Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Hansard source

Let me first of all welcome Von Harrington to the Main Committee this morning. Von was Townsville’s loss and Canberra’s gain when she came here—sorry, Von; I am embarrassing you—and we worked well together when she lived in Townsville.

The provisions of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Employment Services Reform) Bill 2008 really need to address the issues of those who are smarties and who, in fact, want to use the system not to work but to get around the conditions that the government places in terms of mutual obligation. It also needs to address those who do not understand their responsibilities or do not have the capacity to understand their responsibilities, and they need to be helped. I have always thought that we should not be penalising people who are in that particular position. It is very hard to develop one-size-fits-all legislation, rules and policy for Centrelink, because we do not live in a black-and-white world; we live in a grey world. I just wish that we as legislators could find a way to allow our public servants to take more responsibility in making decisions in the interests of their customers. The problem is, of course, that if one public servant makes a decision here and one makes a different decision over there then that is a risk and causes some problems and conflict, but private business handles this okay. Managers in private business are able to make decisions depending on circumstances, and we should be able to trust the members of the Public Service to also make decisions and be assured that there will be no criticism for taking those decisions.

Like most members of parliament, I have seen many examples of the smarties. The member for Hinkler told me just the other day about an example where a fellow wanted to continue to be on income support. He had an orchard and wanted to tend his orchard, but he wanted income support at the same time, so he was saying that he could not get a job. Apparently that became public in Bundaberg, and the fellow who lived next door to this guy rang up and said, ‘I’ll give him a job,’ but then he would not take it because he wanted to tend his lemon trees or whatever they were, but he still wanted his income support. None of us believe that the Australian taxpayer should be funding that kind of scenario. Then you see people who trawl the websites of businesses, get details from them, put them on the form which they send in to Centrelink and say: ‘I’ve asked for jobs at all these places. I pass the activity test,’ or whatever it is; ‘please pay me my income support.’ Centrelink does not have the resources to follow up to see if that actually happened, and none of us as members of parliament would want that to continue.

I take exception to the member for Flynn, who said earlier that people should not have to wait at home doing nothing during an eight-week non-payment period. I do not think he quite meant that, because clearly nobody has to wait at home doing nothing if they are not being paid income support. They can still be out there looking for a job. The people who do not actually want a job are the ones who wait at home doing nothing. So I think the member for Flynn would really agree with me that we would expect people who do not have a job and want income support to actually be looking for a job.

The social security of this country is a policy issue that my coalition colleagues and I take very seriously. Substantiating this claim is the former government’s well-measured policy decision in 2006 known as the Welfare to Work reforms, one of the major reforms that we instituted in the 11 years of the Howard government. Our reason for these reforms was a clear and sensible one then, just as it is still a clear and sensible one now. You see, we believed then and we still believe now that Australians who are struggling to find employment should be able to turn to an Australian government that will help them in such an obvious time of need. We also believed then, as we do now, that a person should be entitled to receive a regular welfare payment, contingent upon certain conditions. These conditions are ones such as proof that he/she is actively seeking employment and attending workshops and meetings, when required, that might better his/her chance of gaining employment. It is quite sensible. We also strongly believe in the added social security benefit of maintaining such conditions upon welfare payments. For example, if a person contributes to the facilitation of their own job seeking, he/she is then contributing to his/her own future financial stability and nonreliance on social welfare payments.

Welfare to Work is clearly a good thing. It is a good policy. Statistics alone show this. These Howard government Welfare to Work measures are working at reducing dependence on welfare in this country and assisting those Australian people who are struggling to find stable employment. The scheme is still working. Not only is it working but it is working remarkably well. It is a very good scheme. In June 2006, for example, we recorded 205,212 long-term unemployed people in Australia. By August 2008, because of the Welfare to Work policy, that number had dramatically fallen, to 146,533 people. That is a reduction of 58,679 people. Those 58,679 people can now have meaningful employment that allows them to live more comfortably. It also allows them to pay tax, of course! Those people have now instilled in themselves a sense of pride and self-worth and have gained meaningful employment that allows them to break the often vicious cycle of welfare dependency.

However, unfortunately, there is one fundamental difference between the former Howard coalition government and the current Rudd Labor government. It is as simple as this: the Rudd government is attempting to introduce changes to the sensible penalties for those who treat the Welfare to Work scheme as a handout scheme. The Rudd Labor government must surely be well aware that Australian people who are deemed physically and mentally capable of doing so are better off gaining meaningful jobs than being reliant on welfare payments each fortnight.

But, if indeed they do agree with the coalition opposition that employment is better than welfare dependency, why do they wish to introduce changes to a system that is currently and effectively encouraging and facilitating self-help job seeking for unemployed Australians? Why would the Rudd government wish to protract the financial instability and welfare reliance of some of the country’s most vulnerable people? Considering that this Rudd Labor government claims to be deeply concerned about providing opportunities for struggling Australians, it seems to me these amendments, which will relax the responsibilities of welfare recipients regarding welfare payments, are peculiar and ill thought out proposals.

The coalition will ultimately support this legislation, but we do have concerns and they have been noted accordingly.

See this speech in context