Jim Molan (NSW, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The matter of urgency that we're addressing today, brought on under the name of Senator McKim and spoken to by a number of other people, is that people on Newstart and youth allowance do not enjoy the same Christmas spirit as other Australians enjoy and struggle during the summer holidays due to the low rates of payment and the government's so-called punitive compliance program. What an absolute and unmitigated travesty of a motion. What about those affected by the fires and the droughts who actually pay for Newstart and youth allowance? What about their Christmases? Here we are focusing on these people, but what about the people who pay for Newstart and for youth allowance?

First, let me refute this motion's assertion that the compliance system that surrounds Newstart and youth allowance is punitive. It is not. It is appropriate when dealing with public money. That's what it needs to be, when dealing with public money, and it can be applied compassionately. Newstart and youth allowance, along with home care packages, age pensions, disability allowances and the NDIS, form the basis of our social welfare system, which supports those less fortunate in our society. And no-one is saying that it's easy to live without a job. It's also not easy to live if you're affected by drought and by fire. But it's not the point of such allowances—allowances which are paid for by taxpayers, of course—to make Christmas and the holidays more pleasant for those without jobs. This fact undercuts any validity in the proposition of the motion in Senator McKim's name, but, of course, that's never been a particular concern of the Greens.

Senator McKim and the Greens understand that Newstart was never meant to be a salary or wage replacement. It's a safety net, as Senator O'Sullivan said. It's a safety net for people, while they are looking for work. It's not as though over the Christmas and holiday period—which Senator McKim is so worried about, as others are worried about their farms and their homes—the recipients of Newstart allowance should totally cease looking for a job. That's not the intention, although obviously the opportunities will be less over that period. But of course, as we who live in the real world know, over the Christmas or festive period—or whatever Senator McKim would like to call it—irregular and part-time work is available, obviously.

As most people know, everyone who receives Newstart is also eligible for some form of additional assistance from the welfare system. It is duplicitous to infer what Senator McKim is inferring in this motion. It's incumbent on government to ensure the sustainability and fairness of the welfare system, including being fair to the taxpayers who pay for it. As I said before, Newstart allowance is just one of the elements of the system of support that government offers to Australians doing it tough. Our broader payment system—jobactive and other services—make up $170 billion plus; this is the money that the government spends on social security and welfare every single year. The Morrison government is delivering job opportunities. We know that. We are providing pathways and breaking down barriers for people on welfare and managing the budget to ensure the sustainability of the welfare system into the future, and that is absolutely critical.

There are any number of programs to encourage people into work, like Try, Test and Learn and individual placement support. These operate for part, at least, of the so-called festive, Christmas and holiday seasons. But let's not forget that two-thirds of recipients of Newstart are transitioned off Newstart in the first 12 months. It is a transition allowance because the aim of government is to get people back to work, because the best form of welfare is a job. We do everything we can to get people off Newstart and into a job—at Christmas, during holidays or whenever. To bring this up now is nothing other than a cruel hoax on the part of the Greens; and, as Senator O'Sullivan said, it is classical, unfunded empathy. Let's never forget that few countries provide the strong safety net that we enjoy. Australia has one of the most targeted welfare systems in the world.

Newstart is a non-contributory, taxpayer funded allowance that, as I said before—and this should be the most important takeaway from this debate—provides a safety net for people while they look for a job. It's increased twice a year every year, in line with the CPI. It is not a wage replacement, nor is it a Christmas gift. We are a compassionate government, as our border and immigration policies show. We recognise there are times when people need a safety net to help them when they're down on their luck, be it at Christmas or at any other time of the year, but, because it's funded by taxpayers, it needs to be managed responsibly. Newstart is managed appropriately, responsibly and not punitively.

Let's face it: we also have a responsibility to future generations who will have to meet the cost of the system in the decades to come. It's not Newstart or youth allowance recipients who are the sole focus of this issue. Of course, the government's position on Newstart and, indeed, the Prime Minister's position is very, very clear: the best form of welfare is a job, and the government is absolutely focused on getting people off welfare and into work. The Greens, in bringing forward this motion, know that the Morrison government is delivering job opportunities, providing pathways and breaking down barriers for people on welfare. And, as the Greens well and truly know, this government has seen the largest increase in jobs since the global financial crisis, with over 1.4 million jobs created since we were elected. Stronger labour market conditions are encouraging more people to enter the labour market, with the participation rate at 66 per cent compared to a 10-year average of 65.2 per cent. Against this backdrop, Australia's unemployment rate has declined to 5.3 per cent and is below the 10-year average of 5.5 per cent. This is the success we are having as a government.

So, really, this motion is inventing a problem. As far as I can see, the 2019-20 budget forecasts employment growth to be solid over the next few years, though the rate of growth is expected to be a little lower and to moderate to 1.75 per cent in 2019-20 and 2020-21. Just think about this, those who are advocating this approach to Newstart: there are 333,000 fewer working-age recipients of income support payments between 14 June and 19 June because they have a job. In addition, as at 18 June, the proportion of Australians receiving working-age income support payments has fallen to its lowest level in 30 years at 14.3 per cent. We will continue to invest in programs such as jobactive and disability employment services to help people get and keep a job, even over the festive season and the Christmas period. And, as those who proposed this motion know perfectly well, everyone who receives Newstart is eligible for some form of additional assistance from the welfare system as well.

We should never forget that about one-third of the Commonwealth's budget is spent on welfare. Accordingly, as I've said a number of times, government has a responsibility to taxpayers to ensure that welfare is targeted and is sustainable. Social services, as we know, touch almost all Australians at some stage in their life. The safety net provided for the most vulnerable amongst us is particularly important, and is why it is crucial that the system remains sustainable. If there is one takeaway from this debate, it should be that Newstart should never be seen as an incentive not to work. There are jobs out there, if people are willing to take them. Newstart is only meant as a stopgap measure for people to access when they are looking for a job and transitioning from one job to another job, and that applies whether it is Christmas, the festive season, the holiday period or any other time of the year. The best form of welfare is not to increase Newstart; the best form of welfare is a Christmas job. (Time expired)