Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security Amendment (Supporting More Australians into Work) Bill 2013. This bill seeks to amend the Social Security Act 1991 to provide additional support to single parents who are transitioning to work or undertaking study to improve their opportunities for employment. The bill also seeks to provide unemployed Australians with the opportunity to earn more before their income support payment is affected.

These amendments represent the government's response to ongoing criticism in relation to its decision to change the eligibility requirements for grandfathered recipients of the parenting payment, which affected the household budgets of 80,000 single parents by moving them on to the lower paying Newstart payment. Those grandfathered recipients under the former arrangements existed as a result of the coalition's reforms to social security in 2005-06. Under the coalition's changes, to qualify for the parenting payment a recipient's youngest child had to be under the age of eight, which was lowered from the previous age of 16. The previous coalition government introduced this reform in a fair and I think responsible manner. Under the coalition, recipients of the parenting payment were left in the system on the understanding that, over time, when their youngest child turned 16 they would naturally move out of the system. For people who had not had a child at that stage but who were coming into the system the changes were made that when their youngest child turned eight they would move from the parenting payment to Newstart. The coalition's approach provided notice and certainty to all parties.

That approach is in contrast to the changes made by the current government to the parenting payment, which, as I mentioned, affected the budgets of 80,000 single parents and saw uncertainty. It is always a problem when a government has mismanaged their budget and is desperate to look for savings. It prevents the government of the day from providing the usual period of notice to enable recipients to make adjustments over time. It is never good when a government is forced to act in order to seek desperately to balance a budget or to return a budget to surplus. That did not actually end up happening, but it is never good when a government is forced to act rather than plan carefully and thoughtfully.

What is before us is in effect the government's solution, or response, to the criticism that it has received. The bill has three measures. The first measure increases the income-free area that applies for recipients of Newstart allowance, widow allowance, partner allowance, parenting payment partnered and sickness allowance from 20 March 2014. The income-free area is the amount of ordinary income that an income-support recipient is able to earn in a fortnight before their payment rate is increased. The income-free area for these payments will increase from $62 to $100 per fortnight. The income-free area will also be indexed to the CPI from 1 July 2015, and this measure will give recipients the opportunity to earn more money before their payment rate is affected.

The second measure of this bill extends the eligibility for the pensioner education supplement to single principal carer parents receiving Newstart allowance payments. This extension will begin on 1 January 2014 and will be available to eligible single principal carer parents undertaking approved education and training courses. The pensioner education supplement is paid at the current full rate of $62.40 per fortnight or the current concessional rate of $31.20 per fortnight depending on a person's study load.

The third measure, commencing from 1 January next year, extends the eligibility for the pensioner concession card by 12 weeks to single parents who no longer qualify for the parenting payment single because their youngest child has turned eight years of age and they do not qualify for another income support payment due to earnings from employment.

Concession cards provide a range of concessions to holders for services at the Commonwealth, state and local government levels including medical services, transport, telephone, utilities and rates. Consistent with current arrangements, a person would remain qualified for the concession card until the extension period of 12 weeks expired, the person died, moved permanently overseas or they started to receive an income support payment for which a concession card is eligible.

These proposed measures, as I said, are intended to address some of the criticisms that the government has received in relation to the decisions that they have taken. We know that when a government does not follow good process and when a government does not take the time to plan, the public are not provided with the opportunity to adjust and plan themselves. What the public look for in a government is predictability and some certainty. The public, quite naturally, do not like a government that is forever chopping and changing policy, where the people do not know from one day to the next whether the arrangements which they currently assume will continue into the future will in fact continue. We have seen this in any number of areas, whether they be superannuation, social security policy, taxation in relation to the mining industry or taxation of carbon, for instance.

There is very little certainly under this government. That means that businesses have difficulty planning for the future; they will put hiring decisions on hold—and are putting hiring decisions on hold—and will put investment decisions on hold—and are, because they are waiting for what they hope will be the certainty provided after the next election.

