Recently-elected Bass Liberal MHR Bridget Archer spoke with Adam Holmes from The Examiner about poverty, disadvantage and Newstart.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Here's Part 2 of that interview, including questions on Newstart, government responses to disadvantage, the working poor, housing and health funding.
AH: The calls for raising Newstart are coming from pretty much every direction now, including retired Liberal leaders, current MPs Dean Smith and Russell Broadbent, Barnaby Joyce and other Nationals, One Nation, business groups. Should the government do this as an interim measure while all the other aspects that you spoke about are being reviewed?
I think they're two issues.
The position that the government took to the election hasn't changed. I think that's a key point, in that the government position in relation to this issue has not changed from what it took to the election.
I do also think though that you can't just say 'we're not going to raise the rate, but we're not going to look at all these concerns that sit around it'. I think there is a willingness to look at all of these other issues and what can be done to genuinely create meaningful outcomes for people to improve their situations.
AH: At the election, some of the more disadvantaged areas of Bass like Rocherlea, Ravenswood and Waverley had some of the strongest swings to the Liberal Party. How is the government going to repay the faith that disadvantaged people appeared to put in the Liberal Party?
What we've seen, and I spoke about it in my maiden speech, what we've seen in those areas - and it's my own story growing up in those areas - is that people are aspirational and that they are looking to a government that create the best economic environment for them to succeed in their lives, to improve their lives, to get on with living their best lives.
That's what, in part, explains some of those things.
What also explains those is that the Labor Party had lost their way in relation to what they claim is traditionally their base. A lot of the policies that they were promoting were really just so out of touch with those communities.
What I would like to do is what I spoke about throughout the campaign, is to continue to see growth in investment, development and opportunity in Northern Tasmania that's going to drive economic growth and create more opportunities for everybody.
You still have to recognise that some people are vulnerable, disadvantaged and marginalised, and of course we need to do more to assist people in those situations as well.
It is possible to do things at the same time. You can look after small business, you can look after farmers, you can look after tradesmen, and you can look after people that are marginalised and disadvantaged at the same time. It's not an either-or proposition.
AH: Increasing Newstart via the cashless welfare card was reportedly raised in the Liberal partyroom. Is that a proposal that you would support?
There's still some work to be done in relation to that. I believe there are four trial sites currently.
I'm very interested in having a look at it, and seeing how it is rolling out, how it is operating in those communities. Some of the things I have heard in relation to it are particular outcomes that suggest that it has improved statistics around family and domestic violence for example, are very interesting to me.
They're ideas that need to be explored and looked at. If they can have advantages such as that, then they certainly need to be considered as part of a range of measures.
For me, it is about the whole system and looking at where there are common challenges. Anecdotally there are some common challenges relating to the system, cost of living pressures, that we just have to look at it as an entire issue.
My fear, in some ways, in that if we just concentrate on the idea of raising the rate that it's easier for people in a way to turn their mind away from the more widespread structural issues that are causing challenges for people.
AH: The issue of drug-testing welfare recipients has been raised by some Coalition MPs. Is that something that you would support?
I haven't seen enough research or evidence to suggest that it would be something that would be appropriate.
These sorts of things are raised from time to time. In the main, again, I think there are sometimes reactive suggestions rather than what I want to see, which is an evidence-based approach to making meaningful change for people.
AH: You've put the focus on mental health in your first speech. Robodebt is a particularly punitive measure targeting poorer segments of society, that was found to be seriously impacting mental health for some of the most disadvantaged people in the community and possibly leading to suicide. Do you think the way Centrelink tracks down these debts is fair?
It's part of a range of issues that people of individual circumstances have faced.
I would encourage anybody that has any of those sorts of issues, or feels that they are being unfairly or punitively disadvantaged in some way, to get in touch with me, to contact my office and I will be more than happy to see how I might be able to assist them individually.
Some people have done that. I've seen quite a few people in the last few weeks with a range of issues, all different, because people's circumstances are all different.
I would absolutely encourage anybody experiencing those sorts of difficulties or challenges, or feeling uncertain about it, or not sure how to navigate their way through, to get in touch so that we can be of help.
AH: A lot of disadvantaged people also work casually, or are under-employed. We've seen employers - including chains that have outlets in Tasmania - underpaying staff by millions but receiving pretty small fines. Should employers face harsher penalties for underpaying employees, particularly with the rise of the gig economy as well?
There's no doubt it's reprehensible, and at the heart is that it's unlawful.
People are entitled to their entitlements. They're entitled to their pay and their conditions and their entitlements, and if they are not being provided by their employer, then their employer is acting outside of the law and should face the consequences.
AH: George Calombaris got a $200,000 fine for almost $8 million underpayment. Are people right to see a bit of a discrepancy?
There's no doubt it's unlawful, reprehensible behaviour. They should face the consequences for engaging in that behaviour.
AH: I recently spoke with Tasmanian Housing Minister Roger Jaensch, he says the government won't stop in its lobbying of the federal government to wipe the housing debt. Do you think it should be wiped, or are there broader issues still at play?
It's perhaps a knee jerk reaction to a complex problem, a complex issue.
I will continue to have discussions with my colleagues here around the housing issue with Tasmania and I understand that there are still ongoing discussions between federal and state counterparts in relation to the issue of housing debt.
What I would like to see is perhaps a wider look at what are the specific challenges, in what areas do they exist, what can we do better to address that? I think probably there's something we can do to act more quickly.
There is certainly a willingness to act in this space by the state government in terms of building new housing, but depending on if this is practically possible is part of the challenge.
AH: In what ways can the Commonwealth help to ease Tasmania's housing crisis?
I'm not sure what specifically, but certainly I am pleased to see that there is willingness to continue to engage on these issues between the federal and state ministers.
I am certainly keen to see some solutions found either at state or federal level, working together. At the end of the day housing is a matter for the state.
AH: Do you think that the Tasmanian health system is running as effectively as it could be at the moment?
We've got a new minister in Tasmania in that role, she hasn't been in that role for very long, and I'm sure that she will be taking a systematic approach to working through where the issues might exist specifically within the Tasmanian health system.
We've made some commitments during the federal campaign in consultation with the state government with a view to address where some of those specific challenges might be.
Mental health clinics, for example, may address some of the challenges in that specific areas.
I am keen to continue to engage with people that are involved in the health space in Tasmania, and will do what I can to represent their views.
The federal health minister (Greg Hunt) to date has been more than willing to listen and to answer questions.
AH: You would've heard Andrew Wilkie's question the other day about the way the Tasmanian government distributes GST for health funding. He cited analysis that $1.6 billion has been redirected away from health. Do you have concerns that Tasmania may have been short changed in this regard?
No, I don't, because I was also there for the answer that was provided by the minister.
I am reassured by his response that, as we have seen time and time again, there has been record investment in health in Tasmania.
That doesn't mean to say that there's not more than can be done, or that things can't be done in a different way. We'll continue to have those discussions.
I'm meeting next month in Launceston with the AMA, and I'm keen to hear directly from people around what they see to be specific issues with the system.
AH: The $25 million that was mentioned during the campaign - by way of countering Labor's funding promise for an AFL team - how is that going to be provided to the Tasmanian health system?
That was into Northern health projects.
We will work with the state government in terms of timelines of rolling that out along with various other election commitments that need to be worked through.