2GB – Summer Drive
E&OE
MICHAEL MCLAREN:
Now, there’s an element of musical chairs to all of this, I know, but for those that live and breathe politics, the elevation of Christian Porter is a welcome move. He has outstanding ability and he’s a bit of a rare light in Canberra because, put simply, he’s bright.
Now, the role of Attorney-General won’t be completely foreign to him either, because he held the role in the WA Parliament simultaneous to being Treasurer before coming into federal politics. So, look, I think this is a good move by the PM. But Christian Porter, let’s not forget, leaves behind quite a legacy from Social Services as well, not afraid to say some pretty blunt and honest things about the welfare culture that exists out here from time to time. Anyway, the incoming Attorney-General/outgoing Social Services Minister is good enough to join us on the line this afternoon.
Christian Porter, thank you for your time.
MINISTER:
It’s a pleasure.
MICHAEL MCLAREN:
As you come in to replace George Brandis, of course there has been the focus over the last couple of years particularly on counter-terrorism legislation, no doubt that work will continue.
MINISTER:
Yeah, well the two focuses of the Turnbull Government are economic security and national security, so they’re keeping Australians safe and making sure that we’ve got job security and that we’re in good employment, that there’s job growth, that our economy’s growing. So, I guess I’m moving from a portfolio that was part of that economic security space, and we have actually decreased the number of Australians who are dependent on working age welfare by 140,000 people. So, under the Labor Government, they increased the number of people dependent on welfare by 250,000. So, now we’ve got the lowest percentage of people dependent on welfare as a proportion of the working population since the 1980s. So, we’re creating 1000 jobs a day, we’re moving people from welfare to work, and that job goes on, and I’ve been a large part of that job, but I am moving to the other side of the Government’s coin and looking at the safety of all Australians in what is a very important portfolio, not least of which is national security.
MICHAEL MCLAREN:
We’ll go back and look at welfare in just a second. Putting your soon-to-be Attorney-General’s hat on, of course there is some focus at the moment as well regarding family court and family law. Now, no doubt that review process and recommendations will continue under your tenureship.
MINISTER:
Yes. That process was started by George Brandis very wisely, and …
MICHAEL MCLAREN:
[Interrupts] Because there’s a lot of problems there isn’t there? Let’s be blunt.
MINISTER:
Well, there are, and that’s why George Brandis commissioned a review into the family court system, into the family law system. There are problems, but of course it’s one of the most complicated and difficult parts of any national society, is when relationships end and when there are questions of custody and financial matters to be sorted through. So, it is probably the most fraught and difficult area of life in Australia, and the most difficult public policy area to deal with, and so George Brandis, recognising that, commissioned the first thoroughgoing review of the system in a very long time, which will consult widely, hear from people who’ve experienced the system, people who work in the system, people who are going through the system now, and make a range of recommendations, which I expect will come to me. But yes, of course, the nature of that review is to improve the system, particularly for the participants. It has to be more efficient, less litigious; we have to make sure that at that very difficult time for many families, that the process doesn’t make the experience more difficult.
MICHAEL MCLAREN:
We’re talking about improving things for participants in family law. Of course, the group that feel most aggrieved most often – this is certainly who calls the open line – are men. They say the system is skewed in favour of ladies, mothers particularly. Do you concur with that?
MINISTER:
Well, I just don’t think it’s a useful starting point for analysis to say that one side is favoured over the other. In fact, it’s that type of starting point for analysis that causes a lot of problems. Every single set of family circumstances on separation and divorce are going to be different. Ultimately, it’s children whose interests have to be utterly paramount, but the interest of mums, of dads, and children, are not served by having processes that are overly litigious, that are too slow, that are overly expensive. So, there are things that we can do that can improve the system potentially for everyone in it without having to pick whether or not one side or the other needs to be particularly better advantaged or is presently disadvantaged.
MICHAEL MCLAREN:
Alright. Now, regarding free speech, of course under your predecessor, George Brandis, there was an attempt at some point to look at 18C, the Racial Discrimination Act. That petered out and it hasn’t been really revisited since, despite the fact that a number of your conservative colleagues on the backbench are very keen, including in the Senate, to have 18C reworked. Do you have any appetite to give this a crack?
MINISTER:
Well, there were changes made to the relevant legislation. They didn’t go as far as some people would like, they went further than others would like, and of course there were some very significant changes made to the processes of the Australian Human Rights Commission so that we would not see repeats of the very unsound processes that had occurred with university students in Queensland …
MICHAEL MCLAREN:
[Interrupts] Just- sorry, just on the Australian Human Rights Commission, I mean, I’ve argued before, I’ve certainly thrown the idea out there Chris, I mean, why do we have it anyway? Because we have Parliaments to write laws, we have courts to in essence enforce the laws, and we have police to basically ensure that people obey the laws, be they criminal or indeed matters to do with discrimination. There’s no law in place that I can think of anywhere in the books at the federal level which is pro-discrimination. Why do we have a Human Rights Commission, with commissioners being paid upwards of $300,000 a year every year to tell us we’re racist, for example?
MINISTER:
Well, not entirely sure, Michael, I’d agree with that assessment of the [indistinct]…
MICHAEL MCLAREN:
[Talks over] That’s kind of like what Dr Tim Soutphommasane does, isn’t it?
MINISTER:
Yeah, look, there have been some deficiencies in the processes and operation of the Australian Human Rights Commission that have been revealed in recent times. I don’t think that is a reason for scrapping the organisation, but it does indicate that there needs to be a range of improvements, and as I noted, many of those improvements procedurally around 18C are already changes that we have made. But look, any Minister is very wise to come in, have a good look at the pitch before they determine how they’re going to bat, and so I’ll obviously, like any incoming minister, be receiving a range of briefs and receiving a range of views from people who are affected by a number of different agencies.
