Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The opposition will be supporting the Social Security Amendment (Liquid Assets Waiting Period) Bill 2009. This measure will allow someone who is claiming Newstart, youth allowance, sickness allowance or Austudy to have a doubling of the liquid assets previously allowable. They were $2,500 for singles and $5,000 for others. The bill also amends the Social Security Act 1991 to exclude the surrender value of life insurance policies from the definition of liquid assets for social security purposes. Whilst the opposition supports these measures, which will provide a little more financial security to people newly unemployed, we believe the government must do far more for job seekers and school leavers than simply prepare them for unemployment.

I can remember when in the 1990s children were leaving school in conditions similar to those we are facing at the moment. Their employment prospects were slight, although nothing like that which we have seen in the last decade. Back in the 1990s, when kids left their school their career advice was focused on how to access unemployment and how to fill out the Centrelink forms. Providing some sort of safety net rather than dealing with the issues of becoming employed and the recession were what the government of the day felt should be their focus. It has been quite different since that day. During the last 10 years under the coalition government, when the kids left school their career advice was to see which job or education opportunity presented the best option for their individual futures. Under this Labor government it is again a travesty to see that we are returning to the bad old days. It brings to this place legislation that will provide a safety net, and that of course is supported by the opposition, but it is sad that that seems to be the only area in which it is making any genuine relief for people leaving school and people facing unemployment.

We are told—and everyone accepts—that there is a global economic downturn and that there are things this government could and should be doing to protect our economy and our jobs. The Prime Minister continues to remind us that he is here to end the blame game. I think it is about time we stop blaming the rest of the world for our problems, step up and actually act. When the rest of the world had their foot on the economic accelerator to stimulate the economy, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer had their feet on the brake, daring and encouraging the Reserve Bank of Australia to change interest rates. Spending cuts have happened. Because of the interest rate rise, our economy has now stalled. When we needed to protect jobs—when we needed to do something about the economy—the government had a political strategy and took its eye off the ball, which is why we are now in a position of having to create a safety net.

We are now spending billions of dollars on poorly-thought-out cash giveaways in an attempt to get our economy back to where it was and to protect jobs. Unfortunately, many pundits and economists around the world are saying it is too little, too late. The promise in December was that the $10 billion package was going to create 75,000 new jobs. It has now been exposed through time and fact simply as a political stunt. Those on this side suspected this, but we gave them the benefit of the doubt. There are a number of figures that demonstrate that it was a stunt. The ABS labour force figures for February show a four per cent increase in unemployment for the month, pushing up the overall unemployment rate to 5.2 per cent. Tragically, that number is rising.

It is quite clear that the current government is absolutely clueless when it comes to managing our economy and protecting and supporting businesses, which are absolutely essential to creating jobs. The only plan the government appears to have now is to look back to the nineties—‘What did we do last time we created a horrible hole and a recession? What we can do is to look sympathetic and stitch up a bit of a safety net.’ I think Australians deserve more. We should be investing in job creation programs and infrastructure that will improve our competitiveness in the future, and that is all about jobs, jobs, jobs. Of course, we are going to support these measures as they are going to assist the refugees of another Labor recession. It is our policy—and one that we urge the Rudd government to follow—that government investment and focus must be on future capacity and productivity so Australians are not faced with unemployment and the need to live off savings, missing out on what I consider a fundamental right for Australians: the opportunity to make a contribution through employment. They need to learn and study, and, in any way they can, contribute to the Australian community. If you are of working age, obviously this is something that you would like to do, but this is an opportunity that so many Australians will not have. Whilst we will be supporting this safety net for refugees of the incompetence of the federal government, we really believe that it is high time that the government stop blaming the rest of the world for their woes and get on with making Australia a better place with more opportunities for employment.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We think that the Social Security Amendment (Liquid Assets Waiting Period) Bill 2009 is very important and we are pleased that the government have moved on it. They actually moved on it in response to the Greens putting it to the government in discussions over the economic stimulus package, because we felt that this was a significant way that the government could help working Australians in this time of economic crisis. This bill cushions the blow for Australian workers who lose their jobs by raising the threshold of the amount of money that they can have in savings before they can go on unemployment benefits. You would have thought this would have been something that the government would have thought of themselves and been worried about in response to the global financial crisis, with unemployment already rising and, unfortunately, projected to rise much higher. Bear in mind that it was the previous government, the Howard government, that cut the threshold of the liquid assets test quite substantially. We were extremely pleased when the government saw that this was a sensible and practical amendment that could be made to improve the stimulus package, and they committed $50 million to ensure that this could occur.

