Motion on Indigenous Jobs and Training Review
15/10/2014
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I move:
That this council—
1. Notes that the recommendations in the Forrest review further restrict access to the disability support pension and make it easier for job seekers to have their payments cut or suspended without warning or justification, which will increase poverty without dea ling with the fundamental under supply of jobs, especially in regional and remote communities, and the many societal barriers which Aboriginal people and people with disabilities in particular can face when looking for work;
2. Condemns Premier Jay Weatherill’s blanket end orsement of the recent Forrest review;
3. Notes a report from the commonwealth Parliamentary Library which states that there is no evidence to support Mr. Forrest’s recommendation that income management schemes be expanded to cover all welfare recipients;
4. Notes that, whilst voluntary income management has had some success in Aboriginal communities, involuntary income management has had adverse effects as stated in the Closing the Gap reports, which suggest that punitive policies that rely on fear or threats to change behaviour, such as cutting or suspending Centrelink payments, do not work;
5. Notes that Mr Forrest’s recommendations regarding land ownership have the potential to further erode Aboriginal control of their lands and communities which will destabilise these communities and further deny them the right to self-determination;
6. Notes that Mr Forrest’s plan calls for the dismantling of TAFE;
7. Notes with significant concern the apparent return of the ‘announce and defend’ model of governance that Premier Jay Weatherill’s announcement suggests; and
8. Calls on the Premier to invest in genuinely supporting those who actually require education and assistance to manage th eir income and eschew his blanket endorsement of the recommendations until proper consultation is done to allow him to fully understand the real impacts they would have on everyday South Australians.
On 15 August 2014, an article in The Australian by political editor Sarah Martin announced that Premier Jay Weatherill had indicated that his government would offer ‘the broadest possible support’ to all 27 recommendations of the recent review into Indigenous jobs and training by Andrew (Twiggy) Forrest.
There has been widespread concern in the South Australian community about this ever since. As one of my Twitter followers put it when I announced that I would be putting this motion to parliament today: ‘I am confused by a left-wing Labor Premier endorsing a report written by a far right self-serving billionaire.’ That is perhaps an oversimplification of the issues that this endorsement represents, so let me elaborate on what those potential issues are.
Before I do that, though, I would like to provide some context by reading onto the record a letter which I think summarises very well many of the issues that I will touch on. I believe this letter was sent to the Premier in mid-September of this year from Pas Forgione from Stop Income Management in Playford (SIMPla) and Tauto Sansbury, a well-recognised Aboriginal elder. The letter states:
Dear Premier Weatherill
I write on behalf of several individuals and organisations deeply concerned by reports in The Australian on August 15 th that you have offered ‘the broadest possible support’ to all 27 recommendations in Andrew Forrest’s Indigenous employment and training review. We seek to meet with you personally to outline these concerns.
The letter continues:
Forrest’s report includes numerous heavy-handed punitive proposals that will increase disempowerment and humiliation for the most vulnerable. Proposals that ignore the research on which programs achieve positive outcomes and build personal and financial skills for struggling individuals.
The letter goes on to say:
We are particularly concerned by Forrest’s proposal to expand income management. Any moves to extend this policy, whether a blanket approach for all working-age Centrelink clients or as a targeted measure for at-risk or vulnerable groups, defies the history of the policy. Over the past seven years, evidence of income management achieving its stated goals has been limited and weak. The commonwealth Parliamentary Library’s 2012 paper titled ‘Is Income Management Working?’ noted ‘an absence of evidence relating to the effectiveness or otherwise of the scheme’.
A Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs study from the same year evaluating new income management in the Northern Territory first evaluation report noted: ‘Income management has been applied to many who do not believe they do not need income management and for whom there is no evidence that they have a need for or benefit from income management. It has led to widespread feelings of unfairness and disempowerment. For many people, the program largely operates more as a means of control rather than a process for building behaviours or changing attitudes or norms.’
The letter goes on to say:
Also concerning is the report’s consistent focus on the use of punitive sanctions that rely on fear or threats, such as cutting or suspending payments, to change behaviour, despite evidence from multiple Closing the Gap reports that these approaches are not effective. Moves to restrict access to the disability support pension to make it easier for job seekers in particular to be penalised and to make it harder for job seekers to obtain exemptions from the requirements will create unnecessary hardship and will not address the undersupply of jobs, particularly in regional and remote communities, and other causes of disadvantage.
