Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In rising on Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Supporting the Transition to Work) Bill 2023, I want to move the following amendment:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes:

(a) the severe workforce shortages across the country, high levels of job vacancies and employing businesses having difficulty finding suitable staff;

(b) hiring and retaining employees remains a key challenge for small businesses;

(c) under the Government, the cost of food is up by 8.2 per cent; the cost of housing is up 10.4 per cent; the cost of insurance is up by 17 per cent; the cost of electricity is up by 18.2 per cent and the cost of gas is up 28 per cent; and

(d) the failure of the Government to tackle the escalating cost of living that is impacting older Australians; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) increase the work bonus from $300 to $600 a fortnight to incentivise eligible pensioners to work more hours without penalty from 1 January 2024; and

(b) review this increase every 12 months to ensure these settings remain appropriate".

The coalition will support this bill but moves a second reading amendment calling on the government, as I have just done, to increase the work bonus from $300 to $600 a fortnight. Whilst we agree with the basic proposition of this bill, which is, ultimately, to incentivise pensioners to work more hours without penalty, this does not go as far as what the coalition first put forward quite some time ago. In essence, the coalition has always believed that the best way to ensure that Australians get ahead in their lives and can be their best selves is through employment. We know that jobs change lives, they improve families and strong families make our communities better.

As my second reading amendment has outlined, the cost-of-living crisis is well and truly being felt by the majority of Australians. Across our economy, we're seeing severe workforce shortages and high levels of job vacancies. Of course, it's difficult for every single business to find suitable staff. So having more people be able to access the workforce without it impacting their social services benefits, as we have advocated for for a long time, is a laudable way of not only improving their lives but also ensuring that our economy, at a time when it needs as many shoulders to the wheel in our workforce, is able to get access to a bigger pool of people.

This particular measure implements measures from the government's Working futuredocument, which is their white paper on jobs and opportunities. As I have said before, when this measure was first put in place on a temporary basis, we congratulate the government on finally seeing the merits in what the coalition has already proposed in policy development. This particular measure is undoubtedly a way in which the government is able to, in essence, run with the coalition's idea in a slightly different way so they can claim it as their own thinking.

The problem here, though, is that it doesn't go as far as what the coalition first announced. We first said to the government in August last year that a sensible way of addressing some of those workforce shortages was to increase the work bonus from $300 to $600 a fortnight. It was a well calibrated policy and it was done in a way that truly incentivised those people to work a little bit more without it impacting on them. We know that, throughout our social services system, very punitive taper rates apply. For every additional dollar of income earned, a disproportionate amount of benefit is either lost entirely or tapers off at quite a significant rate. One way in which, certainly on a temporary basis, that can be addressed is in this way.

Twelve months ago, when debating the government's workforce incentive legislation, which was a temporary measure at that time, we—in a similar way to what I've done today—moved amendments to make the changes that were being proposed by the government to the work bonus scheme ongoing and subject to an annual review. The government didn't support that amendment, and here we are. We find ourselves now, 12 months down the track, or a bit longer, and the government is separately legislating precisely the amendments that I was moving last year. Had the government not, in a stubborn and pigheaded way, wanted to have the charade that this was somehow their idea and had independently sprung forth from their policy process—had they been honest and accepted that they were following good coalition policy—they would have accepted that amendment then, and we would be in a much better position now. We'd be saved this process of passing a separate bill just to do what I was suggesting last year. In that sense, pensioners and small businesses would already have the certainty now. In fact they would have had it for the last 12 months.

So I say to the government: last year you opposed our amendments, and we find ourselves here today with you implementing our policies and implementing amendments that were put forward over 12 months ago. Bite the bullet. Have the courage of your convictions. Be honest with the Australian people. Support the amendments that I've put forward today. Let's ensure that the income-free area rises from $300 to $600, which is more generous than the $4,000 increase to the work bonus, which is the subject of this bill and which will be made permanent by virtue of this bill. It's a start. It goes part of the way, but it doesn't go the full way.

Perhaps what we'll be doing, by the government accepting my amendments, is avoiding a circumstance where, in 12 or 18 months' time, we're standing back here and the government is yet again backflipping and accepting coalition policy. Let's not worry about who takes credit for it. Let's just get the best outcome for the Australian people. Let's see that increase from $300 to $600, as opposed to the $4,000 increase to the work bonus from $7,800 to $11,800, which doesn't go as far. It's a movement in the right direction but it doesn't go as far, and we are giving the government every opportunity to do that.

We also are proud to support the income nil rate. This was a Howard government initiative. It was introduced in 2003, which I know seems like a lifetime ago now, but these sorts of policies, once upon a time, were contested. They were difficult policies to get through. Indeed, when we first announced in August last year that a sensible way to address our workforce shortages and to let people work a little bit more without it impacting their benefits was to increase the work bonus from $300 to $600, there was sniggering and chuckling on the other side, and I think in their heart of hearts even the Labor Party walked away and thought, 'Well, that's a sensible idea. That's a win-win.' It's a win for the individual, who gets to earn more, and it's a win for our small businesses, who get to have a larger pool of people whose talents and skills they can tap into. In many cases they are people who have had a lifetime of skill in the workforce and who have a lot to contribute.

To some extent we take for granted now that it's a source of bipartisanship, but our message to the government is that this doesn't go far enough. It's a step in the right direction in that you are adopting coalition policy, but you haven't gone far enough. Let's go further. Accept our amendments and let's see a really fair dinkum increase to the work bonus: a doubling of the work bonus, as opposed to what the government is proposing. We're always happy to work with the government on sensible ways in which we can get the dual benefits of policies such as this, which is, as I said, supporting individuals and supporting small businesses and the communities that are built around them.

The truth, and I say this as a former Assistant Treasurer, is that a lot is spoken in this place about the dollars and cents of getting people into the workforce and the efficacy and the size of our social welfare budget, but in the end I think for most of us in this House—certainly for most on my side of politics—the interest we have in facilitating people back into the workforce is less about the dollars and cents. It's less about the budget bottom line, important though that is, and more about the individual. As I began with in my remarks, it's more about their ability to be their best selves and to provide for themselves and their families. We know the strongest communities are those with people who have that mission each and every day to get up and go to work, to contribute to our country, to contribute to our community and, most importantly, to support themselves and their families.

It's ultimately about that individual—let's forget the dollars and cents; put the abacus away—and about what's in the best interests of that person, and I think that any changes, even though they don't go as far as we here in the coalition would like and certainly don't go as far as those we proposed more than 12 months ago, are at least recognition from the government that the coalition got it right at that time and that our instincts on this were not only good for our economy but also good for individuals. Even though I might criticise the adequacy of this change and the way in which the government has sought to put in place coalition policy with a slightly different name to it, in good conscience we must support any measure, even if it doesn't go as far as we would like, that achieves the objective that I just outlined, which is to empower, to enable and to remove the barriers for individuals to be their best selves and to get back into the workforce without it being punitive and punishing, which we know can act as a disincentive.

Finally, I say again to the government: let's stop the charade—support our amendments. You didn't support the amendments that I moved last year, yet we find ourselves here today, now implementing those amendments. Let's not find ourselves here in 12 or 18 months time, again taking forward coalition policy and accepting amendments I've moved, when we can do it immediately and give people that certainty.

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Michelle Landry (Capricornia, National Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Debate adjourned.