Pat Conroy (Charlton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to discuss the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment and Other Measures) Bill 2015. This legislation proposes a month-long waiting period for job seekers under the age of 25 to access income support. This is in addition to a one-week waiting period for all working-age payments, excluding the widow allowance. This legislation proposes changes to the amount that people on income support and student payments can earn before their rates are reduced. This legislation revives the plan to increase the age at which Newstart is payable to young people from 22 to 24 years. And it proposes the cessation of the low-income supplement, an annual compensation payment for low-income earners that was part of the carbon price policy. This is despite the Prime Minister's repeated promises before the election to keep the compensation without the carbon tax. With the exception of the removal of the low-income supplement, Labor opposes these measures. We have already fought many of these measures once and we will do so again.

The budget describes the rationale for one-month waiting period as being to:

… set the clear expectation that young people must make every effort to maximise their chances of successfully obtaining work.

But there are a range of reasons why young people are losing their jobs or are unable to work more hours or simply cannot find more work. Current economic conditions have created significant barriers for young people to find work, particularly in regional areas like that which I represent. In some parts of the Hunter region, youth unemployment is a staggeringly high 18.6 per cent. Declining employment in mining and manufacturing is of course having an impact, as is the reduced availability of lower skilled jobs on the market. The decline in apprenticeships has further restricted meaningful work opportunities for young people. However, young people are actively working, job seeking or getting job ready. Recent labour force data showed more people under the age of 19 years were either in the labour force or in education than ever before. So, despite weak employment growth, participation is increasing and young people are already 'earning or learning'.

Making ends meet on welfare payments is not easy. We on this side know that, given a chance, most people would choose the satisfaction and remuneration that comes from having a job over the alternative. This is not limited to young people. We also know that not every young person wants, or has the opportunity, to go to university. High-school completion rates in my region are below the state average, and over a quarter of the residents of Charlton have a TAFE qualification. Young people who want to work should be supported, not punished. Likewise, those who want to study or learn a trade should have the opportunity to do so without being penalised if they work at the same time. This legislation will impact on those young people who choose to follow either of these paths.

Forcing young people to endure a month without any income is a sinister idea. Without doubt, it will cause financial, physical and emotional hardship. As Gerard Thomas, from Welfare Rights, put it:

Many people wouldn't be able to survive four weeks without a pay cheque. Why is it any different for young people?

It is a sad indictment of this government that this policy could be considered better than their first attempt, which sought to impose a six-month waiting period for job seekers under 30 years of age and then provide income support for only half of every year. If this current idea is sinister, then that was diabolical. Neither is demonstrative of good government.

What does a month without income mean for young people? It could see the depletion of modest savings or it could mean going into debt or high-risk financial situations in order to make ends meet. For many, it will mean that mum and dad or others are left to help with living expenses, which for many low-income families will be an incredible burden. For many, it will mean losing a house or a rental property that has been exceptionally difficult to secure in the first place. At worst, though, it will be total desertion, leaving some young people with nowhere to live and no ability to provide for essentials. The underlying principle of this bill and the previous budget proposal is that every young person who is out of work has a family to fall back on and those families have resources to support these young people. I would submit that there are many young people without a family to rely on and there are even more young people who do have a family but a family whose resources are already stretched close enough to breaking point. This bill neither understands nor reflects that societal reality. That is a massive problem with this bill, and that is why the bill should be opposed. Add to the mix the fear and frustration of job seeking and the demoralisation that occurs if you are being knocked back time and again. Add to it the stigmatisation of being unemployed. Securing housing, loans and any future line of credit will be more difficult as a result. You will be labelled a 'leaner' by this government that lacks a social conscience and cannot understand that, when we lift the lot of those most vulnerable, we all benefit.

I have spoken about this policy with charities and community groups in my electorate. They tell me there is absolutely no doubt it will drive young people into severe financial hardship and place further pressure on the not-for-profit sector. I have spoken with constituents who call my office or send me emails. They tell me it is not fair or dignified to expect the families and friends of young people to cover their cost of living whilst they are without income for a month and that it could even lead to more welfare dependency, not less. They fear that, at worst, crime rates will go up. This is a measure condemned by the Australian Council of Social Service, the National Welfare Rights Network, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, Mission Australia and a range of other community sector groups.

The previous legislation I referred to was rejected by those in the other place and was described by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights as 'incompatible with the right to social security and the right to an adequate standard of living'. And yet still the government is persisting with this new incarnation. A one-month waiting period will still hurt young people when they can least cope with it; it will still engender poverty and vulnerability in the least resilient families; and it is still part of the profoundly ideological agenda of this government. We can only conclude that this kind of aversion to the social safety net is an idea so deeply ingrained in the ethos of the modern Liberal Party that they are either blinded to the harm they will do by denying it to young job seekers or they have absolute disregard for the ramifications if they do.

I acknowledge that this is not a debate about the adequacy of income support levels, but it is worthwhile to note that, three days before this year's budget was delivered, the Councils of Social Service Network released a report on social security payments which showed that almost all recipients of Newstart payments or youth allowance do not consider the payment rate sufficient to meet cost-of-living expenses. More than a third of survey participants were forced to skip dental and medical appointments or forgo treatments because they could not afford to pay for them. Nearly one in five reported missing meals in an effort to make ends meet.