I must admit, I was very angry at the government. When introducing the bill, the Rudd government in no way gave the Greens any credit for the fact that this was a Greens initiative. I am extremely disappointed that they could be so mean-spirited as to fail to acknowledge that it was the Greens’ idea and the Greens who negotiated this commitment from the government. Having said that, I am, of course, pleased that they are doing it; I am just a bit disturbed that the government decided that they would not acknowledge that the Greens were looking out for working Australians who will benefit from this very important amendment. Brendan O’Connor did not mention it in his second reading speech or in any of his media statements. To add insult to injury, the minister went to great lengths to present this as an ALP initiative by pointing out how the ALP had opposed the changes introduced by the Howard government which reduced the threshold from $5,000 to $2,500. The ALP did not fix it on their own initiative; they did it once the Greens put it to them and raised this issue.

I am very glad that these amendments are being made. I am glad that the government are fulfilling their promise. This is one example of how the Australian Greens have attempted to redirect the stimulus package and other aspects of government legislation to ensure that in this time of financial crisis we focus our efforts to look out for those who will be the hardest hit by the downturn. We need to cushion the blow for those people who will lose their jobs and ensure that those people and their families are looked after through these tough times so that they are ready and able to get back into work and can play a key role in driving economic recovery as we come out of the other side of this downturn. We are concerned that too much of the two stimulus packages was focused on throwing money around willy-nilly instead of focusing on efforts that not only stimulate the economy but also help those worst affected by this downturn. The Greens do support the need for immediate stimulus, but we believe that in spending our limited resources we should also have an eye for the longer term future and for those that are most at risk from the economic downturn. The best way to get the most out of our limited budget is to target our efforts at measures that build the new green economy of the future and strengthen the safety net for those on the receiving end of job losses, facing mortgage defaults and facing the credit crunch.

The liquid assets test threshold will increase from $2,500 to $5,000. There is a sunset clause which the government have introduced in this particular piece of legislation. We believe that this should be indefinite, but, of course, we understand that the government have included the sunset clause because they think the downturn will last a short period of time, so this will not be as necessary in the future as it is now. We believe that the increased threshold of the liquid assets test should be there permanently. We hope that the government will give an undertaking that, if people are still suffering when the sunset clause comes around, the government will reconsider that clause so that, if we are still in unfortunate economic circumstances, people will not suffer as people are suffering now prior to the introduction of this particular measure.

When you lose your job and apply to go on Newstart allowance, you have to go through a series of NSA asset tests before you can get any income support. One of the most punitive features of NSA is the liquid assets waiting period. Liquid assets are defined as cash and bank deposits, including term deposits, shares and so on. You could be required to serve a waiting period of between and one and thirteen weeks if your liquid assets exceed $2,500, or $5,000 for a couple. This amendment puts this threshold back up to $5,000 and $10,000 respectively, which is where it was before the Howard government made the changes. These are small amounts, and the whole point of this test is, it appears, to be highly punitive. The test is in addition to the income maintenance period, which affects payments for a period of time based on the accrued leave paid out as a lump sum. In effect, it says that the benefits of all your hard work and careful savings need to be eroded before we will help you out.

The Australia Institute has been very active on this point and in fact made a submission to the committee inquiry into the Nation Building and Jobs Plan and made a series of very important points around these particular issues. They said:

While the liquid assets waiting period is partly aimed at those who have received a termination payment from their last job, the philosophy behind it is in complete contrast to the insurance philosophy of most OECD countries whereby unemployment payments are payable simply because of the contingency of job loss.

The Australia Institute estimated that to abolish the liquid assets waiting period altogether would have cost around $500 million per annum.

We believe that this is an important move. In these times of economic downturn, we need to ensure that we remain a caring society that looks after the people who are most adversely affected. Despite my concern about the fact that the government did not acknowledge that this was a Greens initiative, we are pleased that they took it up. I am very happy to see this legislation. They have kept their commitment to introduce this legislation in order for it to start on 1 April. It will make a significant difference for hardworking Australians who, through no fault of their own and because of the economic downturn, are going to be facing hard times. If they lose their jobs, they will be facing very hard times. This will in small measure—there are a whole lot of other things that we need to be doing—help those struggling Australians and ensure that they and their families get the support that is needed.

Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—The measures in the Social Security Amendment (Liquid Assets Waiting Period) Bill 2009 will mean that people who lose their job and others who need income support with modest levels of liquid assets can access income support more readily. The measures in the bill are part of the government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan to support jobs and invest in future economic growth during the global downturn. The measures should be considered together with the government’s economic stimulus measures, training investments and extra assistance for newly retrenched workers.

The Nation Building and Jobs Plan and other recently announced measures will provide newly retrenched workers with the opportunity of retraining in order to gain skills to help them back to work quickly and to grow our nation’s productivity into the future. The changes to the liquid assets waiting period in this bill are about providing practical support to people when they most need it.

The changes to the liquid assets waiting period proposed by this bill have been advocated by community and welfare groups for some time and supported by the Greens. They were agreed to last month with Greens leader Senator Bob Brown as part of the negotiations to secure passage of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. I wish to acknowledge the contribution of Senator Brown and probably Senator Siewert and in particular thank them for their support of the measures in this bill. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.