The same is true for individual households, which have no sense of confidence that government policies which are in place will continue in the form that they are currently in. Households are worried about cost-of-living pressures and are putting spending decisions on hold because they want to conserve their resources for fear that this current government will unexpectedly change policy in some way that will affect their household budgets.

This legislation that is before us today is an attempt to address an example of that: single parent families who were operating on one set of assumptions and the government unexpectedly changed those assumptions. That is not the way to govern a nation, Mr Deputy President, and I think you know that one of the things that this side of the chamber will be offering at the next election is a 'no surprises' approach. If we are to be successful at the next election, we will offer the Australian public and business a 'no surprises' approach. We want there to be a degree of certainty. We want the public to have a sense of the arc in which a coalition government would operate. That allows businesses to plan for the future and it allows householders to plan for their futures without the zigzag and abrupt changes in policy which we have seen all too often under this government.

Against that background, I should indicate that the opposition will not be opposing this legislation. So often, this side of the chamber has found itself in a position where there are decisions that we might not have made had we been in government because we would have had a different starting point. We would have handled the nation's budget very differently over the last six years had we been in office. But we do find ourselves, time and again, having to accept the facts as they are even though we wish they were otherwise and would have handled things differently and taken different decisions ourselves. So, with those remarks, I indicate that the opposition will not be opposing this legislation.

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

I rise to speak on the Social Security Amendment (Supporting More Australians into Work) Bill 2013. The Greens will be supporting this legislation. However, we are deeply disappointed that this legislation does not go further. The individual measures in this bill have been welcomed by the community and the Australian Greens. However, as I said, it remains a disappointing demonstration of the government's failure to fully grasp the real needs of people trying to survive on Newstart or Youth Allowance. They just fail to understand that people are struggling to survive on Newstart, and this government is the one that dumped the next lot of single parents onto Newstart. And, listening to the coalition just then, you would think they were the nice, gentle, loving, kind people who liked single parents! They started this—you started it in 2005 when you started talking about Welfare to Work, and 2006 was when those changes came in that dumped single parents onto Newstart. Those single parents are the very ones who are already having to go to emergency relief organisations because they are trying to survive on Newstart. Of course, it is not only the single parents; people talk about single parents, but you have to remember it is their families, hundreds of thousands of people, living in poverty. So do not come in here and pretend that you despise the government for moving the next lot of single parents onto Newstart; they are just continuing the job you started. Both the old parties voted to dump the next lot of single parents onto Newstart in January. They combined against the Greens to dump them onto it.

All these measures in the bills had their genesis in recommendations that have been generated by and result from inquiries that have been undertaken—for example, by the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee. But these measures are too little in their response to those recommendations, and they are too little in their response to the challenges that are facing Australians who are struggling to survive on income support payments such as Newstart.

This legislation has been subject to a short inquiry and a short period of public consultation. In that time, over 500 individuals wrote to me about this legislation and the need for stronger action, and I will be seeking leave to table these letters that they wrote which I have previously circulated to the whips.

I would like to share just a few of the stories and accounts that are contained in those letters. Karen writes: 'I do not buy anything anymore. My son even had shoes that were a size too small and he refused to tell me as he knew I had no money to buy new shoes.' And Katrina wrote: 'On Parenting Payment I was able to get by as long as I was creatively frugal. Now all I can do is pay the rent and decide each week if we are going to eat or if I should make a part payment on my electricity bill. I do not have money for extras my son needs for school.' These are heart-wrenching accounts of the reality of life on Newstart. That is what this government joined with the coalition on and with the coalition's support has condemned hundreds and hundreds of single parents and their children to. These letters demonstrate to the Australian Greens that there is significant ongoing community support for the solutions proposed by us during the earlier inquiries and also support for the Australian Greens private senators' bills. These bills both increase Newstart and provide extra supplement supports for single parents.

