Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is also to the Minister for Human Services, Senator Ludwig. I refer to the failure of the Rudd Labor government and in particular the federal member for Bass, Jodie Campbell, to honour their pre-election support for the coalition’s promise to expand Launceston’s Centrelink call centre, thereby leaving 150 northern Tasmanians without jobs. Does the minister agree with the assessment of the Labor Premier of Tasmania, who said in a media release yesterday, which I have with me today, that this is ‘a bitter pill’ and that the Rudd Labor government ‘is taking northern Tasmanians for granted’? Or does the minister agree with the assessment of the former federal Labor member for Bass, now state member for Bass and Tasmanian Minister for the Environment and the Arts, Michelle O’Byrne, who also backs the coalition promise and who said that these decisions are not about money but people’s lives and the ability to live, work and raise families?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the senator for the question. It is well worth the opportunity to put the record straight on the position that has been put around by the opposition in respect of the call centre. The expansions of call centres in Coffs Harbour, Hobart and Launceston were promises made by the Liberal Party during the 2007 election year. They were made by the Prime Minister at the time, but the Prime Minister made that commitment without any funds tied to it. The Liberals know that. The promises made to these communities were not worth the paper they were written on. When Mr John Howard announced these promises he did not provide any funding—the Liberals’ promises were expected to be absorbed at the time by Centrelink as an operational cost. But the Liberal Party knows that Centrelink’s funding goes up and down depending on the total number of clients, because that was the model that it used in government.

What that meant was that the promise at the time by the Prime Minister was reckless and unsustainable; it was unfunded at the time. The people of Launceston went to vote in the federal election with an unsustainable and unfunded promise, and now the Liberals have leapt upon the disappointment of the families in Launceston and tried to turn it to their political advantage. That is shameful. You are playing politics with people’s lives and you should cease and desist. Centrelink said in its press release yesterday:

General Manager, Hank Jongen today announced Centrelink’s decision regarding the proposed expansion of its Launceston, Hobart and Coffs Harbour call centres.

“Like any business, Centrelink needs to respond to changes in its environment to provide a good return on taxpayers’ investment,” Mr Jongen said.

“Our primary source of Government funding comes from—

as the Liberals know—

delivering Newstart and other workforce age payments to customers, as this group requires more intensive one-on-one support from staff.

“However, this also means that while the economy is strong and unemployment levels are low, Centrelink receives a commensurately lower level of funding to deliver its services.

“As a result, we’ve unfortunately had to withdraw our plans to recruit additional staff at our Launceston call centre.

That is what the Centrelink press release yesterday said. It went on:

“Our budgetary situation also means that we can’t proceed with our planned expansion of our Coffs Harbour and Hobart call centres, although existing staff will relocate to new offices as planned later this year.

“I want to stress that this is a business decision based on a number of factors. It’s not something Centrelink has done lightly—we’ve only come to this conclusion after exploring every available option ...

“As a recruitment process for Launceston Call was already underway, we understand that the decision may be disappointing or upsetting to applicants.

We do understand that. We also understand that it may be upsetting to the Tasmanian government, but they should also be clear where the blame lies in respect of this. Of course, it is not the case that we would blame anybody. You need to then provide the facts of the circumstances, and the facts are very clear on this. The funding model used by the opposition when they sat around their cabinet table and agreed to this meant that Centrelink’s funding would be adjusted according to the unemployment rate. What that meant was that the Centrelink funding would, with employment growth strong, go down. (Time expired)

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Is the minister aware that the town of Launceston is pronounced ‘Lonceston’? Secondly, if this decision by the former Prime Minister—

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I raise a point of order: there is no question there.

Alan Ferguson (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no point of order either because Senator Barnett was just commencing his supplementary question.

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. If the decision by the former Prime Minister, Mr Howard, on 13 July last year was reckless and unsustainable, why was it supported by the federal Labor senators and state Labor members of parliament at the time? Is the minister aware of the statement yesterday by Mr Lennon, the Premier of Tasmania, when he said that the decision was especially harsh given that federal Labor gave every appearance of supporting the Centrelink jobs when announced by John Howard in July, well before caretaker conventions were triggered? Further, is the minister aware of a media release of his own colleague the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Lindsay Tanner, which refers to the savings that would be made and a reversal of— (Time expired)

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It seems as though he has packed more into the supplementary question than into the question itself. But in respect of the three matters, firstly, he needs to check his facts, because that will expose the misinformation he is putting about. On the third matter he raised about the MYEFO of October 2007, I draw the attention of the opposition to Appendix A: Policy Decisions Taken Since the 2007-08 Budget where the $5 million was provided for. What it said—which is not what your media release said, Senator Barnett—was that the government will provide an additional $5 million in 2007-08 to ensure Centrelink is able to better meet peaks in demand arising from clients making increased use of call centres and a trend towards longer and more complex calls. Funding under this measure will be provided through policy departments for call centre services to be delivered by Centrelink. (Time expired)

Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The minister referred to my media release; I referred to Lindsay Tanner’s media release. I seek leave to table the media release of 6 February to clarify any concerns.

Leave granted.