Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I have five questions for the minister on this Social Security (Administration) Amendment (Continuation of Cashless Welfare) Bill 2020. A few moments ago the Prime Minister stood here in question time and said that he trusts Australians to spend their own money in the way that they determine is in their best interests. Now, when the Prime Minister made that declaration, it was quite clear to us that it was quite clear to him that in his mind there are two classes of Australians. Perhaps there are the Australians who look just like him and the people who sit behind him in this parliament: middle class. Perhaps they've never had to rely on welfare—they've never had the indignity, or the unfortunate circumstances, of having to rely on an unemployment benefit. They're very, very lucky indeed. I know that on this side of the House many of us have and many in our families have.

In his mind, there are two classes of Australians: one class of Australians who have the right to determine how they spend their money and the other class that doesn't. So my question to the minister is: why does this government want to divide Australians into two classes—those who are worthy of having their full rights and those who aren't worthy of having that right that he says is fundamental?

The second question I have to the minister is this: why won't they listen to an Indigenous voice to this parliament? Indigenous people have said, 'Not only do we believe that these laws are targeted at us but we do not believe that these laws are going to fix the problems that you say they're directed at.' The evidence is in. The Australian National University conducted research to see whether there was any decrease in domestic violence at the trial site in the Kimberley accompanied by the introduction of these laws. They concluded, after extensive research—including consultations with community members, consultations with specialist services and consultations with the police force—that there was no decrease in family violence as a result of the introduction of this law. We know that this government persistently refuses to listen to Indigenous voices. It's why they're so adamant that they won't have an Indigenous voice to this parliament.

My third question to the minister is this: why won't they listen to the experts—the experts from the Australian National University, who conducted a study of the rollout of these measures in the pilot site in the Kimberley, or the experts from the University of Adelaide, experts who they provided with $2.5 million to conduct an analysis of the rollout of this measure in the voluntary pilot site in Ceduna. They declared that there's no evidence that these measures are meeting the government's stated objective. Why does the government persist with a measure when it does not accord with the evidence of the experts?

My fourth question to the government is this: why do you persist with this outdated cliche of what an unemployed person looks like?

They have this notion, born perhaps of inexperience, belied by the member from Bass, who has some personal experience of this—who could not have been moved by her contribution in this debate?—that they persist with that somehow the unemployment queues, much swelled of late, consist of a million people who are putting their feet up on the desk, refusing to look for work, spending their unemployment benefits willy-nilly in an irresponsible way. The facts are stubborn and they are very different. Is the government aware that one of the biggest groups of unemployed people are people over the age of 55? In fact, 20 per cent of Australians between the ages of 55 and 65 are out of a job. Why does the government persist— (Time expired)

See this speech in context