This bill, the government's bill, contains three distinct measures that are intended to improve income management, but the Australian Greens note that each of these measures will only benefit some of those struggling to keep a roof over their heads and pay the bills on an income support payment that is more than $130 below the poverty line. Two of these measures, the pensioner education supplement and the retention of the pensioner card for those who are moved off parenting payment single but are now ineligible for Newstart, are restricted to single principal carers only. The other measure will benefit those who are already earning a small amount through casual work. Full-time students, older Australians, those with a partial disability, those living with episodic mental illness, those who lack work experience and those who have multiple barriers to employment will all be left behind by this legislation.

The extension of eligibility for the pensioner education supplement and the pensioner concession card will offset some of the impacts of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Fair Incentives to Work) legislation, which was examined by the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee in August 2012, but we must note that they actually returned the education supplement to those who lost it under that regime. In other words, under that previous bill, the government took it away and now is kindly restoring it.

However, because of this inappropriate measure being put in place in the first place, and a failure by the government to understand what impact this legislation would have on single parents, this measure comes too late for many, many single parents: those who have had to drop their study because they were not able to access this and those who have had to drop their study because they were put onto Newstart and no longer could afford to make ends meet. It does not help those people and it does not come in until March next year. So much for the government caring for those parents that they know us struggling to make ends meet on Newstart. So much for their care for those parents they are encouraging to get more work and improve their skills and qualifications. What do the government care? They callously took away access to that supplement from those parents who are trying to improve their qualifications and get an education so they can better support their family and find work into the future.

While the Australian Greens consider that introducing these measures is still better, of course, than nothing, and better late than never, there is no doubt that the implementation of the Fair Incentives to Work legislation was devastating and is devastating to those who are affected. The impact of the $60-a-week drop in the base rate of income in the shift from parenting payment single to Newstart was compounded by the loss of the pensioner education supplement and also the pensioner concession cards for those who are dumped off income support altogether. The government claims this was to increase the number of people in work, but single parents have the highest rate of engagement with employment. In fact, we all know this was about the government saving a few dollars off the backs of single parents and their children.

The government has not been monitoring this impact, so it does not know what impact this appalling policy has had. We know, the Greens know, from the letters, the emails, the phone calls and text messages about this policy that we receive. We know the terrible human toll this has taken. Unfortunately, the Australian Greens are aware of a number of individuals who were studying and have had to leave those studies because they cannot afford the course fees or because they need to take on extra work to support their families. This measure restores a measure, as I said, that was previously in place.

The rationale for improving the income-free area seems to rely on the assumption that most individuals have access to short-term work but refuse to take it up without better financial incentives. Does this government think that a whole $19 a week, or one extra hour of work a week, will do that?

They have rocks in their heads if they think that is the only thing stopping single parents and those on Newstart from being able to access work.

The Newstart inquiry into the adequacy of the payment demonstrated that those who are worst off under the current income management system are those who face multiple barriers to work and who need assistance to become work-ready. Budget estimates demonstrated that only 43 per cent of all clients were adequately helped into ongoing work for the year ending 12 September. This result dropped to an alarming 25 per cent for stream 4 jobseekers—the most disadvantaged clients. In other words, these job service support programs are not helping the most disadvantage and the people who face the most barriers to work. Why are we not fixing that?

The provision of effective services to help jobseekers across the workforce is critical because the ability to work an extra hour a week will benefit only those who are able to access paid work. Yet the higher income-free area has not been accompanied by concrete improvements to jobseeker services. We are having to rely on the review, and on changes maybe coming in in 2015. This bill will provide no direct assistance to the majority of income recipients who have not been able to find work.

The Social Security Amendment (Supporting More Australians into Work) Bill 2013 has been presented as a response to the recommendations of the adequacy inquiry, but this decision to adjust the income-free area implements only one of the recommendations of that report. The Australian Greens believe there is clear evidence, as set out in our additional comments to this inquiry, that focusing on other aspects of the problem without addressing the basic inadequacy of the payments will simply fail jobseekers. In other words, this measure will not address the root problem, which is the inadequacy of the payment.