I would hope that both sides of the House agree that the safety net is precisely that—a safety net. It is a means to ensure no-one has to live in poverty. It is the basic right of every Australian. But it is also an investment in the future. It means we support access to education, health care and housing—the necessities which everybody needs to have the chance of generating an income and participating in society. Young people are the next generation of workers, thinkers, leaders. But should this bill become law it will change the way we support young people at a critical time, when they are moving from study to the workforce, when theirs is the first job to go in tough economic conditions, or when their skills and experience do not match the needs of the employment market. We would be deserting them and destroying the safety net we are so rightly proud of.

This bill includes an allocation of around $8.1 million in emergency relief payments, an acknowledgement that people will be forced to seek assistance to make ends meet. So the government cannot argue that these measures will not place young people in financial hardship, because the proof is already in the bill and the government is already anticipating the impact of this bill's measures. What does this say about this Liberal government? As legislators, should it not be incumbent on us to avoid taking action that will knowingly push people into poverty? I have spent time with emergency relief providers in my electorate, some of which receive funding from the federal government. Emergency relief payment provision for the Samaritans in Toronto and Teralba and the Salvation Army in Bonnells Bay, for example, are all supported by the government. There are many more services in my area run by church based charities and community centres who do not receive federal government funding and who rely on donations from the community to keep going. They are all telling me that demand is increasing and that they are already under pressure. I know that should this bill be successful their ability to meet the needs of the community will be stretched, and I fear it will be to breaking point.

Following the devastating storms in April, many people experienced damage to their properties, loss of electricity and water and, for some, loss of income. For so many people, this was a catalyst for financial hardship. Pensioners, families and low-income earners, for example, who under ordinary circumstances manage to make ends meet, were caught out by the unexpected costs that came along with this event. For some it was losing all the food in their fridges and freezers during the power outage; for others, it was the cost of fuel to run the generator for a few days. Even the simple fact that children could not attend school for days or weeks added to some family budgets. It became evident to me very quickly that emergency relief services were experiencing increased demand for food packages and utilities support in the aftermath of the storm.

These charities do not turn people away. They do whatever it takes to help. Their role in supporting the vulnerable in the community cannot be underestimated. My Hunter Labor colleagues and I made an appeal to the Minister for Social Services for urgent, one-off funding to support the work of these ER providers in the Hunter region. It is with pleasure that I inform the House that the minister's office has informed me that top-up funding of some $62,000 is to be delivered to some existing emergency relief providers. I take this opportunity to thank the minister and his staff for their time and effort in responding to this request. I know this will be welcome news for some of the emergency relief providers in the Hunter region.

I would also like to point to this as an example of the government and the Hunter local members working together towards a shared goal of supporting our communities, as we should be. This place is often a chamber of hyper-bipartisanship, but this was a great example of both sides of politics putting politics aside and uniting for the common good. I would note that the reason we requested this emergency relief funding was the tightened eligibility criteria for this disaster. Prior to the 2013 Blue Mountains bushfires, disaster relief payments were provided to people in affected communities when they had a power outage for over 48 hours. Unfortunately, since then, this eligibility has been restricted quite significantly to require 25 per cent damage to a house in addition to the power outage. This meant that hundreds, if not thousands, of families in my area who would have received disaster relief payments were excluded. This is a massive dent in the budgets of many families in my area—a massive dent that could have been avoided by retaining the previous disaster relief payment guidelines. Nevertheless, I do thank the Minister for Social Services for freeing up $62,000 of additional funding to my emergency relief providers. It is important, and I do appreciate the gesture. It will help many families in my area and many charities and community groups to get back on their feet after this very significant natural disaster.

The government recently released details of the number of claims made, including details of around 450 claims from the 15 local government areas covered by the program, which were flagged for further examination amid allegations of fraud. I condemn fraud in the strongest possible terms, and of course I am perplexed by this narrative. When I met with Centrelink representatives shortly after the payments were announced, one of the first questions I asked was about the self-assessment method and whether there was a risk of exploitation. I was assured, quite rightly, that there should be no barriers between those affected by natural disasters and the government's ability to support them in a timely way. Logic tells you it is not feasible to withhold a payment of this kind until an assessor has verified every claim. There are physical, geographical, efficiency and compassionate reasons this system is in place, and I accept that. But I find it odd that the government, in particular the member for Paterson, who made several comments to local media, did not mention or defend this process at all.

Again, I cannot stress more firmly that fraudulent behaviour is not to be tolerated, but at a time that called for a compassionate and supportive response, when the limits of almost all Hunter residents had been tested, we got more of the 'rorters and fraudsters' and 'lifters and leaners' rhetoric from this government. And that is very disappointing. It points to the deeper symbolism in this bill, because this bill is symptomatic of a government obsessed with dividing Australia. Whether it is changes to the pension assets test, whether it is the debate around citizenship or whether it is the debate around reforms to the Racial Discrimination Act, this government is intent on dividing the country. They make narrow political assessments that by attacking certain minorities they can cobble together a majority of people to re-elect them at the next federal election. They may be right. I hope they are not. I am proud that Labor is fighting against this divisive approach to politics. Even if they are right, we are a poorer country for such an approach. We are a meaner country for such an approach and ultimately history will judge the Prime Minister, those in his cabinet and those in his government very poorly for taking such an approach.

We saw that in the last few years, when there was cause to reassess the legacy of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom—another example of someone who divided society in order to rule it. In the end, history was not kind to that period of UK history. I urge a note of caution. I urge people to think very carefully before they demonise job seekers, part pensioners, ethnic minorities and other minorities in this country who have no guilt in these matters and who are merely trying to survive in this country and merely trying to advance their families. I urge everyone in this place to take a step back, to take a deep breath and to think very carefully about the demonisation that is symbolised in bills such as this one.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context