Craig Thomson (Dobell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security Amendment (Parenting Payment Transitional Arrangement) Bill 2011. We have just heard from the member for Petrie, who has given a very considered contribution on this bill and in particular has pointed out the hypocrisy of the member for Menzies in terms of his criticism. It was interesting. I was also able to be here in the chamber to listen to the member for Hasluck, who took a very different approach to the member for Menzies. In fact, the member for Hasluck recognised this bill for what it was, congratulated the minister, supported the bill and congratulated this government in relation to the particular initiatives that this bill seeks to bring in and the associated reforms that this government has sought to bring in around jobs. I almost thought that the member for Hasluck was sitting on the wrong side, because of his strong endorsement of government policy. He went on to talk about jobs and the need for further education.

Clearly the member for Hasluck has not spent too much time looking at the policies of the former Howard government, because if he had he would have been horrified with the party that he is in this parliament to represent. They had an atrocious record in relation to investment in human capital, which was something that the member for Hasluck spoke about at length. They had a terrible record in relation to higher education, the worst in the OECD. I think the next worst in the OECD had a positive contribution of something like 10 per cent in growing the budget for higher education. Under the previous government we saw a 15 per cent cut. I make a general invitation to the member for Hasluck that, with the strong views that he put and his obvious personal commitment to jobs and making sure that people get the opportunity to start, he should come to this side of the parliament and join us more often, because clearly he is a very decent man and one who sees a good policy for what it is.

As the member for Petrie said, this legislation is about fixing up a mistake that the member for Menzies made in 2006. He left open the grandfathering provision so that it did not just apply to the children of those parents who were eligible in July 2006; it continued to apply, by mistake, by error in the legislation, to a whole category of children who were born after that date. That really is not grandfathering at all; it is the creep of middle-class welfare. It has effects, because it means that people are treated differently—that there is not equality in the way we treat children and parents who are eligible outside that grandfathering provision—and that is just unfair. One of the things we need to do is to make sure that we treat people fairly. It also has a detrimental effect in relation to encouraging people to get off welfare and back to work.

That is where this government stands, in stark contrast to the opposition and to the previous Howard government, in relation to what it believes needs to be done with jobs, what needs to be done about the dignity of work and what needs to be done to break the unemployment cycle that so tragically often affects many generations of families. It is not the first time—nor should it be the last, because we are very proud of our record in government—that people from this side of the House have reminded the House of the fact that this government and only this government stood between Australia and a much, much higher unemployment rate that would have happened if those on the other side had been in charge of the Treasury benches when the global financial crisis took place. Quite frankly, those on the other side were not concerned about jobs at all. That was never part of their issue. They were happy to let the market rip and see what happened. The sort of attitude taken was that, in the long run, people will find a job.

We stood up for Australians. We made sure that jobs were a priority. We wanted to make sure that where we could keep people in jobs we did so. That is what the stimulus packages were about. All we ever got from the other side was negativity about why things should not happen, why we should be opposed to these issues, rather than looking at the very positive impacts that our stimulus package had in keeping people employed.

I remember in particular visiting a building site where a hall was being built at Tacoma Public School and meeting a young apprentice carpenter called Jeff. Jeff was in his third year of apprenticeship, but his previous employer had cut him loose because of the downturn and he was in the unfortunate situation of being a third-year apprentice without an employer. He was in a very difficult position to try and pick up and finish that apprenticeship, which would have given him vital skills and made sure that he was able to be employed and contribute to the economy. It was our stimulus package that made sure that he had a job, because he was picked up by the local builders. He was a local boy. He got a job at that school and was able to go on and finish his apprenticeship. That is a very local example of why jobs are so important. This recent budget made sure it looked at particular areas around Australia where unemployment is entrenched, where unemployment is often intergenerational. One of the 10 areas identified is the Wyong Shire, which falls in the electorate of Dobell, my electorate. For a long time people in Dobell have said: 'Unemployment is always going to be higher than the national average. There is nothing you can do about it. That is just the way it is where I live. There are not enough jobs.' On this side of the House we do not share that view. We take the view that no-one should be left on the economy's scrapheap, that people should be given training and opportunities. I note the member for Throsby is in the chamber. His electorate is also in one of those 10 areas. What is so exciting about this recent budget is that it made sure it looked at local solutions for these areas. That is the key. We are making sure that we approach unemployment from a local perspective, making sure we know the particular problems that exist in a local area, looking at local providers for local solutions and moulding and crafting those solutions to get people back into jobs. We are making sure that we connect employers who are looking for a certain sort of employee with those employees who are looking for jobs. We are making sure that we give training opportunities to those people who may not have the skills to match the jobs that are there. By making sure we are putting appropriate packages in a local area, we will be able to match these things up.

The previous government's Intergenerational report spoke a good game about participation rates and the need to increase Australia's participation rates because of the ageing population. But they actually did nothing about fixing Australia's participation rates. Even though Australia's participation rates are at record highs, we really need to focus on the participation rate of females in the 25- to 44-year-old bracket. Australia is not performing as well in that bracket as it should. In that area, we are 25th in the OECD out of 33 nations—a lot lower than we should be.

We have looked at ways to ensure that women of child-bearing age are able to participate in the economy for two reasons: one, for their own social reasons so they have a sense of purpose and wellbeing; and, two, for the economy, because we need to ensure that we are increasing participation rates. With unemployment down to 4.9 per cent, and estimated to go down to 4.5 per cent, it is vital that governments look at increasing participation rates for these women. The most obvious and most needed reform in this area was the introduction of the Paid Parental Leave scheme. Australia was one of only two countries in the western world that did not have such a scheme. How the previous government could say that they were interested in increasing the participation of women and not address this issue is beyond reason. Clearly, this scheme was long overdue and, over time, will have a direct impact on the participation of women of child-bearing age in the workforce.

Another area we looked at was child care. We made sure we increased the childcare rebate up to 50 per cent. Women in the 25- to 44-year-old bracket often did not have a choice but to stay at home because child care was difficult for two reasons: one, it was often unavailable—and we have looked at addressing that issue; and, two, it was too expensive—and by increasing the rebate to 50 per cent we have addressed that.

Also, more recently, we have reduced the effective tax-free threshold for low-income earners from $11,000 to $16,000, so the effective marginal tax rate is not a disincentive for people to get back into employment. That is a very important thing to help ensure we get people participating in the community.

This government have a track record of making sure that we look at measures to get people back into jobs, making sure that jobs come first and making sure that we put people who need to work into work. We have looked at areas of particular disadvantage and my electorate is one of those areas. I looked at the budget initiatives the other day and I went through some of the statistics. There is a suburb in my electorate where unemployment is at 26 per cent. That is an indictment of the way governments in the past have failed to address these issues. In this particular suburb, unemployment has occurred over many generations. They have known nothing else. They are welfare dependent. We are about making sure that people have the dignity of a job, that we get them off welfare and into the workforce so they have self-esteem and the economy gets the benefit of their contribution.

This bill is part of a matrix of proposals this government is putting in place. It is an example of the way this government says, 'Jobs come first.' Without jobs, our communities disintegrate. Without an emphasis on making sure people have paid employment and are off welfare, our suburbs become more dangerous and develop a range of social issues that flow from long-term intergenerational unemployment. This bill is important in relation to that and it is a bill I commend to the House.

See this speech in context