Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) | Hansard source

I stand to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023. This omnibus social services bill includes a range of measures that the government announced in its budget this year. The coalition have considered each of the proposals put forward by the government, and we will be supporting the expanded eligibility for assistance for single parents, the expansion of the higher rate of JobSeeker to those aged 55 as opposed to 60 at present and the increase in Commonwealth rental assistance of 15 per cent as announced. But we call on the government to support the coalition's policy on JobSeeker as outlined by the Leader of the Opposition in his budget reply speech. This relates to the government's measure to increase working-age payments such as JobSeeker by $40 a fortnight.

Currently we have a historically low rate of unemployment. We have 431,000 or thereabouts formal job vacancies and over 800,000 JobSeeker recipients across the nation, at a time when businesses are crying out for workers. I expect there would be few people in this chamber—indeed, few people in Australia—who have walked down a shopping strip and not seen a number of shops closed, with advertisements in the window asking people to apply for jobs within so that those businesses can reopen or extend their hours again. The tightness of the labour market right now is undeniable and is placing a huge, huge toll on hardworking Australians, who are having to work even harder due to these workforce shortages.

On top of that, under this Labor government we have seen the cost of living skyrocket. The average mortgage holder is paying $22,000 more than they were a year ago. They're spending more on their grocery bills, more at the bowser and more on power prices.

These are the millions of Australians who get up every day and are happy to pay their taxes and are happy to contribute to our social welfare system, but they do expect that people will avail themselves of the opportunity to work where the jobs are available and where they're able to do so. That's why the opposition leader, in his budget-in-reply speech, outlined a better way to provide additional support for people on JobSeeker. Our approach is to increase the income-free threshold by $150 a fortnight, giving those Australians the opportunity to work more before they lose a cent of their payment. We know it's good for the economy, we know it's vital for small and medium businesses that are looking for more workers and, most importantly, we know it is the best thing for the individual who is on JobSeeker. Encouraging a JobSeeker recipient by giving them financial incentives to take up more work, which we know is available, is a far better way in this current economic environment to provide support to JobSeeker recipients than simply increasing the amount of the JobSeeker payment that they receive with no incentive to work.

It goes without saying that increasing the income threshold by $150 a fortnight achieves each of the objectives that I expect fair-minded Australians would be seeking. It helps alleviate the labour shortages that are currently being faced throughout the economy—those 431,000 or so formal job vacancies. And we know there will be thousands and thousands more informal vacancies, such as the sign in the window that's not formally counted in those numbers.

Our policy will not only help businesses by encouraging more people to do more hours or to start working some hours—we know that 75 per cent jobseekers right now currently have no earnings—but will also help those people and families at the heart of small business. It helps those people who are creating jobs and creating wealth for our country. It also means that people are getting the vital skills that they need for meaningful long-term employment. We all know that the longer you're out of the workforce the harder it is to re-enter it. Again, it should be plainly obvious to everybody that the coalition's approach of incentivising work, not incentivising welfare, is the best approach to helping people. It's ultimately best for the wellbeing of the JobSeeker recipient too. We all know the dignity of work and the dignity of having a mission. For that reason, our approach is far superior to the one that has been put forward by the government, and we will continue to encourage the government to adopt our policy, which is in the best interest of just about everybody.

We give credit to the government. They've partially adopted the policy that we announced in our budget-in-reply speech in October in relation to senior Australians being able to work more hours. They did it begrudgingly, but in the end they saw the absolute common sense of our proposal. The current income-free areas can act as a deterrent for some people looking for more hours of work or looking for hours of work. Undoubtedly, the best way to facilitate people into meaningful work is to make that first step as easy as possible. How do you help them make the first step? The first thing you do is remove the barrier to making that first step: the financial disincentive of doing that extra hour of work, taking that job or taking on some part-time work. The evidence is clear: where you can facilitate someone who is unemployed into part-time work, it is often the pathway to meaningful full-time employment. In fact, we know that people who report earnings are twice as likely to move to full-time employment as those who do not report earnings. This is an outstanding dividend for that person, for our economy and for welfare costs. It is the trifecta.

