Ewen Jones (Herbert, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Fair Incentives to Work) Bill 2012. This bill represents another of this government's cash grabs as it desperately tries to struggle its way to a surplus. I can find no other way of explaining it. This bill affects those on parenting payments by removing the current grandfathering transition agreements. This will result in parents being moved from these payments over to an income support payment such as Newstart. For couples this will occur when the youngest child turns six; for single parents, when the youngest child turns eight. The goal of this measure is to encourage parents back into the workforce once their kids are old enough to attend school.

This bill also changes the liquid asset waiting period, which requires anyone claiming Newstart, sickness, Austudy or youth allowances to wait a period of time before being able to access income if they have liquid assets above a certain threshold. With this legislation these thresholds will be doubled to $5,000 for singles and $10,000 for those with dependants. The liquid asset waiting period will be up to five weeks for some applicants, and these changes should remove this waiting period for many more students and applicants.

Lastly, this will clarify the definition of the termination payment with regard to the income maintenance period. Under the definition proposed by this bill the termination payments will include redundancy payments, leave and other payments that are related to an individual's termination of employment.

The coalition has a history of reform in this area. It was the Howard government that introduced the welfare-to-work changes in 2005 to move people off Centrelink into jobs. Those changes proved to be successful, with a 23 per cent increase in the number of single parents leaving income support after six months. Then, the Labor opposition steadfastly opposed these changes. Now, they have realised the importance of encouraging welfare recipients back into the workplace. But where the Howard government sought to increase workplace participation and decrease welfare dependency, this government is just after savings to make up for this profligate spending elsewhere. Where is the support for parents as they try to return to work, in some cases after years out of the workplace? Where is the guarantee that parents will not find themselves, perversely, financially worse off for taking a job? As the member for Pearce pointed out, we are looking at an effective tax rate of 70 per cent on the money they earn. We are looking at ripping benefits off them so there is no incentive to work. This is my problem, and I will also go to this in the conclusion of this speech—the complete and utter lack of narrative from this government in relation to everything they do at the moment. They cannot get their message across on what they are trying to achieve. That is what I really struggle with here. The Howard reforms ensured that parents could refuse a job that would not leave them better off. This bill does not leave them with that choice.

Of course we support the sentiment of getting parents back to work. The member for Parramatta spoke very well about the message of getting people back to work. You are a better person when you work; you are more productive when you work, obviously. We want people to kick the welfare habit and not create a cycle of welfare dependence—children too easily follow the model set by their parents. But this government is only interested in the savings that this measure presents. The government is not interested in undertaking true welfare reform, for the sake of not just their bottom line but workers as well.

If this was about doing the right thing by parents affected by these changes, there would be assistance to accompany these new rules, to help parents acquire the skills needed to find long-term work. Instead, we see $162 million slashed from Job Services Australia that would have been spent helping people find work. That this government can splash around $10 billion for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation to fund renewable energy schemes that have failed to attract private sector financing but cannot find any money to help parents transition to the workplace speaks volumes about this government's priorities. It is one thing to want to encourage welfare recipients back in the workplace—simply cutting welfare payments only addresses one-half of the equation.

What does this government say to a 24-year-old woman at the centre of these reforms who has a child turning six, who for six years has not worked or undergone training or further education and who has not had the chance to develop workplace skills? She now faces her welfare being cut as she is sent on her way to find a job, with the government who is cutting her off providing her no assistance in acquiring the skills she needs to find a job. That is not welfare reform.

In my electorate of Herbert is Palm Island. Palm Island has unemployment of around 95 per cent. Its population are welfare dependent, with little to no opportunity to work. Its population have not had the opportunities or the encouragement to develop skills or pursue education beyond school, if they even attended school. There was a story in the TownsvilleBulletin this week about there being only one child on Palm Island who has attended school every day this year so far—one child, at the Bwgcolman Community School, is the only child on Palm Island who has attended school every day this year. And we are going to talk about people transitioning back to the workplace at 24 years old. What are the prospects for the young mother on Palm when her child reaches school age? She will be punished for having no alternatives to welfare. These are people we need to be helping, not hurting. This legislation is not about transitioning people to work; it is about dumping people on cheaper welfare.

