Page 4524 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 23 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
obviously no need then to spend the next hour debating the benefits of assisting and encouraging people, wherever possible and where it is certainly realistic, to enter into the job market and take that first step to increased independence and personal satisfaction that is gained from meaningful employment, be that part time, casual or full time.
Let it be remembered that the intent of the Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Welfare to Work and Other Measures) Bill 2005 is to introduce a number of amendments to the Social Security Act 1991, the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and the Disability Services Act 1986. It will give effect to the legislative measures in the welfare-to-work package announced in the 2005-06 federal budget.
The measures in this bill, along with other administrative measures in the package, are a significant further step towards building a modern and responsive social and welfare support system for all people of working age by encouraging and assisting more people to participate in the work force. I know that Labor and those opposite love to see this as code for shoving people who are on crutches and wheelchairs into the work force. Some of these notions that are presented are absolutely absurd and I take absolute offence at the notion that anybody would seriously consider that happening. We have to think of the choice of the individual here as well.
The three principles that underline these measures are: people who have the capacity and are available to work should do so; the best form of family income comes from a job rather than welfare; and services provided to people who have an obligation to seek work should focus on getting them into work as soon as possible. But, sadly, the scaremongering continues. Any group or organisation that seeks to engage in scaremongering tactics in relation to the federal government’s welfare-to-work reforms is obviously not seriously considering any policy development; nor are they capable of entering into the debate and the active participation in reforms that are needed and are generally supported across the business sector and wider community.
In fact, in the nine years that federal Labor has been in opposition I do not believe—and I stand corrected—it has come forward with any solutions to encourage people, where they can, to enter into meaningful employment and go on to furthering a productive life, full of prospects that can never be fully realised when receiving any form of welfare.
No doubt some welfare groups have concerns, which, quite rightly, should be aired during the inquiry process, in relation to the welfare-to-work changes. In fact, I watched with great interest how Senator Kay Patterson, on the lawns of Parliament House, addressed a very angry group of people from a wide range of disability associations. Quite quickly they could see that she was desperately trying to grapple with the situation, and that was a good meeting. It was a bipartisan meeting: there were people there from all sides of politics, wrestling with the issues. I will speak more later as to why we have to move this agenda forward.
What should be highlighted is that the federal government has recognised that support should always remain for those families who are most vulnerable, and it will no doubt maintain a responsive and sensible welfare safety net. A poignant issue is that the federal government is prepared to tackle one of the most difficult problems faced in a generation: unemployment and the fact that around 600,000 children—a staggering
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .