Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

This budget is a missed opportunity for structural reform—not that you'd expect anything much from this mob. They're too busy with their spin and marketing and announcements to get on with the serious business of governing. Most importantly, for this debate, they've left millions of vulnerable Australians without the support that they need in the worst economic crisis for over a hundred years. Let's be very clear on the context for this budget. When the government handed down the budget, there were 1.3 million Australians receiving unemployment benefits of some sort. The government's projection in their own budget, just a few weeks ago, was that, by Christmas, there'd be 1.5 million Australians receiving unemployment benefits, yet only two weeks ago, at Senate estimates, it was eventually dragged out of them and they finally had to admit that, by Christmas, 1.8 million Australians will receive unemployment benefits. The government project that unemployment will surge and we'll have 300,000 more Australians receiving unemployment benefits by Christmas. That's the context. In 2024, in four years from now, on the government's own admission two weeks ago at Senate estimates, there will be more people receiving unemployment benefits than before the recession. So don't believe the spin and marketing. Australians should not believe the spin and marketing. They were telling us two weeks ago: 'The recession's almost over. We reckon we're going to get positive growth. It's almost over. Everything's just tickety-boo.' Try telling that to the 1.8 million Australians who, by Christmas, are expected to be on unemployment benefits.

With that context, what does the government's budget do? It bakes in a cut to JobSeeker to $40 a day. It bakes in the cut. That's what is in the budget that the minister, sitting over there, is recommending that the House approve. Unbelievably, only yesterday, we heard the minister trumpet the JobSeeker supplement. It started at $550, then they cut it to $250. Then, only yesterday, as unemployment is projected to surge to 1.8 million people, they cut unemployment benefits by another $100 a fortnight. They panicked, of course, as the recession took hold and thought, 'Well, it's okay for people in Labor electorates and a few poor people'—who they reckon don't vote for them—'to try and live on $40 a day, but, goodness me, we won't let middle-class Australia discover that,' so they put the supplement in. But now they're winding it back, right at the very time when people need support.

I ask the minister: why are you cutting JobSeeker payments while unemployment is surging? Why will you not do the decent thing and give certainty to vulnerable Australians on what the future rate is going to be after March next year? Why won't you announce a permanent increase to the rate of JobSeeker, given you've had to admit through this recession that people cannot live on $40 a day? And how many jobs are going to be lost because of these cuts?

This is personal for me. The people I represent are in the most disadvantaged council in the whole of Melbourne. It's the most disadvantaged area. Unemployment is about double the metropolitan average. We have far higher rates of people in casual and insecure work who don't have JobKeeper. Indeed, tens of thousands of people in my electrode get nothing from the government because they're temporary migrants who've lost their job, through no fault of their own. They're queuing up at the small local charities for emergency relief funding. I ask the minister: why will you not directly fund those local charities that are doing such important work so people don't starve? It's all very well to say, 'We handed out $200 million to our favourite big four charities.' That is not landing on the ground in my electorate. Why will you not fund the small local charities that at least make sure people in my community don't starve?

The government went to the election with not one single election commitment for the most disadvantaged council in the whole of Melbourne—not one dollar. You were too busy rorting every fund you could get your grubby little hands on down the road in the marginal seats, tipping out $100 million as sports rorts, handing out money to all your mates and sticking your mates on boards, but there's not one dollar for the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people in the city of Melbourne—nothing. So, I ask the minister: in the latest round of family violence grants, which the minister dutifully announced, why did my electorate get nothing, when South-East Melbourne has the highest rate of family violence anywhere in Victoria? Why did we get nothing and all the other mysterious projects—probably run by your mates as well—got all the money? I ask the minister: why? I'd love to hear an answer to that.

The big lie right at the heart of this budget is that there's a jobs plan. Minister: 'JobKeeper' and 'JobSeeker' and 'JobMaker' and 'JobTrainer'—saying 'job' a lot is not a plan to create jobs. It's marketing spin. We had the debate last time. We heard about 'MateKeeper'. We may as well just rename the Liberal Party 'JobTrainer', because that's basically what it is: training mates to get jobs from the government. But the big lie at the heart of the budget is that there's a jobs plan. There are not enough jobs, and saying 'job' a lot is not going to change that fact.

See this speech in context