Yet the government has chosen to tackle only one of the aspects of that report. It has ignored yet again the need to increase the base rate of these payments. Former OECD economist Peter Whiteford demonstrated to the adequacy inquiry that after paying rent a single person living on Newstart is likely to be left with less than $17 a day from which to cover all other expenses such as their utility, transport, personal care, clothes and, of course, food. We know from a number of recent inquiries that food is what people go without. People frequently go without meals because they cannot afford it, and parents go without meals so that they can feed their children.

With soaring rents in many capital cities and very low availability rates of affordable housing, the reality is that most people survive on even less than $17 per day, and simply cannot make ends meet. It is clear that many face hard choices, as is demonstrated in these letters. They face these hard choices every single day and make significant personal sacrifices of skipping meals, of going without. One long-term jobseeker and work for the dole participant summed this up in his letter: 'You get a break for lunch. I don't know why, because nobody eats. Nobody can afford to.'

The Australian Greens have already tabled in this place two private senator's bills, which I referred to earlier, which would better deliver immediate and lasting relief for all those who are affected by these policies. These bills provide a comprehensive and immediate solution to the pressure that those surviving on Newstart, including single parents, are experiencing. The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Caring for People on Newstart) Bill 2013 increases the basic rate of Newstart by $50 a week and introduces appropriate indexation that is linked to wages as well as to CPI.

The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Caring for Single Parents) Bill 2013 would further improve the situation for single parents by returning their income and the income test to a rate that is comparable to the parenting payment single, thereby undoing the income impacts of the fair incentives to work legislation—in other words, the legislation that dumped them onto Newstart. The important point there is that it would return the income-free area to what it was on parenting payment single, not the measly $17 a week that is contained in this bill. That is because it does not address the fundamental problems that are facing those trying to survive on Newstart.

The government may try to hoodwink the community that this will address the situation; it simply does not. They have report after report and they have no excuse to think that this is going to address the situation. As I said, report after report—reports from emergency relief organisations—all clearly demonstrate that the base rate of Newstart is inadequate, that those single parents who have been dumped across the board from January this year and those who have been dumped since 2006 onto Newstart are living in poverty. That is a whole next generation of children living in poverty. They are going without enough to eat and without the basic requirements. They are being forced out of their accommodation.

The Salvation Army report that was released not long ago as part of their Red Shield appeal clearly demonstrated the increase in the number of people accessing emergency relief. That clearly indicates that people are not able to find accommodation; they are homeless, they are couch surfing. That is what we are condemning these single parents to—those single parents who are trying to bring up our next generation. All the research shows that those children who are growing up in poverty and disadvantage are going to suffer, and that potentially has implications for their whole lives. That is what this policy fosters and that is what this bill fails to address. It does not address the basic issue, which is the inadequacy of the payments. We know that children are going to school hungry. We know that parents are going hungry. Why are we condemning those parents and those children to poverty?

We know that by increasing their base rate of income that we will help overcome one of the many barriers to work. And also, as I articulated earlier, we know that single parents are the cohort of people on income support who in fact have the highest work participation rates. This puts the complete lie to the fact that the government says that this is about encouraging people into work. It is not. It is about the government trying to save a penny or two on the backs of single parents.

Even though the measures contained in this bill do not form an adequate response to the challenges that Newstart participants face, the Australian Greens will support the package of these measures because, as I said, something is better than nothing. However, the Australian Greens remain committed to continuing to work towards the most comprehensive solutions that will lift people out of poverty and into secure, appropriate work. This does not do it. I have been campaigning on this since the day the Howard government announced that it would bring in welfare to work. And I will not cease campaigning on this until we have an increase in Newstart, until we have reversed those appalling, despicable cuts to single parents and until we can assure those single parents and their children that they will not be condemned to living in poverty in one of the wealthiest nations in on this planet. We will campaign on this to ensure that we achieve better outcomes for our most vulnerable Australians. It is simply inexcusable that in this country we are forcing the most vulnerable and the most disadvantaged people into living in unending poverty.

