Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise with my colleagues on this side of the House to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. It is not my intention to go into detail about our concerns about aspects of this bill; I think they have been very well articulated already by members on this side of the House. I will, however, touch on a number of the measures within the bill, in particular the measure that the member for Macquarie just spoke about—that is, the automation of the income stream. I also do want to make some broader comments and some observations in relation to what this bill represents and the overall narrative that is developing about the government.

It seems to me that what we are discussing today—and the speech by the member for Jagajaga from this side of the House articulated this—is the desperate attempt by this government to try and reclaim some of what was in the 2014 budget measures. I think the member for Macquarie's quoting of Ross Gittins shows very clearly that the overall narrative that is emerging—and I have been around parliaments for a very long time—is of a government that does not care about people who are vulnerable; it does not care about people who are poor or people who are sick.

This bill demonstrates very strongly what the government is saying to many thousands of parents and to over 1½ million families in Australia. All of those families live in the electorates of everyone that is represented in this chamber, and that point should be noted very much. You only have to look at the tax cuts that will be provided to the people of wealth in this nation on 1 July and the refusal of the government yesterday in question time to directly answer whether or not those tax cuts would be held back. The other thing of course—this has been well articulated by previous speakers—is that not just this bill but a number of bills being brought forward by the government over the course of this week have had no speakers or very few speakers from the government. This includes the bill in relation to rural students accessing earlier payments from Centrelink, which was a positive story for the government. It just astounds me that there is not even an effort from the government—I hope the media is taking note of this—to provide speakers on its own legislation. I have never seen, in 14 years of experience in parliaments both in New South Wales and in this one, a government too lazy and not organised enough to provide speakers for its own legislation even when the legislation is noncontroversial and has bipartisan support from this side of the house. It is astounding—and, as I said, I hope the media is taking notice of this—that a government does not even provide speakers on its own piece of legislation when that legislation has bipartisan support. It suggests to me a laziness, it suggests to me an attitude of not caring and it also suggests to me that ministers who are responsible for those pieces of legislation have not had their staff organise a speakers list for the legislation. It is something that I have never seen before.

If you look at what was going on in the Senate yesterday and today, at the attacks this government is making on people who believe in decency and who believe in a community that does not lend itself to racial discrimination and at the idiotic attacks on 18 C and the lack of a logical approach to that piece of legislation, you start to get a sense of what this government does or does not stand for. The absurdity of attacking poor and working families is something that this side of the house will never, ever agree to. That is why Labor will oppose this bill in its current form.

We have said very clearly to the government that, if they separate the measures around automation of income stream from the bill, we will support that aspect of the bill. But I suspect that the government, with its lack of finesse, its laziness and its lack of capacity to organise its legislative program, will not agree to that particular measure, even though it makes absolute sense and, as the member for Macquarie said, would avoid to a very large measure the debacle we have seen with the robo-debt recovery. It just says to me, once again, a lack of finesse and laziness that this government displays in terms of its legislative framework.

I have no doubt that this is yet another measure, like the robo-debt recovery measure, about a money grab. These measures—this bill and others—will do nothing to invest in more jobs in Australia; create more training programs; lift people up who deserve that lift up into employment and into being able to maintain some sort of decency in their homes, be that registering a car, making sure their kids are well dressed to go to school or putting food on the table. It is as we have seen with this government's rush to attack penalty rates on Sundays.

All of those things add up to a narrative. That narrative is not being misunderstood by the Australian community and that narrative is clearly increasingly not being misunderstood by the Australian media. It is about being mean, penny-pinching and prepared to kick those who can least afford it to grab money to fill a budget black hole. That is not the way to run a government and that is not the way to have good and fair governance for all communities and for all citizens in Australia. It is attacking the most poor and ripping away from the most vulnerable to try and fix up a budget problem when it is obvious how that budget problem, in part, could be fixed. Labor has said time and time again in this chamber, 'Do not give a $50 billion tax cut to the rich, do not attack things like family tax benefit and do not attack and take money—in fact, it is almost like stealing—through something like the robo-debt recovery scheme, where many people have paid back debt that is non-existent out of fear and out of giving up trying to deal with Centrelink.'

These cuts, as I said, will leave at least 1½ million families worse off in electorates like Barton that I represent and those you represent. It astounds me that there is not one person from the government who will stick their head up about the things that are affecting people in their electorates. We know they are affecting people in their electorates. Elements of many of the electorates that are represented by those opposite, from both the Liberal Party and the National Party but particularly the National Party, are very poor and have experienced entrenched disadvantage over a very long period of time. If the measures that I have outlined were about creating employment, improving the system, refining the processes of Centrelink and putting more resources into Centrelink, you could understand the silence from the other side. But, when none of those things are evident in the legislation we are dealing with today or in other pieces of legislation, you have to wonder why there is such a silence. It is obvious that this government and this Prime Minister stand for nothing anymore, because, if this government and this Prime Minister stood for something, we would not be debating the harsh measures in these pieces of legislation, which are simply a money grab. They are not about good policy or good governance and they are certainly not about the people they will directly hurt. This bill will hurt families and those studying for three years. These measures will affect 204,000 Australians on the lowest income. For three years, the income of single parents, jobseekers and students will not keep pace with the cost of living. This is just another form of attack from this government on hardworking families and those trying to improve their lives.

As with other speakers, I am so disgusted with the cynical idea that, if you attack people who need Centrelink assistance, who rely on welfare and who are doing it hard, people will not care. The cynical politics says that you can go ahead with your attacks. That is wrong—people do care. As I have said in this chamber before, the one thing that Australia stands for is fairness, and people can see just how unfair the decisions of this government have been over a very long time.

This bill also introduces a one-week waiting period before people can access parenting payments or youth allowance. Once again, this is not common sense; it is simply about saving money. There is no rationale for this other than just as another attack on people who may be facing some difficult financial situations. The only explanation can be that, as I said, it is an attack on everyday Australians. I have articulated, as did the member for Macquarie, the measures around the automation of the income stream and how we will support that if it is separated from the rest of the bill. Clearly, because there are no speakers from the government in this debate, that is not going to happen—and I recognise the story about Annabel that the member for Macquarie spoke of.

I also have been privy to many of the submissions that are coming into the Senate inquiry on the robo-debt issue, and I can say that even the department's own submission demonstrates, writ large, just how many mistakes have been made in that process. In fact, the department is saying, 'Well, it's not so bad because not as many mistakes have been made in assessing the family tax benefit.' Isn't that an indication of just how bad the situation must be? Labor stands for fairness, Labor stands for equity and Labor stands for supporting those who can least afford the sorts of attacks and cuts in this legislation and other pieces of legislation that this government has introduced. We will not support the ongoing attacks on Australian families.

I finish by saying this. It seems to me that, when you reduce yourself as a government with these sorts of attacks without any positivity or any indication that these measures will be beneficial to anyone, while stubbornly refusing to rule out tax breaks for the most wealthy and those who can most afford it when you are attacking the people who can least afford it, that indicates a government in decline. That indicates a government that smells. It smells of unfairness, it smells of defeat, it smells of disorganisation and it smells of chaos, and the time will come when people will reach that conclusion. (Time expired)

See this speech in context