Second Reading Speech: Social Security And Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023

I rise in support of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023. As former prime minister John Howard said, a well designed welfare system must motivate individuals to pursue employment while assisting those genuinely in need. The coalition continues to support this notion, as we know the best way for welfare to work is through incentive and to encourage Australians back into the workforce, which provides dignity and allows for financial stability of the individual. This is the ethos we have followed throughout the life of previous coalition governments.

Under the previous coalition government, more than two million jobs were created and Australia's employment services system was redeveloped. I remind the House that, when the coalition came to government in 2013, unemployment stood at 5.7 per cent and was rising. When we left office in 2022, unemployment had fallen to a 50-year low of 3.9 per cent. Importantly, we saw youth unemployment reduce from 12.7 per cent to 8.8 per cent over that same time. The participation rate over the same period grew by nearly two per cent, from 64.9 per cent to 66.7 per cent. These figures are some of the most significant indicators of the progress that was made in seeing more jobseekers moving from welfare into work and being able to experience the dignity, the sense of identity and the sense of purpose that comes with work. We, on this side of the House, know how important a strong economy is to a robust jobs market, and we also know how important it is to have systems operating effectively to support Australians to enter the job market and to remain in the job market.

The bill before the House this afternoon, the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2023, is a technical bill that will make minor edits and definitional changes to better clarify the intent of a bill passed under the former coalition government, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Streamlined Participation Requirements and Other Measures) Act 2022. That act made numerous changes, including inserting into the Social Security Act a requirement that any employment support programs provided by the Commonwealth government or state or territory governments could not be classified as income for the purposes of social security. This act also built on the work of the former coalition government to reform the employment services system and to return its focus to establishing a responsive, jobseeker-centric model.

On this side of the House, we recognise that work provides dignity, a sense of purpose and a path towards financial stability. This is why the coalition has made proposals to allow those who are unemployed to take up work and to be able to do more work, and therefore earn more, by increasing the size of the work bonus—that is to say, before arriving at the point or the threshold where the JobSeeker payment starts to be reduced. This proposal would have supported and benefited many small and medium-sized businesses across the country who have been crying out for more workers. Unfortunately, their cries have not been heard by this government. The effect of our policy would have been that a jobseeker picking up extra shifts and taking home $300 a fortnight would have been able to retain the full JobSeeker allowance. This is not dissimilar to the age pension and veterans' work bonus increase announced last year by the Leader of the Opposition, which the government was forced, grudgingly, to accept. These policies are practical measures which can assist Australians who are relying on a social services payment to get a leg-up and to transition into the workforce.

When in government, the Liberal-National coalition developed and implemented programs such as ParentsNext. This helped to assist parents who had been removed from the workforce for a significant period of time to find a pathway back in to the workforce. The Liberal-National coalition wants to see all Australians having the chance to participate in the workforce and enjoy the benefits and the confidence that this brings. The program that I spoke about includes helping participants to develop their skills. It offers them a chance to undertake training or work experience. It can also include the provision of financial support, so that participants in the program can develop their job-preparation skills and can undergo training, and expenses for those and other needs can be met. Giving jobseekers the tools, skills and confidence to make that transition from welfare into work is something that it makes a lot of sense for employment programs to focus on. The data is very clear: the longer somebody spends out of the workforce, the harder it is to return.

One principle which, on this side of the House, we do believe is very important is the concept of mutual obligation—the concept of balancing the support that Australians provide to somebody who is out of the workforce with expectations. This is a concept, in our view, which is fundamental to a fair and equitable welfare system, a system which is fair to those receiving support and a system which is fair to those who are, through their taxes, funding that support. The coalition strongly believes in the principle of mutual obligation. If you're receiving assistance, we believe you should be looking for work or preparing for work.

Now, it is troubling that we have seen this principle being relentlessly and continuously attacked by the Albanese Labor government. Time and time again, whenever given the chance, this government seeks to undermine the concept of mutual obligations. Fundamentally, this government does not support the concept of mutual obligation. We've seen powerful proof of that with the removal from the ParentsNext program of the concept of mutual obligation. We know that, in the lead-up to the national conference of the Labor Party, there were further attempts being made to weaken that party's position in relation to mutual obligation. We can look at statements made by the member for Canberra, including in her first speech, or statements made by the member for Bruce that mutual obligation is 'extreme, work-first ideology'. We saw some commentary on the Guardian in July this year, a journal of record which can always be relied upon to give good insights into the thinking on the other side of the House. The Guardian had this to say:

"Mutual obligations can be "punitive" and a barrier to employment, according to the Labor party's draft national platform, which advocates have welcomed as a step towards dumping requirements such as work for the dole."

Just to be clear, when the article speaks about advocates, that's not advocates for taxpayers. That's not advocates for people who are actually footing the bill for this—no. These are advocates for the notion that there should be no concept, no philosophy and no principle of mutual obligation. That is a position that, on this side of the House, we are strongly opposed to. We believe in mutual obligation. The evidence is very clear: the best form of welfare is a job.

I conclude by noting that the opposition recognises that this bill is largely technical in nature and seeks to make certain fairly technical amendments to an act passed under the previous government which embodied and gave effect to the policy of the previous government. I do also want to highlight that, on this side of the House, we will continue to remain vigilant and scrutinise attempts by this government to weaken the principle of mutual obligation. It's very clear that there is no real, deep or genuine support for that principle on that side of the House, from the government, and that is something that we will continue to be keeping a very close eye on. But, in the meantime, I indicate that the opposition, the Liberal-National coalition, will be supporting this bill.