MICHAEL MCLAREN:
Indeed. That’s very prudent. Now, basically your last hurrah as the Minister for Social Services probably came to light yesterday in part of the MYEFO, where among a range of policies that the Government is going to attempt to pursue in order to bring down the cost of Government, the Federal Government has said that they’re going to extend the wait time for welfare for new migrants from two to three years. Now, I think this is a very sensible move, but naturally there are groups that are out there today saying this is horrendous. The ABC was interviewing one particular Sudanese migrant who said that this was unfair. He said, quote, it’s just like telling a migrant who’s come to a new environment, a new country, from now on you need to start working and contributing to this society, [laughs]. Is that such a bad thing?
MINISTER:
Well, there is a distinction we need to draw. This isn’t a change with respect to the arrangements around humanitarian and refugee entrant, who will still be able to access the welfare system, but overwhelmingly our migration is skilled migration, people who come to Australia for the specific purpose of gaining a very particular type of employment, usually in areas where we can’t find the skills domestically in Australia. And there’s also a family reunion visa category that this change applies to. Now, it might surprise many Australians to know that not merely are there quite short waiting times for things like Newstart and parenting payment, single and partnered, and youth allowance, and carer payment and things of that nature, but for some welfare payments, like family tax benefit, carer allowance, parental leave pay, there’s no waiting time at all.
So, what we have said, and what I think most Australians will find very reasonable, is that our immigration system has always been there to provide assurance that people come to Australia to work and to contribute to our community before they are able to access the welfare system, and that a primary reason for coming to Australia is not primarily to get access to the welfare system. So, if we have reasonable three-year waiting periods, which are consistent across the great range of payments, what we are doing is strengthening the very tight focus of the immigration system to bring to Australia people for the purposes of contributing, not to enter the welfare system.
MICHAEL MCLAREN:
Yes, well I think it’s very sensible, very prudent. Mind you, ACOSS I think have half a point where they say – well, they put this case forward. They say, well, what happens if a migrant comes out here, works, and then loses their job, and they’re still trying to find work? I mean, under this, will they be able to access Newstart? Will they have any sort of welfare to carry them through?
MINISTER:
Well, there’s still an exercise of discretion and a payment category called special benefits, where people, if they’re in types of nominated hardship, that we can exercise a discretion to help them out. But the idea that skilled migrants who come to Australia for the very purpose of taking a job – and usually that job is defined, of course, before they arrive, that it’s well-known – that they should get immediate access into the welfare system. So already a person in those circumstances has a two-year wait once they become a permanent resident before they can access a Newstart payment. Now, we think that three is probably the reasonable amount of time that a person should wait, but what we did find is that historically, when the waiting periods were first introduced and went from effectively nothing to two years, that our immigration levels were effectively unchanged – in fact, they increased – and employment rates amongst the relevant groups of migrants to whom the change applied improved.
MICHAEL MCLAREN:
Which runs counter to what the Migration Council of Australia is arguing today. I mean, you made, I think, which was a very salient point yesterday. You said the new migrants need to contribute to Australia before being eligible for welfare payments. I think that’s sound, but with that established, Christian, should we then probably extend this logic to Australians full-stop – i.e. no welfare after the age of 18 until you work for three years and pay tax?
MINISTER:
Well, I think maintaining a very generous social welfare system for Australian citizens means that we don’t have a contributory system. So, to get a pension or an unemployment benefit, you don’t need to have worked for a period of time beforehand. I think that’s reasonable. However, what we are saying is that if you are a newly arrived resident, you gained permanent resident status, the simple gaining of permanent resident status should not be a pass straight into the welfare system. I think overwhelmingly Australians will agree with that.
MICHAEL MCLAREN:
But with that logic, though, should we have a path straight into the welfare system for people who were born here? I mean, I would argue that your logic RE the migrants is sound, and indeed it could be extended, saving the Government money and encouraging- indeed, if the results were- you put in a bit of a caveat so you can’t get welfare straight away, people go and get work. That’s the migrant experience. Wouldn’t that work for Australian-born too?
MINISTER:
Well, I think you need to tackle a different problem via different means. So, a young Australian who comes out of school, secondary education, and who isn’t engaged in study or can’t find a job, should I think be entitled to receive support, but you need to make sure that the rules are designed to ensure that that person is doing their level best to get themselves qualified to get a job, or is searching for a job, and we have made those changes. So you might remember the Earn or Learn changes …
MICHAEL MCLAREN:
[Interrupts] Earn or Learn, yeah.
MINISTER:
Correct, and it’s these types of changes and greater stringency, integrity and compliance in the system that’s meant that whereas the previous Labor Government had 250,000 more people become dependent under the age of 65 on welfare, we’ve had 140,000 less people, and that we’ve now got the lowest percentage of people dependent on welfare at working age in at least 25 years, and it’s because we’ve tackled the types of problems that you’ve identified through a range of mechanisms. But this particular issue is, I think, particular to skilled migrants and other migrants coming into Australia, and the idea that you would be able to access a range of welfare payments straight away upon being granted residence I think is something that Australians would be very surprised to learn happens at all.
MICHAEL MCLAREN:
Yeah, no one would argue against making that tougher. No one at all, unless of course – I think they’ve got rocks in their heads, so I think you’re on a winner there. I thank you for your time this afternoon. Congratulations on the promotion and I look forward to talking to you again in the future.
MINISTER:
Indeed. Thank you, Michael. Cheers.