Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Indigenous Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

We've been debating the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 for three days now, and two days ago the government ran out of speakers. It's such important legislation that for the last two days we haven't seen a government member get up and speak on this particular legislation. Labor members, one after another, have got up and spoken on this legislation, criticising schedule after schedule in this legislation. If it's so important for those opposite, why won't they own it? Why won't you see more of them in this place speaking in support of this legislation? They'll vote for it, but—I'll tell you what—they'll quietly vote for it, because they won't go back to their electorates and advocate for many of the measures in this particular legislation. That's the case.

We've got a situation where the national accounts were released last week. Mining profits are up and gross profits are up, but guess what? We're in a situation where we've got wages growth at anaemic levels of 1.9 per cent. We've got 730,000 people unemployed in this country, according to the July figures. We have a situation where we've had over 710,000 people unemployed for nine consecutive months in a row. The last time we saw that was in the 1997. And still the legislation we have before this chamber is the priority for the government. We have a situation where the tax-to-GDP ratio has risen under this government. That is, the government is taking more and more revenue from the Australian public: from 21.4 per cent up to 23.7 per cent. Government debt has increased from $273 billion to $501 billion under this government. Labour underutilisation rates have increased as well; more than 1.1 million Australians would like more jobs. Many of them would be dealt with in this legislation today: the 55- to 59-year-olds.

What I cannot understand is the fact that this government is actually in one of the schedules getting rid of the bereavement allowance. Without the bereavement allowance, which helps vulnerable people after the death of a partner, they will be $1,300 worse off. I bet those opposite won't put that in their newsletters that go to constituents. I guarantee they will not tell their constituents that, for example, if you're a pregnant and you've lost your partner, for 14 weeks you won't get any support whatsoever in terms of the bereavement allowance. It's gone if this legislation gets through. I guarantee they will not be talking about that at their listening posts or mobile offices. And they won't be telling the 200 wife pension recipients that they're going to lose their support. They won't be telling the 2,900 women who will be transferred onto jobseeker payments that their indexation will cease and they'll be worse off in real terms over time. I guarantee they won't be telling them that.

And what about those 55- to 59-year-olds who are currently making tremendous contributions by volunteering in wonderful organisations around the country? In fact, last Friday night in my electorate I was at the child safety protection awards, where two wonderful local organisations were there and many people were honoured. There were a number of police officers and school principals, but also present were Mission Australia and the Ipswich Community Youth Service, who do fantastic work in terms of child protection and assisting young people and older people with disability with employment services as well. They are fantastic organisations who do wonderful work in the local community.

Schedule 9 will remove the ability of Newstart and some special benefit recipients between 55 and 59 to fulfil the activity test by volunteering for 30 hours per week. Fifteen of those 30 hours now will have to be paid work. We have a problem with volunteerism in this country at the moment. The previous speaker, the member for Fenner, wrote a tremendous book called Disconnected. He worked previously on Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, which was a great examination of the drop-off in social inclusion and volunteerism in the United States of America.

Wonderful organisations such as the Scouts, brigades, P&Cs, trade unions, chambers of commerce, sporting clubs, RSLs et cetera have a decline in contributions and the number of people attending and being involved in these organisations. The member for Fenner wrote a book called Disconnected, and I commend people to read that particular book. I'm not advocating for his sales, by the way; I'm not trying to enrich him. It's a great contribution that he's made to public life by writing that book. He points out that we have seen that in Australia as well. Organisations are dropping off. As a federal member, I know you only have to go around to many organisations to see the fact that there are many people of what my grandmother would call 'the older generation' when she was alive. Everald Compton, the great advocate who stalks these corridors, calls them the oldies. He is a former head of National Seniors Australia. He does that sort of thing, but he's a great contributor to community life as well.

Many of these people face terrible age discrimination because they've lost their jobs. In my community right now, some of these people are facing the challenge of losing their jobs. We are losing 900 jobs in the Ipswich and West Moreton region, from the Churchill Abattoir and facility there owned and run by Woolworths to the Steggle's chicken processing plant out there in the Wulkuraka region. There have been people who've come to or contacted my office and people whom I've spoken to personally. I've spoken to the meat workers union—the AMIEU—and the metalworkers union, who are both working with these people, and there is a great all-of-government and community response to these. But some of these are older workers will be facing the challenges that in this legislation currently before us today. I want to thank the government, in a bipartisan way, and Minister Tudge, for the fact that Centrelink and the Australian government Department of Employment will be helping out. I want to thank Regional Development Australia for the help they are providing. I also want to thank Ipswich City Council, and I want to pay particular credit to Alan Brown, the business liaison officer, and also the Queensland state government. I've been dealing closely with the member for Ipswich, Jennifer Howard, and the state member for Ipswich West, Jim Madden.

It's a big challenge we are facing in our community, but some of the workers who are going to be subject to this legislation, including one who was in my office fairly recently, are in this age bracket. The government has said that this is part of its broader, stronger participation provisions but those workers will face big challenges, and I want those workers in Ipswich to know that we are with them all the way. We will help wherever we can, and my office will always be available. If they need help with Centrelink payments or assistance to make applications, we will be there to help them and, if they are interested in contacting us, I am happy to talk with them about the challenges they face.

I note that there was a Senate inquiry into this legislation. Many of the community organisations that I referred to before, such as Mission Australia and Ipswich Community Youth Service, are part of organisations such as Volunteering Australia. Volunteering is a tower of strength. We know how important it is. It touches every section of our economy and every section of our community: sport, recreation, art, heritage and emergency services. It's so important. The role of volunteer support services is about empowering local communities and about being there in times of need. I have seen this in times of terrible floods in 2010-11 and in 2013 in Ipswich and Somerset. Sadly, Volunteering Australia records show that, for the first time in 20 years, the number of people formally volunteering in Australia in 2014 has reportedly declined to 31 per cent, down from 36 per cent in 2012. So volunteerism is under challenge. But what is happening here? Volunteering Australia made a submission to the Senate inquiry into this legislation before the chamber. What they said about tightening the activity test was that it will have a profound impact on the volunteering sector. I will quote from the submission. The truth of the matter is that many people fulfil their activity contribution by volunteering. That's laudable and wonderful.

Volunteering Australia is strongly opposed to the proposed amendment.

They call this particular aspect of the bill 'short-sighted' and lacking in understanding of the pervasive age discrimination that this group experiences every day. We saw that when I was the shadow minister for ageing in the Labor opposition in the last term of parliament. We saw great age discrimination campaigns undertaken but, sadly, people in this age bracket do face age discrimination.

The Willing to work: national inquiry into employment discrimination against older Australians and Australians with disability (2016) report of the Australian Human Rights Commission found that people aged 55 years and over make up roughly a quarter of the population but only 16 per cent of the total workforce. The report found that older people experience greater levels of discrimination in workplaces when applying for jobs. That's backed up by a survey conducted by the commission in 2015 revealing that those who had reported experiencing age discrimination gave up looking for work entirely. Indeed, Volunteering Australia, whom I've met here in Canberra to talk about this issue, have said that people more likely to give up volunteering as well.

I pay tribute to the wonderful community organisations in my electorate and to the volunteers who are involved with them—the SES, Emergency Management and a whole range of others. We honour them every year. I want to praise Cityhope Church in Ripley in my electorate that has a day of honour for volunteers who make such a great contribution. When I look around the room when I speak at that particular church service every year—I commend pastor Mark Edwards and his congregation for what they do; hundreds of people were there from all corners of the electorate and beyond—there are many older Australians there who contribute, and I pay tribute to what they do. I was struck by that recently when the The Queensland Times did a photograph of me with Mark. The people who contribute whether in the local ambulance, the rural fire brigades or the SES were lined up there in their orange or blue uniforms. The contributions of older Australians make such a difference. The fact is that this particular legislation will be harmful to the contribution that volunteers make in this country.

But there is another aspect of this particular whole thing that the government is undertaking. That was mentioned by the shadow minister for employment, the member for Chifley, and that is, the Career Transition Assistance program, which is part of the suite of employment participation that's referred to in this legislation. My electorate and the Somerset regional part of it is being picked up as one of the trial sites from 1 July 2018, ahead of a national rollout in 2020. I am deeply sceptical about this, because this is a situation where the government spends $9 billion annually on employment projects. There are about 40,000 employment service consultants in this country. With the sorts of things that employment consultants should be doing themselves, in my view, things like skills audit, training requirements and helping people to market themselves to employers, I can't understand why the government is spending $98 million on this particular aspect. What they should do is have a really good look at the job services network. I don't believe it's working anywhere near as well as it should. We've got a takeover of about 35 per cent of wage subsidies. About one in five people over 26 who get jobs in these areas are actually still in employment after 26 weeks. The government should do a lot better and a lot more. We know they have cut $3.5 billion out of skills and training in this country. We've got 148,000 fewer apprentices than when this government came to power about four years ago. They are simply not doing enough and they are not doing it well across this space.

In the final two minutes, I will talk about the establishment of the trial of drug testing for jobseekers. It's been trialled just down the road from my electorate, in Logan, in the member for Rankin's electorate. Logan is very much like Ipswich. I feel for the people of Logan. I note the mayor of Logan, Luke Smith—who is not always a great supporter of the Labor Party, I might add, but I have a particular respect for him—pointed out that there was no consultation in the fact that they were imposing this on the people of Logan. He called the lack of consultation and the top-down approach 'a disgrace'. He was amazed by it. This won't work. This simply will not work. It's not about love, as the Prime Minister talked about. It's about punishment.

I recall a number of discussions I had when I was the forerunner to—we now call them hospital boards in Queensland—the Ipswich and West Moreton Hospital and Health Service council. We had a number of presentations to ask about what was happening in Ipswich and discussions about what was happening with the health plaza where people get ATODs assistance. But the advice that we got from experts—and this government doesn't seem to want to listen to experts very often—is that this type of approach doesn't and won't work. My colleagues have repeatedly outlined where it's failed overseas. I won't repeat what they have said, but I am deeply sceptical of what this government is doing. This is about demonising people. It's not about supporting them. If they were about supporting them, then they would have correspondingly a huge increase in drug and alcohol rehabilitation. They haven't, so my scepticism is very well-founded. I oppose the legislation and support the amendment by the member for Jagajaga.

See this speech in context