It should come as no surprise that this Labor government is ignorant to the concerns of the Indigenous population of Herbert. Over the weekend, the Townsville Bulletin shed some light on the scandal that has engulfed this government and the Townsville Aboriginal and Islander Health Services, or TAIHS, over the past few years. A freedom of information request has shown that this government was concerned about the running of this service as far back as 2008, but it took until last year for any action to be taken against the organisation, and that was driven by the paper—not by the government, not by the previous member for Herbert coming in here and speaking about it and not by me approaching the minister and raising it. Once it got into the press they actually did something about it. It was the Queensland government, through the CMC, that had to do it. We have the situation where there should be people charged, and they are not being charged because this government will not do the work. This government stands condemned for its handling of this issue. It sat back and allowed another three years of corruption of funds intended to provide health care to the Indigenous community. For three years, Labor misled the Indigenous population of Townsville that they had investigated TAIHS and cleared them of wrongdoing. Now we find out that there was no investigation.

It is with no thanks to the Labor party that TAIHS has turned itself around—and I commend it—and is at last getting back on track to help Townsville's Indigenous population. Under the guidance of chair Donald Whaleboat, TAIHS is under administration and has been given the organisational shake-up that has been needed for so long. It took far too long, but Townsville's Indigenous community at last have their health service back.

I would like to once again mention the member for Pearce and her plea on this. We are trying to get people back to work. We are trying to do the right thing here. But, as my wife always says, you catch more flies with honey than you ever will with vinegar. You cannot just take things away from people. We heard the member for Shortland spend 13 of her 15 minutes berating this bill—but she is going to support it. She spent 13 of her 15 minutes telling us what bad legislation this was and how it would hurt absolutely everyone, and then, in winding up, she said, 'But I'm going to support it anyway.' She made her speech so she could do a press release in her electorate and it would look good on her website. She is going to vote with the parliament here and hope no-one notices.

The member for Pearce said it right from the word go. She said this is bad legislation. It goes to the consistent lack of narrative or plan from this government. We see this money being ripped out of the social security system, from single mothers who often do not have the literacy skills, the workforce skills, the interview skills or the transport to get work. It seems to be for people who live in the big cities, where public transport is there. If you miss your bus from the Upper Ross you cannot get to your job interview. If you miss your job interview you get sacked from this organisation—you will get your funds cut straight away, with no questions asked, until you can justify why you missed it. It is a punitive approach to this which is just killing everyone. I do not understand how you can do this.

There is a lack of narrative or a consistent approach. We have seen hundreds of millions of dollars flow out the window to organisations such as American car companies, $42 million just the other day to an aluminium refinery, $300 million to the steel industry and yet we are going to take the benefits away from a single parent. I just do not see it. Perception is neither right nor wrong; it just is. If you are perceived out there as not caring about these people then you are not caring about these people.

On this thing last night, I have age pensioners who send me emails all the time telling me what they are going to do. They say they are going to hop on a boat and sail to Christmas Island and get the benefits that comes from landing there. We know that is how tough it is. That is the perception out there: that people from elsewhere or other people are getting it better. That is the reality. If people in Australia are thinking that, what are people in Afghanistan thinking? People and single pensioners here are thinking that they are being shafted at every turn—that they are the ones copping it in the neck at every turn—and yet we see all this money being thrown out to industry; we see all this money being thrown out at boat people. That is their perception, that is their reality. That is what is wrong with this legislation: it is punitive.

Member for Shortland, I was a single parent, albeit for the blink of an eye. My two daughters and I spent the best part of two years as a single unit. When you are a single parent you do the washing at two o'clock in the morning, because that is when you do it. You are ironing school uniforms and making lunches at four o'clock in the morning, because that is when you do it. I was very, very lucky. I had a boss that had been through it himself—he was on his third marriage—and he understood. I also had a job that allowed me the flexibility to get around it. But it is not easy and we are making it hard for people and harder for people all the time to get this sort of support.

We are talking about people in regional centres like Townsville where if you miss the bus from the Upper Ross at eight o'clock in the morning there will not be another one until 10. So if you have an appointment at 9.30, it is a $45 taxi fare to wherever it is and you do not have that money. It is all right to sit there in the heart of Sydney and catch the next train which comes in three minutes, or to catch the bus from Upper Mount Gravatt from Garden City that comes every three minutes. That is all right because you can do that. But we have single parents, too, in regional areas and in country areas where you cannot get the jobs, where you do not have access to these things. That is what is wrong with this organisation; that is what is wrong with this government.

You blokes would not have put a bet on Black Caviar on Saturday night, because you cannot pick a winner! You guys cannot pick a winner and you should hang your heads in shame over this thing. It is bad legislation and you should walk away from it, because this is wrong. I thank you for the opportunity.

See this speech in context