Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I appreciate the opportunity today to speak on the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2008. In Cowan, just as in all the other electorates, matters arise where the Social Security Appeals Tribunal is required to re-examine the decisions made by officers of Centrelink or the Child Support Agency. It is essential that these often emotional matters be resolved quickly and transparently. The SSAT clearly appreciates the importance of these points because its aims include providing a review that is ‘fair, just, economical, informal and quick’. That is all very important, but the specific aim of this bill is to amend a number of items of legislation that will enable the Social Security Appeals Tribunal to work better, including granting Centrelink the ability to make oral submissions to the SSAT or speak at hearings. It will also allow the SSAT to state its affirmation of cases orally and enable appointment of members to the SSAT for five-year terms.

It is my intention today not to mention or comment unnecessarily on every other act that this bill will amend but rather to speak on the substantive measures and their relevance to the electorate of Cowan, so I will state right from the start that it is my intention to speak only on the substantive measures involving oral submissions and periods of appointment. With regard to the first aspect of the bill, the interaction of Centrelink with the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, this bill will enable Centrelink to make oral submissions to the SSAT whereas previously only a written submission was possible. This is an important improvement if you want to deliver transparency and fairness, because so often the context of individual cases is difficult to express in written words. An appellant would be better able to seek fairness in an SSAT decision if a Centrelink officer was able to speak and then clarify any additional points during a review. This would also bring Centrelink into line with the Child Support Agency, which is allowed to appear at hearings when required.

The period that a member of the Appeals Tribunal holds office is set out in schedule 3 part 1 clause 4 of the Social Security (Administration) Act. However, I wonder why there is the need for item 23 in this bill before the parliament today. Why is there a need to appoint a person for five years when their performance can still be judged after three years, and then a decision can be made as to whether they continue under reappointment? It is fine for the executive director to be appointed for five years, but the members should be assessed every three years and this would appear to be the more appropriate course of action. However, we will see how the appointments and the actions of members of the SSAT go in the future.

I would like to see the SSAT strongly support, where possible, the principles of what social security is truly all about. I imagine that all of us here in parliament would agree that welfare payments to the younger and able-bodied members of society are just a temporary means of support until such time as they can find employment and once again support themselves. I certainly look forward to a more consistent approach to welfare support and an end to those rare and inappropriate comments you hear when a person on Newstart starts talking about how much they ‘earn’. I think John F. Kennedy got it right in his inaugural speech when he said: ‘Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.’

I recently visited and congratulated the ladies who work down at the Uniting Church’s outreach program in Girrawheen, in Cowan. These ladies, known as the Wednesday Club, volunteer to operate the food bank and the second-hand clothing store down on Salcott Road in Girrawheen. They provide a great service to those who are struggling to make ends meet. Every eight weeks, families can attend the food bank, make a gold coin donation and pick up a hamper of food. I congratulate Maureen Le Bretton, Agnes Brunton, Carole Zielinski, Diane Alexander, Lorna Phillips and Maureen Lambert for the great work they do. They provide examples of the very best of the Australian character with the fabulous work they do under the auspices of the Uniting Church in Noranda, and it makes me proud to be their federal representative. I know that the vast majority of their clients greatly appreciate the effort that these ladies put in and respect the sentiments behind this sort of support.

Unfortunately, as with all things, there are some people who do not appreciate that support or respect the sentiments behind it. There are some that abuse this support. The forms of abuse range from somewhat rare cases of verbal abuse to those who think that, just because the surnames of husbands and wives are different in some cultures, this means that the wife can show up one week and the husband the next, just to try to maximise what they can get, knowing of course that this then takes away opportunities from others who might need that support. This is not to say that the abuse of the good graces or the intentions of the food bank is confined to one group. No, the small number of people involved in poor behaviour range across a number of different groups in the community. It may be recalled that I mentioned the need for a gold coin donation to participate in the food bank. This is a modest sum that goes some small way to offsetting the outlays that the Noranda church puts into the food bank. They receive no donations. They have to buy it all. It is therefore disappointing that, when asked for that gold coin donation, some people pull a $50 note out of their wallet and then ask for change. Other clients seem to have spent their money on purchases such as body piercings, cigarettes, flash clothes or other excesses that all demonstrate that they prioritise those matters above having good food on the table.

Again, I make the point that this is a matter of priority. As parents, as leaders, we should first be thinking about putting good food on the table for our children and supporting our families before spending money on things that are purely excesses. The tragedy is that these sorts of people take some of the capacity of the Noranda Uniting Church and other philanthropic organisations within Cowan and elsewhere away from the genuinely disadvantaged and those who are in unfortunate circumstances through no fault of their own. Once again, I applaud the efforts of Maureen Le Bretton, Agnes Brunton, Carole Zielinski, Diane Alexander, Lorna Phillips and Maureen Lambert from the Uniting Church in Noranda and other individuals and organisations that are committed to the support of those that struggle in this nation through no fault of their own.

It is a shame that there are some who abuse the goodwill and the systems in place to provide assistance, whether that is through the non-profit sector or through government welfare support payments. While it is a sad reality that there are and always will be those who abuse the good intentions of others, this bill is about improvements to the system, and I look forward to those improvements being implemented. While I have reservations about whether the extension of the maximum term for a member of the SSAT to five years is really going to be of benefit, I look forward to seeing the benefits of all the changes applied to the cases that affect my constituents in the electorate of Cowan.

In conclusion, I look forward to this bill providing a more effective appeals system and I look forward to the best use of social security assistance for Australians—and that assistance should only be taken up by those who are really in need of it.

See this speech in context