As I said, we will support these measures but we will never stop campaigning for those most vulnerable Australians. With that in mind, I have circulated a second reading amendment on sheet 7430, and move:

At the end of the motion, add:

"and the Senate calls on the Government:

  (a) to increase Newstart by $50 a week; and

  (b) to provide additional financial support to single parents to lift them and their children out of poverty."

As I said, the Greens will be supporting these measures because every little bit will help. But it is not nearly enough, and our support does not indicate that we are complacent about the fact that we need to keep striving to ensure that our fellow Australians are able to live in dignity, able to have a satisfactory quality of life and not to condemn generations of children to live in poverty.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, before I call Senator Back, are you seeking leave to table those documents?

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

Yes, I am. As I said, I did show them to the whips on Tuesday night.

Leave granted.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I certainly acknowledge the passion and the long-term interest of the previous speaker, Senator Siewert, and I join Senator Fifield in the comment that the coalition will not be opposing this legislation. Isn't it a shame that it has had to come into the chamber at all? What it does is try to undo some of the damage that Labor wreaked in what was a very, very callous attack on single parents in the latter part of last year. In so doing, Labor attacked vehemently the household budgets, as they are, of single parents. Senator Siewert has correctly and eloquently identified what those hardships have been as a result.

We are here, today, engaged in this activity, because of the overwhelming outcry that occurred throughout many, many sectors of the community, such as the not-for-profit sector, the charity sector and the business sector, along with those others who were directly affected by this action. The matter was not helped when Minister Macklin made her intemperate comments about people being able to live on Newstart from the day that these changes would come into effect. I know that Senator Siewert and others made the attempt to live on Newstart and reported their inability to do so. I have participated in several inquiries by the Standing Committees on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations on this particular subject and it has, of course, been a harrowing experience to listen to the stories that are told. I have also had some association over time with bodies such as St Vincent de Paul and have visited and seen on the ground the damage that is wreaked upon these people.

Now we have a circumstance whereby some 80,000 of Australia's most vulnerable families, generally single parent families, have been rushed into the position where they are to be moved off the parenting payment onto Newstart. Last year, when this measure was being proposed for a start date of 1 January 2013, I recall the impassioned pleas to the government to at least have some heart and delay or defer the commencement until March. Why?—for a number of reasons. Firstly, all families have increased costs leading up to Christmas. Secondly, straight after Christmas casual employment usually ceases or drops off and it is much more difficult for single parents, particularly single mothers, to find employment. Thirdly, the costs associated with the return to school is difficult. As usual, of course, this government was not in the least bit interested in that.

Senator Fifield correctly put his finger on it and noted that now the piggy bank is empty. This government has spent all of the funds that were available to it after the prudence of the previous Howard-Costello government. The $40 billion that was in the bank went very, very quickly. Perhaps one of the most disappointing and telling factors of this proposed legislation, which we are not opposing and which Senator Siewert has concurred the Greens will not be opposing, is the financial impact. The financial impact over the five years, the so-called out years, of taking people off the parenting payment and moving them to Newstart, and the difficulties associated with this, leads to an expense of $300 million. That $300 million sounds like an enormous amount of money, but do you know how much $300 million accounts for in actual interest on the debt we have in this country? It is 10 days. The $300 million over five years accounts for a mere 10 days interest on the billions of dollars of debt that this Labor government has run up.

People can put it into their household accounts and relate the $300 billion perhaps to $300,000 of debt, or they can see what the impact would be on their business. But it is when you end up spending the surplus you have, when you end up wasting vast amounts of what, at the end of the day, are taxpayer dollars, that the chickens come home to roost, and the chickens are now well and truly back in the roost. The money saved from this situation––the situation correctly outlined by the previous speakers––and the impact it is having on those single parents equates to a mere 10 days interest—not the repayment of the principal, just the interest on the debt. As Senator Sinodinos said to me as he left the chamber when I drew his attention to the fact: 'Don't forget, Senator Back, that globally interest rates are now growing up, so the 10 days of interest will probably be about eight days of interest.' Therein lies the tragedy.

