Goff Phil: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Goff Phil: Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 26 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8914. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
: 
 If the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill is as the Minister for Social Development would have us believe about dealing with welfare dependency let us look for a moment at the record. The record is that since she became Minister unemployment is up 82 percent. Those on the DPB are up 13 percent. The first question we should ask you Minister is whether this is because 82 percent more people suddenly do not want to work. Is this because the nation has suddenly lost its morals and a lot more people are on a domestic purposes benefit because of that? The Minister knows that that is arrant nonsense. She knows that the reason why there are more people unemployed has very little to do with lacking the will to work and a hell of a lot to do with the jobs being lost under her Government’s management and the jobs not being available. 
I want to ask the Minister why it was that when I opened a New World supermarket for the jobs that were available there—I think there were 200—there were over 3000 people seeking those jobs. More recently I opened The Warehouse store in Stoddard Road. There were 80 jobs and there were 1500 people seeking out relatively low-paid employment. Most recently I opened a Countdown supermarket. There were 150 jobs there; there were 2600 people queuing up for those jobs. 
It is not about people lacking the will to work Minister and it is not about people wanting to be welfare dependent; it is about the fact that in the last quarter under this Government something like 20000 to 30000 jobs have disappeared and not been replaced. It is about the fact that this Government has not focused on the need of those out of work to be upskilled in order to get employment—things like the training incentive allowance. You Minister know about that. You took advantage of it. So why is it Minister that you have taken it away from people today who want to upskill in order to get into the workforce to get a job? 
If you want to reduce welfare dependency make sure the jobs are there make sure that people are skilled to take up those jobs and make sure that people have affordable early education assistance so that their kids can be looked after. Because for most parents out there their first obligation is to their children. They must look after their children. They must ensure their children have a stable background and every assistance those kids can get. That comes even before finding a job if you are a solo mum or dad. So let us make sure that the prerequisites to getting people off welfare and into jobs are there: jobs skills and affordable early childhood education. This bill is very strong on rhetoric; it is very weak on making any real difference in practice. 
I want you to tell the Committee Minister how it will work if you cut the benefit by 50 percent. Who do you think Minister is going to be the first victim of that? Is this another case of visiting the sins of the parents on the kids? The kids are already ill-clothed ill-fed ill-housed and disadvantaged and will never have the same opportunities as your kids or mine. Are you going to cut the benefit to punish the parent? Yeah come on. 
What is our social security system about? It is about a social contract. People do have an obligation if they are able to work to go out there and find the work. But you can do that with strong case management. You know that Minister. You know that to be the truth. If somebody is not working who should be you look at their drug or alcohol problem for example. Do not increase the pokies at Skycity. That will not help. Do not be gutless about your alcohol legislation and reducing dependency. That will not help. It is about addressing the problems. If they are unskilled do not cut $53 million out of the skills budget as you did 2 years ago. Do not cut the training incentive allowance because you will only make the problem worse. 
I believe that people have obligations to their community that there is a social contract and that our community has the responsibility to make sure that those in need and those who are most vulnerable get support and each of us has the obligation back to our community to contribute as much as we can to get out there and work when we can. Most people want to do this. This bill—