Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Families, Housing and Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

The Social Security and Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Weekly Payments) Bill 2010 enables weekly payments for certain members of a class of persons who receive a social security periodic payment, family tax benefit or the baby bonus. It is intended to target people who are assessed as being vulnerable, such as those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. This measure was foreshadowed in the homelessness white paper, The road home: a national approach to reducing homelessness, which was released in 2008. The amendments allow the secretary of the department to identify at-risk individuals, generally by discussion with them, who may benefit from weekly rather than fortnightly payments. The class of persons from whom the individuals might be drawn will be determined by a legislative instrument to be made by the minister.

I also note that a trial of this scheme with around 1,700 disadvantaged welfare recipients was conducted in 69 Centrelink customer service centres by the then Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and Centrelink from October 2005 to April 2006—a period of time in which I was one of the responsible ministers in the department’s concerned. It has been made abundantly clear in the bill that the government has no intention of weekly payments becoming a mainstream measure, reserving it for those who are regarded as highly disadvantaged and at risk of becoming homeless. The coalition support this bill and support action that will help people who are regrettably living on the streets move into more permanent accommodation. We believe that, in the process of taking people from homelessness to the home, we give people the tools to live and to move towards independence.

The Prime Minister’s pledge to halve homelessness by 2020 is unrealistic, especially when we have a government that is more focused on political outcomes than on real outcomes on homelessness. For example, the Prime Minister has recently announced additional funding for the Personal Helpers and Mentors Program which, on the government’s own projections, is the equivalent of only around $33 per homeless person per year. It is not even enough to buy a homeless person a roof over their head and a meal for one night, much less for a year.

This is a token commitment which makes a mockery of any serious plans to halve homelessness by 2020. Even the Prime Minister and the Minister for Housing have now conceded that the rate of homelessness has risen since this pledge was made. Indeed, in a recent report in the Australian newspaper entitled ‘Kevin Rudd losing the fight on homeless’ a number of welfare agencies that are closely involved in addressing the issue of homeless people in a very practical and personal way on a daily basis indicated that, in their estimation, even though official statistics are yet to come out, homelessness has risen in Australia since the Prime Minister made this pledge. I know, from speaking to welfare organisations in my own electorate—to Doncare, for example—that this is an issue which is of great concern to them, as it is to similar organisations right throughout the country.

We believe that the Prime Minister must explain why we should take his promise any more seriously than his promise to fix hospitals or to put a computer on every secondary student’s desk or to turn back the illegal boat arrivals. There is a major problem and it is, as the Prime Minister said, a national obscenity. But it is wrong to promise dramatic improvements without the architecture to actually deliver those improvements. Remember Bob Hawke’s empty promise: ‘No child will live in poverty by 1990.’ It would be a tragedy for homeless people in Australia if that promise, full of the usual hyperbole that we get from the Prime Minister, cannot be achieved and indeed if the architecture is not in place to realistically have a chance of delivering upon that promise. As I said, early indications are that things have gotten worse, not better, since the promise was made.

The government’s failure to deal with the housing affordability crisis, which the Prime Minister described as the ‘ultimate barbecue stopper,’ places enormous pressure on all other areas of the housing market. Less affordable housing means more stress on private rentals, which means more stress on social housing, which, in turn, means more people on the streets who cannot get into the market whatsoever. This is at the base of the problem that we are dealing with. Homelessness, if you like, is at the end of the line. It is the problems further up the line in terms of housing affordability and availability across this country that have tragic consequences for those who are homeless around this nation.

As I said, the coalition does not oppose this measure. It believes it is a good measure that will assist many who are at risk of homelessness to better balance their budget. It is an important measure, but it needs to be supplemented with the necessary social support and other measures to ensure that what has been promised is indeed delivered to the Australian people.

See this speech in context