly and say that he has not been able to produce full-time jobs at a sufficient rate to get people off welfare.
"Either he has to wait until the economy generates unskilled jobs or he has to play around with the wage system." ....
It is not as though he just suddenly discovered this situation last week.
Perhaps Beazley is heeding the old saw about governments losing elections?
Anyway looking at the hubris of Howard and Costello and the rest of them I think Beazley might be on to something. This Government is on the nose, it just hasn't realised that the source of the stink is its own rotting carcass.
goodfielder wrote:Perhaps Beazley is heeding the old saw about governments losing elections?
Yes. This approach has worked before, definitely. But <sigh> a bit of vision, a bit of hope, would be wonderful, too! Don't you think?
I think it's about timing. Perhaps Beazley is waiting for them to fall over on their faces before he starts putting an alternative policy platform. Poor old Barry Jones tried it too early and they ended up having a shot at his Knowledge Nation policy. I think first Howard and Costello have to shown to be downright complacent (as we can see with the stoush between the various economits, the Reserve Bank and the Govt) before Labor can announce their alternatives. And I do hope they have an alternative. The Right is far too crowded in terms of public policy these days.
Yes, it is. <sigh>
I just want Kim to be BETTER than he was before. His current position seems so familiar! So complacent. A bit of fire in the belly, a bit of reformist zeal would comfort many right now. And might stop the drift to other, smaller parties. There's no doubt in my mind about why Bob Brown is so attractive to younger voters. (Actually, me too!) A bit of passion for a better future, a few risks from Beazley would have a huge rallying impact. Right now he just looks like another politician, playing the political game. He can be a bit proactive, too!
<shuddering in anticipation>>
I'm crossing my fingers for an unexpected Liberal withdrawal from the senate before July 1! A by-election, please, please! !!!(
Maybe we should bribe someone to leave?) :wink:
It will be fascinating. John Howard probably doesn't want to emulate Mugabe and stay in office until he's 100 but he also doesn't want to drive the Libs into the ground either. But he does appear to have more than a touch of hubris about him. He might not be able to resist the temptation to give that D12 a workout
Yes!
And it's gonna give trade union membership a much needed boost, too!
Don't get me on that msolga. My problem is I'm philosophically committed to the idea of trade unionism and have been all my life and I might sniff a bit at those who regard it as a sort of job insurance scheme that they can opt out of when things are good and opt back into when things are bad. Borrowing from contemporary debate in the Catholic church I could be described as a "cradle unionist" and therefore looked down upon by the "born again unionist" who may come back to the fold when Little Johnny and Big Pete are on the D12.
Anway apologies for the aside, back to the thread.
No apologies necessary - unionism is a good idea, and as such is exposed to human flaws as much as any idea and can be made to look bad, but that doesn't make it a bad idea.
Hmmm fuel's up, interest rates up, inflation will rise, employment will drop, investor confidence down and the ALP are now preferred over the Libs (even if Johnny still way ahead of Kim as preferred PM).
Time for some hinge predictions (hey I predicted Costello's fall from grace...).
ALP to win either the next or following election, when Australia is economically up defecant creek. A couple of election campaigns later the libs will be blaming ALP for the mess the economy is in, even though it's better than when the libs handed it to them. Deja Vu.