The letter further states:
The linking of family tax benefits to school attendance will not only punish already struggling low-income families but may also damage critical relationships between schools and parents, and will fail to address many complex issues behind truancy in metropolitan and remote Aboriginal communities. For example, research by the Australian Catholic University shows that Aboriginal students with a strong sense of cultural identity are most like ly to attend and perform well in school. We look forward to discussing these issues with you.
Kind regards,
Tauto Sansbury , Narungga elder and F irst N ations P eoples ‘ U nited F ront member
Pas Forgione, SIMPla (Stop Income Management in Playford) and Anti-Poverty Network South Australian member.
I have been informed by the letter’s authors that the Premier has not offered a complete response, instead referring the matter to Khatija Thomas and minister Hunter. The Premier was happy enough to announce his support for the report but he appears less enthusiastic to explain the reasons for that support or defend the report itself.
I would now like to go on to elaborate on some of Dignity for Disability’s concerns about the Premier’s endorsement of this report and those concerns that have been presented to me by members of the community through my office. Firstly, given the content of the report which has been released to the public, I think the title of the report is a little confusing. One would, I think, rightly expect that a review into Indigenous jobs and training would solely focus on access to jobs and training for Aboriginal Australians. Why then, we must ask, I feel, does Mr Forrest see fit to use this publication to make all sorts of wide-ranging and punitive recommendations that cover other areas?
I want to make it very clear before I go on that I think there are a small number of recommendations within the report which I consider are worth further consideration. Early childhood support, for example, and making counsellors available in more communities to assist people to overcome drug and alcohol-related problems may very well be welcome steps. However, I am afraid the majority of the report appears less hopeful.
It may well be that the Premier is privy to some other draft of the report that the public and I are not yet aware of. It may well be that the Premier has given the punitive and wide-ranging recommendations in the report further consideration since he made his announcement in The Australian in August. I can only go on what I and the community know thus far, which is that the majority of the recommendations in the Forrest review are of great concern to a number of individuals and communities.
One aspect of the report which Dignity for Disability finds especially troubling is Mr Forrest’s recommendation that all recipients of Centrelink payments (bar aged and veterans pensions recipients) can have up to 100 per cent of their Centrelink payment transferred to a so-called healthy welfare card with the aim of prohibiting the purchase of things like cigarettes, drugs and alcohol or other non-essential items.
I am sure that some members of the chamber may say that this is fair enough and, on the surface, it certainly appears to be so, until we consider the enormous breach of civil liberty that this represents and, more importantly, the lack of evidence to suggest that there is any greater incidence of drug and alcohol purchase among those who are in receipt of Centrelink payments compared to those who are not, nor to suggest that simply because someone is in receipt of a payment they are less able to responsibly manage their own funds than others.
There is also no evidence, it is important to note, to suggest that measures like this actually reduce the number of people purchasing items like alcohol and cigarettes. Indeed, as I noted when giving notice of my intent to move this motion yesterday, our very own Australian commonwealth Parliamentary Library has stated in a report into the issue:
There are very few studies available that seek to directly evaluate the effectiveness of income management. In part, this is because income management is still relatively new and untried elsewhere. Surely, we would not be asking too much of a government to base its support of recommendations on strong existing research and community feedback.
I do not deny that some people, particularly in Aboriginal communities as I understand it, have voluntarily gone onto income management schemes. I understand that for some people these have been particularly helpful in communities where the practice of what is known as humbugging, or persistently pestering a family member or friend to share their income partly due to the traditional family and caring role in many Aboriginal communities, is common. However, from my correspondence and meetings with people who are currently forced onto involuntary income management, the effects have been damaging and humiliating.
I first became aware of this issue and the effects that involuntary income management was having on many members of the community when I met with representatives from SIMPla (or Stop Income Management in Playford), a group that has come together to raise awareness of the unfair and unjustified expansion of income management being forced on people based on the fact that they live in what is generally a low socioeconomic area. It is worth noticing that SIMPla also suggests that voluntary income management has been useful for some people. It simply stands against sweeping generalisations that many people in Aboriginal communities, in particular, are now facing because of forced income management.
I would like to return now though to the problem of the lack of evidence to support or, indeed, to disprove the effectiveness of involuntary income management. Surely if the problem of people misusing their taxpayer Centrelink funds were as big as Mr Forrest’s report seems to suggest, almost 100 per cent of Centrelink payment recipients would be facing hearings at the Guardianship Board to have administrative orders placed over them because they are unable to responsibly manage their own funds independently.
