James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Well, it's another interesting day for us here in the House of Representatives, where we're debating a bill for an act to legislate a committee that already exists—and the committee that already exists is also already not being listened to by the government that's now legislating it.

The Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee was formed in November 2022, and it provided some advice to the government as part of the budget process earlier this year. The central recommendation was that JobSeeker and other support payments be paid at a rate linked to the pension—the key recommendation of this committee was about 90 per cent of the pension payment. Of course, the government didn't accept that recommendation, haven't implemented it and have not indicated in any way that they intend to implement it. I don't call for them to implement that recommendation. I think it's insulting to say to pensioners that there's a link between you and unemployment benefits. Pension payments are completely separate and unrelated to the social safety net of the unemployment benefit system.

What we know about this committee that we're talking about legislating right now is that the one thing they've ever done the government agree with. We're in a farcical situation—another episode of Yes, Ministerwhere a committee that the government isn't listening to as it stands is going to be permanently enshrined in legislation so the government can keep not listening to them year after year into the future permanently if the bill passes. We don't support this bill on the side of the chamber, and I couldn't really ascertain from the Greens leader what their position is on the bill. He certainly hammered the principle of having the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, so I suppose they're not supporting it and therefore it's never going to happen, because, if they're voting against it, it won't pass the Senate. But maybe they are voting for it despite that contribution that was just made. We'll find out when we vote on this bill in this place and in the Senate.

At the end of the day, we don't support this completely unnecessary additional quango-type bureaucracy being enshrined in legislation. We know we've got Jenny Macklin, the former member for Jagajaga, as the chair of this Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, union officials on it et cetera, because apparently, according to this government, those are the people we need to listen to about economic inclusion. Why do we need to listen to a former member of this parliament when we could listen to current members of this parliament? What is the point of this parliament? If we're not the House of Representatives, what are we? Here's a novel idea: if you want to know about economic inclusion, why don't you divide the country up into 150 sections; call them, maybe, electorates; hold a democratic process to elect representatives from each of those parts of the country; and have them all come together on a regular basis and talk about challenges that the country is facing and solutions to those challenges based on those 151 people, knowing the electorates they represent, bringing those perspectives together and passing legislation to make this country a better place? That sounds a whole lot like the House of Representatives that I'm standing in right now. It sounds like we've already got the expertise and the capability to bring community representation perspectives together, have debates and talk about how we can address all the varied challenges that are facing this country. Instead, this government wants to outsource that to a former member of this chamber, some other handpicked union officials—well remunerated, no doubt, and good luck to them. They're very good, these union officials, at being well remunerated from appointments to Labor government boards.

We've got this situation because of a deal that was done in the Senate with Senator Pocock: the bad idea that the government didn't even listen to when they had the chance earlier in the year, when it reported its one big idea, which was a 90 per cent link to the pension for JobSeeker payments. The government formed this committee, heard what they had to say, said, 'We're not interested in that advice,' and now we've got them saying, 'And we want to continue to not listen to and not implement that advice we're not interested in, in perpetuity, through a legislated protection of that function.' We've now got a situation where the government is implementing not only their own bad ideas but also other people's bad ideas. We've got Senator Pocock's bad idea being implemented by this government as part of some deal that was done in the Senate to get his support for something else. It's completely ridiculous.

If this government doesn't understand through its own experience, through representing its own communities, about economic inclusion in our economy, then it should move aside. Step out of the way. You're not fit to be in government if you need to outsource that fundamental connection with community to someone else. And with the people you've chosen, you don't even like what they've got to say because you're not listening to the suggestions they're making for you.

We don't support this bill. It's not even the government's own policy or idea; it's part of a deal they've done in the Senate. We've just heard the Greens smash and slam the whole concept, so we're assuming they are going to honour the word of their leader just now on how pointless this is and vote against this—so it therefore won't pass the Senate. We are spending one of the precious few days we've got left before the government goes off to the Christmas break early—and we're only going to be sitting 17 weeks next year—debating a bill to permanently legislate a committee that it's currently not listening to, so it can not listen to them into the future.

At the end of the day there are a lot of things this parliament could be doing that would improve the lives of Australians. Passing this bill is not one of them, and I urge the House not to support the second reading.

See this speech in context