Senator MARSHALL (3:10 PM) —Why am I not surprised that, when this government is confronted with an independent analysis on the effect that its welfare changes will have on welfare recipients, it simply goes into denial mode? Senator Abetz, in answering two questions today about the NATSEM report on the Welfare to Work reforms, discarded the findings, yet did not once offer any reason why—not a skerrick of a reason or an argument for why he would reject the findings. I guess the minister, in his normal arrogant way, in analysing any criticism, might say, ‘Well, what’s another report?’ or, to follow on from Senator Humphries’s line: ‘This is simply about an opposition that wants to whinge and carp on about the welfare reforms that this government has made.’

But NATSEM is not just an independent reporting body. In true Minister Abetz tradition, I ask: who has actually described NATSEM as ‘independent, objective and respected’? Who actually said that? None other than the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister holds this organisation in high regard, describing it as independent, objective and respected, yet the Special Minister of State can simply dismiss its analysis and findings without offering the Senate any explanation. He can simply go on in his arrogant way and say, ‘What we are actually doing is providing people with incentives.’ But, again, he could not go on to tell us what those incentives were.

While the minister at least acknowledged that he had read the report, he could not tell us what those incentives were and, in the face of evidence that there are actually disincentives in these reforms, he marched on with the government’s normal rhetoric. Of course, the minister did indicate what is really behind this: there is a trebling of the numbers of people on a disability support pension. Anywhere else, that is code for the need to cut the costs of that particular program—and the government are good at that. What they want to do is dress it up as incentives but actually cut the costs to the Commonwealth of paying this sort of welfare to anyone, whether or not they deserve it. They do it under the guise of giving people the opportunity to participate but then move on to simply punish people.

It is not just in the disability area that there are disadvantages. The Newstart allowance is $29 a week less than the parenting payment single rate; it is expected to average $228 a week in 2006-07, as opposed to the PPS rate of $257. In addition, people on Newstart may earn only $31 a week before their income support is reduced, as opposed to $76 a week for parenting payment single. Essentially, the free area where the amount of private income does not affect welfare payments will decline sharply, relative to the current rules, by about $45 a week. Under the Newstart allowance, only $31 of private income can be earned before the allowance is reduced. The first $94 of private income earned above the $31 a week threshold will reduce the allowance payment by 50c in the dollar. Once private income exceeds $125 a week, the allowance is reduced by 60c in the dollar.

I cannot quite understand the logic of the minister saying that somehow a disincentive—in terms of the amount of money you actually earn by going to work being decreased—provides any incentive at all for people to re-enter the workplace. This, of course, is a farce. It is simply an excuse for this government to cut its overall welfare budget at the expense of poor people. This government does not care how it saves the dollars. It does not care that it is attacking poor people through its welfare reforms. It does not care that independent analysis says so. It simply persists with its rhetoric that somehow this is a good thing for people on welfare. We in the Labor Party know that it is not and we will continue to expose this sham for what it is. If you want to do the right thing, provide real incentives for people. Do not call it an incentive when you are actually cutting what people earn. (Time expired)