In our committee hearings—and Senator Siewert was a member—we saw what has now become the first measure in this bill. The measure originally was that a recipient of the Newstart allowance, widow allowance, partner allowance, parenting payment and sickness allowance could earn $62 a fortnight before that had any impact on payments to which they were eligible. We all know that the minimum wage for an adult is now $16 an hour and in most circumstances you have to employ someone for at least three hours. Three 16s are 48, double that is 96—so anybody who was only getting $62 per fortnight was either working for less than they were entitled to or they were doing fewer hours. This is acknowledged, and it was the work of the committee that pushed towards elevating that $62 to $100 per fortnight.

The second measure relates to eligibility for the pensioner education supplement for a single principal carer parent receiving Newstart. That is no doubt a benefit, but I hasten to the obvious fact that it does not help any single parent who is not studying. The third measure provides a 12-week extension of eligibility for the pensioner concession card to single parents who no longer qualify for the single parenting payment. I cannot help but reflect—and Madam Deputy President Stephens, I know you have a keen interest in the welfare of the wider community, as we all do—that we have to do this measure, and 10 days interest on the debt would have obviated or removed the need for that action to take place.

In the hearings that we had into these matters last year—the move from the single parenting payment back to Newstart, the adequacy of Newstart—to which we all contributed, there were several interesting points that came up. One of them was that one-third of this nation's expenditure budget, 33 per cent of the overall budget, is expended on social security and welfare. Senator Siewert is quite right: we are a wealthy country and we have a very small population on a very large landmass. Although it is not relevant to this discussion, I would always plead that we got there because of cheap energy, and one of the direct and indirect effects of the six years of this government has been to remove cheap energy and at the same time attack individual wealth. Nevertheless, I go back to that statistic: 33 per cent of our expenditure budget is on social security and welfare and, for your interest, 16 per cent is on health, eight per cent is on education. I asked several witnesses as they said they needed more: do you want to see a reduction in commitment to health? Of course, everyone does not. Do you want to see a reduction in commitment to education? No-one does. The obvious answer is to have a look at that 33 per cent, to have a look at the expenditure within social security and welfare, accounting for one dollar in three of this nation's expenditure, and start to target it at the higher priority areas. I would defy anyone to be able to mount an argument to any of us in this chamber that the people about whom we are speaking would not be right up at the top of that priority order.

Should the people of Australia honour the coalition with government later this year, whenever that is, I would ask all sides of politics to have a good, long, hard look at where those priority orders are. I want to give you an example if I may. Only three weeks ago the member for Murray and I visited a meatworks in the Goulburn Valley of Victoria, the highest youth unemployment area in Victoria, according to Dr Stone. That particular abattoir was seeking to employ 50 unskilled workers. They wanted no skills, because they would train them on the job for long-term, secure employment. But nevertheless, as senators would understand, the nature of employment in abattoirs requires a high degree of occupational health and safety. So it was critical, according to the manager of the meatworks, that each person being considered for employment would have to satisfy a no-drugs policy. Of the first 30 single, unemployed young people who came forward, 26 said 'We can't meet your drugs policy,' so they went back to being on Newstart. I find that to be unacceptable.

I do not think the Australian taxpayer, a generous taxpayer, would willingly see a third of the nation's expenditure budget going on a person or people who, for their own decision making, for their own recreational satisfaction, choose not to work in a job in which they would be trained and there would be secure employment in a region of one of our states, and not have to work because they do not want to be involved in a process in which they are drug free. As I sat in the general manager's office, I could not help but think of the sort of people who came before us in our inquiries on the matter to do with the movement of people from the paid parental program down to Newstart. I thought to myself: what has gone wrong in this country when fit, able, single young people do not have to work? You would say, 'Well, if a country is so wealthy that you can accommodate these things, everybody is okay.' Well, they are not okay. As Senator Fifield and Senator Siewert have said—and as Senator Siewert has tabled—it is not okay.

