Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Whilst not rising to oppose the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008 I do seek to raise a range of significant concerns I have with the bill. Primarily, the bill seems to lack any degree of substance or indeed concern. One could even go as far as to say that the bill is somewhat of a charade, that it was announced in the media to take the focus off a declining economy, perhaps. Not even Labor revisionists—and indeed the Labor storytellers—could spin some of this. Growth figures for the previous quarter announced yesterday of 0.3 per cent compared to 0.7 per cent the quarter before is something that a bill like this cannot cover up. New South Wales growth was in negative territory at minus 0.1 per cent.

The Labor caucus did not even know this bill was coming up. The majority of Labor members of parliament found out about this bill—and I assume this includes you, Mr Deputy Speaker Bevis—through the media when the spinmeisters put it through. When caucus met, 38 speakers lined up to speak on the bill—35 against and three for. The Labor members did not even know the bill was coming. They heard about it in the media and the majority disagree with it. This is the genesis of this bill that this government seek to bring forward—a bill that is disingenuous, a bill that is designed to hide an economy that is going downhill because of a lack of confidence of Australian people in the Treasurer and, indeed, the Rudd Labor government.

Furthermore, the bill is steeped in duplicity. It seeks to force parents to make children go to school and then to punitively punish them if the kids do not go. Yet the Minister for Employment Participation has previously written to the Job Network providers and to Centrelink saying: ‘Go soft and have compassion on those looking for work. Go soft and have compassion on those who are seeking work for the dole and those responsible for mutual obligation.’

The government released the new employment services discussion paper on 16 May 2008 which said that negligent job seekers on the dole would not face automatic suspension after three strikes; rather they would be referred to comprehensive assessment. Furthermore, on 16 May the Age reported that the minister said, ‘We are not going to allow children to be affected adversely because of a breach by a parent.’ In the workplace participation area, we have a minister saying: ‘Don’t go hard on the parents if they do not want to go to work. It’s all right; they do not have to go to work. Show compassion. We are not going to allow children to be adversely affected because of a breach by a parent.’ But on the other hand, in a hypocritical and duplicitous manner, the government say about the same parent: ‘It’s all right if you don’t go to work. We don’t want to adversely affect your kids. But, if the kids don’t want to go to school, we’re going to punish the entire family by taking away welfare payments.’ The duplicity is outstanding even for this ‘hollow man’ government.

In the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment Reform) Act 2007, the Howard government said it permitted welfare payments to be quarantined in the event of bad behaviour by welfare recipients—that is, not sending their children to school or neglecting them. This struck the right balance. There was no need for any further act of parliament. This again reinforces that the only reason a government would bring this to the parliament without telling any of their Labor members, and letting them find out about it in the news, is that it is a charade. It is an act to cover an economy that is slowly going downhill because of an incompetent frontbench. This bill goes to quarantine, suspend and potentially cancel welfare payments to those parents who apparently do not properly do their job. It is not a problem if the parent does not want to get a job—no drama at all—but if they do not do their job at home the family will be punished. I think the average Australian can work out their hypocrisy in that.

The cancelling of welfare payments includes, of all things, social security pensions, social security benefits, service pensions and income support payments but does not adversely affect family tax payments. So this government is happy to say to veterans, ‘You can do everything you can to help your kids go to school, but if they don’t go we’re going to hit your service pension.’ The hide of this government to look men and women in the face who have faced bullets and war and danger and suffering, and say, ‘We’re going to take the pension away because your child doesn’t want to go to school’—without offering a range of incentives, support and help, they are going to say that to veterans. But I guess this is in line with what this Labor government put through in the budget—it took away $110 million of veterans entitlement. I guess they are consistent in their seeming dislike for veterans.

I agree with the government that bad behaviour should have consequences—

See this speech in context