Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Social Security Amendment (Liquid Assets Waiting Period) Bill 2009 will amend the Social Security Act 1991 to relax the liquid assets waiting period threshold for access to income support by doubling the maximum reserve amount for the liquid assets waiting period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2011. This measure will also exclude the surrender value of life insurance policies from the definition of liquid assets for social security purposes.

Before I talk a little more on the legislation, I need to correct some of the misinformation that has been put forward in this chamber today. It really brings home the message that we on this side of the House get each and every day: the opposition says one thing but means something else. When the member for Boothby and the member for Mitchell stood up to speak on this bill, the first thing they said was that it overturned a savings measure introduced by the Howard government in 1996-97.

They talk about trepidation and their great concerns about this type of legislation. They go through, point by point, arguing against the legislation. They say they will vote for the legislation, but then argue against it—and all the time reiterating and emphasising the fact that the Howard government introduced it as a saving measure and how important it was at that particular time and fantasising about what it was like in the good old days when they were on the government benches.

The member for Boothby talked about giving up on jobs and just preparing people for unemployment. I know he voted against the stimulus package that went through the House—the $42 billion stimulus package that will create jobs in just about every sector in Australia. I know he voted against the $14.7 billion going to the schools in Australia—schools in his electorate. I know he did not want those construction jobs to take place within his schools. I certainly know that the member for Mitchell was opposed to those building plans for schools. He said as much here in the chamber today. He reinforced the fact that he was opposed to investment in schools, the building in schools—which creates real jobs in an industry where jobs have shrunk. He is also opposed to spending money on our children—in education. It shows that he has a very, very narrow approach to looking at creating jobs.

He was talking about solutions. One solution that the Rudd government has put forward is the stimulus package and creating jobs in retail. We only have to look at the retail sales figures in Australia for December and January in comparison to other countries to know how successful the first stimulus package was. The member for Mitchell was calling for solutions. The Rudd government has put in place those solutions. What was his solution? It was: ‘Get rid of payroll tax; it’s a state tax.’ He is calling on the Rudd government to get rid of state taxes. I would like to suggest that the member for Mitchell become a little bit better informed before he comes in this House to debate legislation. When he calls for action from the government in relation to having strategies in place to address unemployment, he needs to sit back, look what has happened and maybe have a look at the legislation that has been through the parliament—legislation that I suspect he was told he had to oppose, and which he did oppose.

See this speech in context