We can compare that with what the Labor Party is proposing. The Labor Party, in this bill, is proposing $9.5 billion of spending over the forward estimates, which undoubtedly will put pressure on inflation. Every dollar the government spends at a time when the Reserve Bank is trying to remove money from the economy just means that the government and the Reserve Bank are working against each other. It means that inflation stays higher for longer, which means that mortgages stay higher for longer. What the government is proposing is simply to increase the JobSeeker payment and ask hardworking Australians to fund a little bit more—a little bit more of your tax while your cost of living skyrockets. Meanwhile, in material term terms, you're poorer now than when the Labor government was elected. That is going to impact your standard of living even further. Not only do they pay for social welfare out of one pocket; but they get smashed on the other side with higher costs of living.

The coalition's strong view is that we need to respect those people who get up every single day and work hard to contribute to our economy and fund Australia's social security system. There is widespread support for our approach of removing these disincentives to work and encouraging people to take up work. The wonderful thing about our policy, too, is that, if a jobseeker avails themselves of the opportunity to work, they will actually be significantly better off financially. They'll be personally better off, and that's without taking into account the other benefits of engaging in the workforce: your self-esteem, your morale and the benefits to your overall lifestyle.

We do support, and we will continue to support, the change for eligibility for assistance for single parents. It's worth noting, though, the quite disgraceful things that the government has said about the ParentsNext program. It's an astonishing attack on what we consider to be some of our most vulnerable Australians, and the government has confirmed it will abolish the ParentsNext program. This is a program that keeps young parents engaged with the workforce, and most of these people are young women. This will clearly punish some of our most vulnerable people and remove a very successful way of keeping them connected to the workforce. It's a vital program to help them maintain that connection while facilitating their parental responsibilities, and it shows Australians that this government has no understanding of mutual obligation.

We want to hear from the minister what the government proposes to do to keep parents connected to the workforce and to be job-ready when their children get older. When parents are able to work, and when they want to work, what practical and tangible assistance is this government going to offer when it takes away the ParentsNext program? Abolishing this program, we all know, is ideological, but even the government, through its ideological lens, must accept we have to do something to help parents remain connected to the workforce so that they can easily transition back into the workforce when their children get older.

We will also support the expansion of the higher rate of JobSeeker for those aged over 55. We will support the increase to Commonwealth rent assistance. We are to some extent drawn to the position of supporting CRA because of how badly this government has handled the housing portfolio and how desperate the situation is out there now. We have a government with no housing agenda. We have a government that is seeking to bring in 1.5 million migrants over the next five years with absolutely no plan about where they are going to live. The situation right now is absolutely dire, and the government doesn't have a solution. We saw in the budget in October the government with their 'Ruddesque' announcement of a million new homes over five years. What they failed to tell the Australian public was that a million new homes had been built over the previous five years. That was business as usual, to be frank. But everybody knows—every economist, the HIA, the MBA—that they will now fail to meet this target.

The increase to Commonwealth rent assistance will help a fairly small number of people. It will be very few people around the country. But we're drawn to supporting the measure because the Labor Party have trashed the housing portfolio so badly in just 12 months and we cannot, in good conscience, oppose this. However, we are asking the government to reconsider their approach to JobSeeker. We're asking them to adopt the far superior proposal from the coalition which has respect for taxpayers, which will not add to inflationary pressures and which will remove the disincentive for people to work either more hours or at all. That will help hundreds of thousands of businesses across the country, businesses that are struggling—people who are literally working themselves to the bone—by giving them an additional source of employees.

Finally, we call on the government to support our proposal, as opposed to theirs, because it will materially improve the lives of people on JobSeeker. That is why, on behalf of the coalition, I will be moving an amendment as a request of the Senate to that effect. Because our policy will not only ensure that jobseekers have more money at the end of every fortnight, but they will also be incentivised to re-engage with the workforce in a way that we know will be the best thing for their lives, their morale and their self-esteem. It is a trifecta of good outcomes for the economy, small business and individuals, as opposed to the Labor Party's very lazy approach. I commend our amendment.