Page 4531 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 23 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and they could put them back on Newstart as new entrants—and people were being churned through. The other even more exquisite means was to take people off long-term unemployment and put them on the disability support pension. Between 1991 and 1992 the number of people on the disability support pension in Australia rose by 13 per cent. We are reaping the whirlwind of that even as we speak today.
Ms Porter comes in here and wrings her hands about what a terrible thing the welfare-to-work process is. I will stand here and proudly say that I support any fair means of getting somebody off welfare benefits and into a job. The best way to address this and get people out of poverty is to get them off benefits and into a job. Let us look at some of the figures. These are not the government’s figures; they come from reports produced by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling—hardly what you would call a mouthpiece for the Howard government. In 2001, for a report commissioned by the Smith Family, they found that only three per cent of waged households were in poverty, compared to 31 per cent of households relying on welfare in poverty.
Dr Foskey: That is self-evident, isn’t it?
MRS DUNNE: Regular and ongoing employment is obviously a guarantee against poverty. This is something we all know. Dr Foskey says it is self-evident, but it is not self-evident to the people opposite, who would do anything to stand in the way of reasonable changes that would help people get off welfare and into a position where they could get jobs. When would we be better placed to do it than now? We could not do it when bomber Beazley was the minister for employment because he would not do anything about the sinfully high unemployment level at that time. A million people in Australia were unemployed—unprecedented numbers. Now that we have an economy that is working, there is employment and increased numbers of jobs. What better time to attempt to get these welfare-to-work reforms in place? This is a time when we can achieve something, not just for the individuals concerned but also for their families and ongoing generations.
One problem we have in this country is intergenerational unemployment. What better thing could we do for the young people of this country than get their parents into jobs? Rather than learning about being unemployed and being dependent upon welfare through the experience of their family, give them the positive experience of being in work.
Another interesting and more recent survey from NATSEM in 2004 shows that around 41 per cent of all unemployed people were considered to be in relative poverty, along with 17 per cent of people not in the labour force and 24 per cent of people whose main source of income was government cash benefits. This compared to two per cent of people whose main source of income was wages and salary who were considered to be in relative poverty. Let us get it straight.
For all Ms Porter’s words about a punishing crusade by the Howard government, I would like to see the Howard government continue to crusade to get people out of poverty, off benefits and into a position where they can find work. Dr Foskey raises some very important points, to which I say, “Hear hear” to her. She constantly and effectively raises the issue of high effective marginal tax rates. There are disincentives that still need to be addressed in this package. I do not have any problem saying that I think the federal government has failed in this regard, but there is still time for improvement. High
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .