Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm delighted to rise this morning just to make some brief remarks on the private senator's bill moved by Senator Siewert on behalf of the Australian Greens, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Ending the Poverty Trap) Bill 2018. I'd like to restrict my comments to three themes. The first is a very interesting point that Senator Askew made in her contribution. I'm surprised that Senator Waters hasn't yet tackled what I thought was a very substantive issue that Senator Askew raised. Second, I want to draw attention to the point that the Newstart issue should be seen in the broader context of what is happening to employment growth and employment opportunities for Australians more generally. And, in the interests of complete frankness and transparency, I think it is important that we reflect on some of the comments that have been made, particularly by those on the centre-right of Australian politics. I do think it always curious—and those who were watching would have seen the smile on my face—when Senator Waters reaches out to bring to her side of the argument the likes of the member for New England, the former senator Barnaby Joyce; and Senator Canavan. You just can't help but grin when you think that the strength of the argument that the Australian Greens are making relies heavily on the contributions or the points of view of Senator Canavan and the former Senator Barnaby Joyce, though they are people that I pay close attention to.

Let me just read from Senator Askew's opening statement in her contribution, which I think might have been Senator Askew's first contribution on a piece of legislation since her maiden speech. Let me just remind the Senate what Senator Askew said, and when we debate this again in the future before we do bring it to a vote, which I understand will not be today, I hope that the Greens might just reflect on this point and bring back to the Senate a response. Senator Askew said in her opening remarks:

This bill … proposed by the Greens, seeks to amend the Social Security Act to increase Newstart, Austudy and other welfare payments by $150 per fortnight and to standardise indexation for some of those welfare payments.

I have no argument with that.

Yet, in spite of its name, it doesn't actually do what the Greens have said it will do, nor does it propose a clear direction to end the so-called poverty trap.

Senator Askew says:

Section 53 of the Constitution makes clear that a measure appropriating revenue or moneys shall not originate in the Senate, so this bill includes a clause in part 5 to state that there will in fact be no increase in any of the social security benefits mentioned in the bill, including the Newstart allowance, unless money is appropriated by the parliament for that purpose. It is … a stunt.

It's a stunt—not my words. I do believe it is a political stunt, but that is not to distract from the substantive issue about whether Newstart should be increased, and I'll come to that in a moment. But who else called this particular private senator's bill a stunt? Who else called it a stunt? I notice Senator Sterle and Senator McCarthy are here in the chamber. I wonder if they call recall who else called this a stunt just in the last few days? It was none other than the Leader of the Opposition, Anthony Albanese. A few days ago the Leader of the Opposition was quoted in The Australian newspaper as saying, 'This bill is just a little stunt.' So the problem with the Greens bill is that it is about them and not about the unemployed.

This is not the first Leader of the Opposition to have made such remarks. Before the election, the opposition leader, Mr Shorten, stated that Labor would initiate some sort of review into the rate of Newstart but, curiously, when pressed, would not be specific about what that meant. Even more curiously, Labor's pre-election costings made no provision for any increase in Newstart allowance. Just in front of me here, I also have some comments from the member for Rankin, Mr Chalmers, who I think is now the shadow Treasurer. I might stand corrected but I'm happy to come back in a future contribution if that's required. I think he said that Labor wouldn't be progressing with that review that had been proposed prior to the election. I've heard in this place before a bit of tit for tat between Labor and the Greens about whether the review was suitable, whether or not the Greens bill is actually a stunt. But, putting all of that aside for a moment, I think it is important to reflect on the very, very substantial achievements of what is now the Morrison government and the governments under prime ministers Turnbull and Morrison in regard to employment growth in our country, because an increase in the Newstart allowance should be seen in the context of what is happening more broadly with employment growth.

Let me run through a key few points. The first is—no surprise, and this was endorsed by the country at the recent election—an endorsement for the Morrison government to continue its focus on delivering a strong economy that has seen the largest increase in jobs since the global financial crisis, with more than 1.3 million jobs created since the coalition was elected. The proportion of Australians receiving working-age income support payments has fallen to its lowest level in 13 years and is now just at 14.3 per cent. There were 230,000 fewer working-age recipients on income support payments between June 2014 and June 2018, and add to that that more than 100,000 young Australians between the ages of 15 and 24 found employment—the highest number in our history. To put that in perspective, 52,000 jobs were lost in the same category between November 2007 and August 2013.

But, despite making some political statements at the beginning of my contribution, and moving to the more substantive issue of what is happening to employment growth in our country, which is a positive story, I am someone who believes that the Newstart allowance amount must be more than reviewed, which was Labor's position; it should be increased. I think that Liberals should pay very, very close attention to the comments of former leader John Howard on this matter. And, while I'm someone who treats with a degree of caution what the big business community might say in our country, I do think that the comments of the Reserve Bank Governor, Philip Lowe—I don't think the way that those comments have been represented in this place is necessarily completely accurate—in terms of the importance of wages growth in our country is something that should weigh heavily on the mind of every coalition member and senator.

I might just add this point: the accusation that the coalition is somehow mean-spirited or cold-hearted when it comes to the real living costs of Australians is a shallow political statement. Nothing demonstrates the fact that these issues are alive to members of the government more than the government's very quick responsiveness to the matter of deeming for older Australians. I think even the commentary today on the front page of The Australian newspaper, where coalition members and senators are actively thinking about alternative ways of generating wages growth in our country, and as a consequence of that advanced economic growth, demonstrates that economic issues are top-of-mind, first-order issues for this government. And I am someone who argues for being open-minded about Newstart, giving heavy attention to the comments of Mr Howard and the Reserve Bank Governor as being a very powerful starting point.

Just for the record, I think it's important to share with the Senate what it was that Mr Howard did actually say in May 2018. Mr Howard was asked a question at the PricewaterhouseCoopers post-budget breakfast. The interviewer asked Mr Howard, 'Mr Howard, do you agree Newstart should increase?' Mr Howard responded:

Yes, I actually think there is an argument about that, I do …

The interviewer said, 'What is that argument?' Mr Howard responded:

I think it is—I was in favour of freezing it when it happened, but I think that probably that freeze has gone on too long.

So I do think that these matters should be top of mind. They do deserve careful consideration. And, with those brief remarks, I look forward to coming back to the Senate to continue my contribution. With that, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.