Unless I have severely misread something in the newspaper of late, this simply is not the case. It is not what is happening, and casting aspersions on all members of a particular group of people, whether due to race, gender or the type of welfare payment that they receive, is grossly unjust and irresponsible of a government which should be able to respond with maturity to the individual needs of its citizens. This government needs to recognise the extremely damaging effects—
Members interjecting:
The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! The Hon. Ms Vincent has been battling very well, but there is another conversation happening in the chamber and I would ask that the Hon. Kelly Vincent be given a clear run to make her presentation.
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT: I thank you very much for your protection, sir. As I was saying, this government needs to recognise the extremely damaging effects that this could have not only on people’s personal lives, but on their broader reputations. It is particularly upsetting to see the Premier endorsing the recommendation that tars so many people with the same brush in a political climate where many groups and many people are currently struggling to differentiate themselves from those who do the wrong thing.
The feminist movement, for example, is frequently howled down with cries of ‘Not all men behave like this. Not all men do this.’ Particularly relevant are people of the Muslim faith currently fighting, and quite rightly, the broader societal misconception that all Muslims believe in the same abhorrent actions that are currently being carried out by groups like ISIS, for example. So, why now, of all times, would a Labor premier claiming to hold the profound belief in the benefits of diversity, wish to portray such damaging images of Centrelink payment recipients as a group?
I think another question that now must be asked is: why is it that aged and veteran pension recipients are exempt from this particular recommendation to have their pension put onto a healthy welfare card? Is there some evidence of which I am not aware, and this may well be the case, which proves that this particular group is any less or any more innocent than others?
Of particular concern to me pertaining to the recommendations about the healthy welfare card is recommendation 5.7 of the report which suggests that retailers could be issued on-the-spot fines of $2,000 for every $100 of value that they supply to a healthy welfare card holder for cash or goods which are prohibited to be purchased by a holder of the card.
I ask Premier Weatherill: are we really expecting retailers, checkout operators and the like, many of whom are still in school, to make choices about the appropriate lifestyle and diet of their clients and customers? Are we really suggesting that these are the people who have that knowledge? Forgive me, but I would have thought the people most capable of making those decisions based on individual need and experience would be the healthy welfare card holders themselves, their family and friends where appropriate, and personal supporters and advisers in the relevant area.
Withholding, suspending and controlling someone’s payment in the way that the review seems to suggest could very well drive people into poverty. I do not deny for a moment that there may be some welfare payment recipients who do the wrong thing by the taxpayer and by society in the way they spend their funds, but I humbly, and I think quite rightly, suggest that the way to fix this is not to restrict the freedom of others with a punitive measure just in case they do the wrong thing. I ask you: do we lock up all dogs in cages in the event that they might bite someone? If we have a broken window in our house is the solution to go through the house and break all of the other windows so that they are the same? No, we fix the window; we train the dog.
Dignity for Disability believes that through education and the provision of proper advice and support we can fix the issue of inappropriate use of Centrelink funds without damaging the reputations and further restricting the lifestyles of existing recipients. As Closing the Gap reports numerous times, punitive measures which do not take into account traditional cultural nuances and responsibilities simply do not work, particularly in Aboriginal communities.
I want to move now to the concern that Dignity for Disability holds about the report’s recommendations regarding the freeholding of Aboriginal land. The proposed changes to the manner in which Indigenous land is held potentially seriously erodes the ability of native title claimants to be collectively involved in decisions regarding that land. It makes it easier for external interests, for example—and particularly relevant to Mr Forrest’s recommendation—mining, to railroad communities by having the ability to negotiate with individual landowners.
It is strange that a premier drawn from a party rooted in the value of collective action on the part of working people should be so quick to apparently endorse a recommendation which has the potential to sign away the rights of Aboriginal communities to raise their voice as one. I am also concerned that this will lock the larger membership of communities out of a negotiation process that frequently yields many valuable concessions that in many respects underpin the development and enrichment of communities, particularly in remote communities—employment in, and cultural advice on, mining, frequently offered as part of negotiations on land use agreements, being one such example.
The proposed reforms create the potential, as I see it, for the concessions to become commodities that could be monopolised by individuals or small groups with self-interest. It would not be the first time that the involvement of resources and interests has seen Indigenous communities tear themselves apart over the promise of work and royalties. In order to establish native title, traditional owners are required to demonstrate a continuous and unchanged relationship with the land extending back prior to western colonisation.
