Sepuloni Carmel: Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Sepuloni Carmel: Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:665;Page:13163] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I just want to respond to a few things that were discussed earlier by members on the other side of the Chamber. I go back to something Mr Borrows was saying together with a few other MPs about our basically not having aspirations for people who are on benefits and not caring about them and their progression in terms of moving beyond being on a benefit. I point out that that is absolute rubbish. There is one thing that very clearly highlights the contradiction between what that Government says and what it does when we look back at the cutting of the training incentive allowance. I shall talk about that a little bit because it highlights the absolute lack of common sense that that Government has demonstrated in its cuts in its “reprioritising” of funding if one wants to call it that. I shall discuss the success of that training incentive allowance and the fact that the Government cut it and then look at where we are now. 
Just over a year ago the National Government moved to make its heavy-handed cuts to the training incentive allowance. A study of that scheme was done between 1996 and 2001 and it found that for recipients of the domestic purposes benefit the training incentive allowance was successful in helping beneficiaries to gain greater self-confidence in removing financial barriers to education and in reducing the amount of time spent by recipients on the benefit. On average the amount of time spent on the benefit decreased and the amount of time spent in paid employment increased over time for recipients of the training incentive allowance suggesting that the scheme was effective in increasing workforce participation. An average of 26 fewer weeks were spent on the benefit over the 6 years following the receipt of the training incentive allowance compared with beneficiaries who did not receive the allowance. 
When we look at that evidence at that report it makes no sense for the Government to have cut that scheme particularly when it is talking about long-term welfare dependency and saying that its actions are because it wishes to ensure there are not so many people dependent on welfare. Following that when two women came out and spoke about the fact that the cuts were detrimental to them in their lives the Minister for Social Development and Employment had no problem with dragging them through the mud putting their details out there publicly and basically just punishing them using that same kind of punitive approach towards them that she is doing right now with the welfare reforms. 
I think it is important to point out that because it highlights the lack of compassion that that Government has shown towards single mothers in particular and also that the Government’s moves have made no sense at all. They have gone against the research with regard to things like the cuts to the training incentive allowance despite the fact that we have reports that show that it was a successful initiative. 
We have heard from across the Chamber tonight stories of different single parents and I think most of us who are logical and rational would agree that single parents just want to get on with raising their kids. They do not enjoy being used as the Government’s scapegoat to divert attention away from the fact that the Government has done nothing to address unemployment and poverty in this country yet those people find themselves in that situation. 
In terms of this bill there are some provisions that we support and we have discussed that. We support the increasing of benefit abatement income thresholds and the annual CPI adjustment of certain benefits. What we are fundamentally opposed to are the provisions on work testing and the discriminatory nature of the bill. When we look at what it means in terms of discrimination the woman who was on a widows benefit—someone whose partner has passed away—will not be work tested but the woman whose partner is still alive but no longer with her will be work tested. It is fair to say—and members on this side at least would all agree—that it is an arbitrary separation and serves only to perpetuate the negative stigma of sole parenting. 
Also of concern is the Minister’s inability to adequately define welfare dependency and that came up during the Social Services Committee hearing when we questioned the Minister about a definition of “welfare dependency” particularly long-term welfare dependency to see whether it meant having been on a benefit for 5 years or having been on a benefit for 7 years or longer.