What is okay is that those who need it most—those single parents who are struggling and making decisions between putting shoes on their children's feet or feeding their children or themselves or paying their electricity and other utility bills—should be at the top of the priority order. We saw the circumstance during 'Rudd 1' as opposed to 'Rudd 2' when he as Prime Minister ran around the countryside in December 2009 throwing out $900 cheques for the specific purpose of avoiding Australia being in a recession. You will recall he ran around in March 2010 doing the same thing with $1,200 cheques at a time when we should have been putting in place expenditures and allocations that would have ensured we would have maintained into the future the living standards and lifestyles to which we are accustomed.

I reflect on other committees we sat on and, when we asked people what they did with the $900 cheques, they fell broadly into four categories. Some people saved the money, so therefore it did not help with the economic stimulus. When I sat on the Joint Select Committee on Gambling Reform—Mr Wilkie's committee—and went to Tasmania, I sat there and listened to witnesses. This was in the gambling reform hearings associated with poker machines. This fellow said to me, 'If you want to know where all our money went, Senator, you just have to go to the casinos, the pubs and the clubs, because whatever $900 cheques we got go straight into the pokies.' That was the second of the two. The third was Chinese television sets, as Harvey Norman and others all told us.

The fourth is this: Senator Birmingham—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President—if you want to go back and review the Friday night those payments were made and the Friday night when the $1,200 cheques were paid in March 2010, you will see an incredible spike in attendances at the accident and emergency centres of the major hospitals around Australia—an unexpected spike the first time around. They were totally and utterly caught unawares, as I was told by a nursing sister who attended the Royal Perth Hospital. They had to bring staff in urgently.

Those are the four categories of spending those payments went to—the $900 cheques. When you have a look now at the fact that we have gone from a $40 billion surplus to a $300 billion debt and at the fact that we are paying $1,000 million a month interest on that debt at the moment, it causes one to weep when you see that the saving over five years from this measure—and Senator Siewert has quite correctly identified the harshness of this measure—equates to 10 days of interest on the debt as a result of the waste of this government, which commenced under now Prime Minister Rudd.

We do need to see a realignment. I return to the electorate of Murray, to again tell a story. I am by no means demeaning those who have come into this country, but I simply use this as an illustration of where we have got it wrong. There was a very proud African community in that particular electorate. They were all large families getting jobs and keeping jobs—everything was fine. The member for Murray became aware that a lot of these people, in fact, were stopping working. So she inquired as to why they might have stopped working. It was because another group had come into that community and were making no attempt to actually get employment and, with large families, they were enjoying significant income from the government. We have to have a scenario in place in this country again where we encourage employment, particularly when you look at agriculture throughout Australia, where we now have to rely on backpackers not just to attend to fruit picking but to work on farms—harvesting crops et cetera. You say to yourself, 'How is it in this country that people who are able to work, where there are jobs available for them, do not take those jobs?'

I conclude my remarks, if I may, on the circumstance now confronting us with refugees, who themselves are not allowed to work. The policy of this coalition is, firstly, to have a circumstance in which those people remain safely in their own countries but, secondly, if they are here, to process them quickly and, thirdly, to allow them to do some work. This is the community of people who, as yet, have not been processed and are not allowed to work. It was on 14 August last year that the government brought in its so-called no-advantage test over those people who are in refugee camps—rotting, as many of them have been, sometimes for up to two generations. The solution was to bring in the no-advantage test. Senator Cash, the shadow parliamentary secretary in this area, tells me that there are now some 19,000 people who have not yet had the opportunity to lodge a claim to be processed. So therefore they cannot work.

In the concluding comments, if I may, I agree with and support Senator Fifield. We will not oppose this legislation. Should we be honoured with government, I appeal to all sides of the chamber to work towards a scenario in which that social security and welfare budget is allocated where the priority is highest. I have no doubt it is the community of people about whom we are speaking at the moment.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is little more than another patch-up job of the Labor government and, as such—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!The time allotted for consideration of this bill has expired. The question is that the second reading amendment, moved by Senator Siewert, be agreed to.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.