For over 200 years they must have maintained the traditional custodianship, customs and practices in relation to that land and, in the event that the devastating effects of colonisation have not extinguished the native title, a limited set of rights are recognised by the court in its determination. It is frankly bizarre that, having made traditional owners jump through so many hoops to demonstrate that they have retained their traditional connection and relationship with a particular piece of land, we should immediately begin trying to compel them to adopt a more western approach to their belatedly recognised property rights so that corporate interests can potentially readily monetise them.
Given the well-recognised occupation of the Forrest Report’s author, I cannot help but express what I see as a healthy level of scepticism regarding the motives that sit behind this particular recommendation. I want to point out that certain recommendations in the report could also have an adverse effect on the education of young people in particular, and particularly again those in Aboriginal communities and those from low-income families.
Of particular concern are suggested changes to the TAFE system and the suggested linking of family tax benefits to child school attendance. I believe that the problem with the latter recommendation to do with linking family tax benefits to school attendance is explained very eloquently in a paragraph from the letter to the Premier from Pas Forgione and Tauto Sansbury which I read earlier, so I would like to reread that paragraph onto the record for the point of emphasis:
The linking of family tax benefits to school attendance will not only punish already struggling low-income families but may also damage critical relationships between schools and parents, and will fail to address many complex issues behind truancy in metropolitan and remote Aboriginal communities. For example, research by the Australian Catholic University shows that Aboriginal students with a strong sense of cul tural identity are most likely to attend and perform well in school.
Furthermore, Mr Forrest’s recommendations regarding TAFE are also potentially problematic as far as I see them. Recommendation 14 states:
That, in order to create job-specific employer-directed training, the Commonwealth, state and territory governments, as joint regulators and funders, introduce vouchers for employers redeemable at education providers to replace all funding for the vocational education and training system, particularly the TAFE system.
As I see it, this proposal potentially kills off TAFE and the VET sector as a source of general education. To access this sector if this recommendation were implemented, as I understand it, you would need to get a voucher to do a specific course to get a specific job at a specific employer post-qualification.
While there may be some merit to this recommendation, I think it is worth pointing out that the proposal, as I read it, fails to recognise the level and value of freelance and agency work in a range of VET-linked sectors. As a result, it could produce an unintentional shortage in a range of areas like nursing, aged care, sign language interpretation and other industries where agency work and freelance are popular and much needed.
What I have provided the chamber with today is but a snapshot of some of the concerns that have been presented to me by various members of the community about the Forrest Review recommendations. I feel that as I am not someone currently in receipt of a Centrelink payment, nor am I someone currently experiencing the effects of involuntary income management, it is somewhat difficult for me to properly articulate the level of stress and anxiety that Premier Weatherill’s apparent endorsement of these recommendations is causing.
I want to acknowledge that Khatija Thomas is, as I understand it, currently undergoing some consultation, particularly with Aboriginal communities, about the true intent of these recommendations, but Dignity for Disability and I certainly want to see that consultation taken more broadly and more genuinely so that all members of the community truly understand what is meant by these recommendations and what the effect of these recommendations would be if they were implemented.
I also want members of the community to be given a proper chance to have their voices heard by Premier Jay Weatherill, as the people who live day to day on Centrelink payments and other measures are those who would be most affected by these recommendations if they were to be implemented.
I want to state that it is my understanding that Premier Jay Weatherill is currently in discussion with my office about arranging a meeting between him, myself, Mr Andrew Forrest and, I believe, some other community members as well, and that is a welcome step. I would have liked to have seen, as I know many members of the community would have liked to have seen, that consultation happen a little earlier. Unfortunately, just yesterday I was citing another example under the SACAT bill where the announce and defend, or announce and then consult, model was undertaken. So, yet again I implore Premier Jay Weatherill to truly live up to his word that he will implement a model of consult and decide governance.
To me, to be a leader means taking people with you, discussing ideas and walking side by side with the people whom you represent, particularly those who are most directly affected by the decisions that you make. That is why consult and decide is such an important model of governance. We need government to recognise that it should make decisions in collaboration with those who are affected by the decisions they make.
I commend this motion to the council and I call on all members to join with me in supporting this motion and calling on Premier Jay Weatherill to better consider the effects that these recommendations may have, to better consult with those who may be affected by them, to better communicate what the extent of his endorsement of these recommendations may be and to better collaborate and hear the voices of those who will be directly affected. I hope that members of this chamber will endorse this motion and call on Premier Jay Weatherill to be a true leader in this matter.
Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M. Gazzola.
