Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

Monday 23 March 2020 is a day I will never forget. It is a day that none of us will forget. Long queues formed outside Centrelink shopfronts around the nation. We all remember them on our television screens. I could see them in my electorate as I drove to work, as others could. I went to a queue in Rockdale, and people were in shock. There were phone calls to my office from anxious residents in the Barton electorate, as well as around the country. They were anxious and confused by the rapidly changing circumstances and about what support would be available to them. Coronavirus had hit. It was more than a health emergency. It presented an economic emergency too, collectively as well as individually. Phone lines to Centrelink were inundated, and the myGov website crashed.

The coronavirus reminded Australians about the randomness of finding oneself in hardship. I've always said the loss of a job or being unable to find one is often beyond the control of individuals. There are demographic factors that influence employment prospects, as well as the period of time spent unemployed. But they are often beyond an individual's control. They may be demographic, as I said, but there are other factors.

Workers over 55, for example, experience the most difficulty re-entering the workforce—women, in particular—as a result of structural barriers and age discrimination, but these are factors beyond one's control. Tertiary qualifications or a lengthy career are also no safeguard from unemployment later in life. I have heard so many stories from workers in their 50s and 60s who have worked all their lives and who never, ever imagined they would experience long-term unemployment. I know other members in this chamber also know those stories. These workers never envisaged that they would be spending their 50s and 60s struggling, pushed to the edge of poverty and hardship. It just reiterates the randomness and the unexpectedness of unemployment.

No-one really chooses to be out of work. Labor believes in the best of Australians. Labor understands that people are proud and families take pride. Labor understands that Australians just want a good job, to contribute and to build a life for themselves and for their families. We understand that, sometimes, Australians just need a bit of help when they are in between jobs. There are some families and individuals who, through no fault of their own, will never compete in the labour market, and this is such an important point to understand. It could be absolutely entrenched disadvantage, beyond what any of us could imagine. It could be mental illness. It could be family dynamics. There are seven Australians on JobSeeker for every job vacancy. Think about that, and think about a figure which was relayed to me yesterday by the Unemployed Workers Union: there are 60 Australians on JobSeeker for every entry-level job—60. It really is unfathomable that the government continues to insinuate that Australians are choosing to be unemployed. They are not.

We also understand the economic function that our social security safety net plays. Australians receiving income support spend it on local businesses, helping to sustain local jobs. There is an economic imperative. It's not just about supporting Australians looking for a job; it's about sustaining jobs too. This bill will increase the base rate of the working age payments by $50 a fortnight, or about $3.57 a day, from the end of March. But the reality is that, for the 1.3 million Australians on JobSeeker, there will be a $100 per fortnight cut to their household budgets. That is an undeniable reality. This is because the coronavirus supplement, currently $150 a fortnight, will come to an end at the same time.

Let me be very clear: Labor is not going to stand in the way of this increase, as modest as it is. An increase is an increase. And we will not play cruel political games with this bill or with the lives of people who are doing it tough at the moment, who rely on this increase the most. We will not jeopardise this increase. The simple constitutional reality is that only the government can increase expenditure. Let me be clear, crystal clear: only the government can set unemployment payments at a higher rate. Any amendments to this bill will simply not work, whether made in the Senate or the House. Labor is calling on the government to use the power of the Treasury benches to do the right thing.

This is why I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the effect of this bill will be to cut unemployment payments by $100 per fortnight at the end of March, at the same time as JobKeeper is ending; and

(b) over 1.3 million people are on unemployment payments—almost double the number before the pandemic; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) abandon its counterproductive and punitive plans for a dob-in-a-jobseeker hotline that will only make life harder for job seekers and employers by further increasing mutual obligation requirements at a time when unemployment and underemployment is high;

(b) consider allowing people to keep more of their earnings from part-time, casual or seasonal work, to help people move into employment; and

(c) do more to support Australians facing poverty and hardship—through adequate payments to those who need them, housing, addressing child poverty, and better health and education services".

If Labor were in government, we would approach this whole issue very differently. We would focus on job creation, on poverty reduction and on how much it actually costs to get by. But we are not in government, and any amendments relating to money simply cannot work. Only the government can increase expenditure, and the Prime Minister has made it clear that he is not open to considering any change. We all know this. Moving money amendments to this bill only does two things. Let me say that again. Moving money amendments to this bill only does two things: it cruelly offers false hope to the most vulnerable people in our country, and it risks playing chicken with people's lives by delaying this bill, which has to pass the parliament this week if payments are not to go way back down to the pre-pandemic rate.

I'm also very disappointed and surprised that the government is cutting in half the amount of money a person can earn before losing their payment. One of the best ways to help people into work, particularly if it is casual or seasonal, is to let people keep more of their payments in the beginning so that they are not worried about having to wait again to get access to help when their short-term job ends. In their submission on this bill, the National Youth Commission said:

The low-income free area is a disincentive to seek work … The existing income test cuts in when young people begin to pay income tax, reducing the rewards from work. The combined effect of income test taper rate and income tax is the 'effective marginal tax rate'. The taper rate at 50-cents in the dollar plus the actual marginal tax rate of 19 cents for incomes over $18,000 per year creates an effective marginal tax rate of 69 cents above the income free threshold. The effective tax rate becomes 79 cents in the dollar at the 60-cent taper rate. These are higher than the top marginal tax rate of 47 cents applied to annual incomes over $180,000.

People deserve better than that.

Too often, discussions about social security do not put the people affected front and centre. Living in poverty or getting by on very little is really, really difficult, and it is the reality far, far too many Australians experience. Child poverty exists in this country, for over a million children. Poverty is a reality for many of the people we represent, and many of those people are in National Party seats. In a country like Australia, we should not have poverty. There should be opportunity and security for all, particularly for children.

No-one chooses to be on income support. It's exhausting: navigating and negotiating payment plans, hunting down the cheaper options, dealing with public transport, and coming up with excuses or explaining why you can't come along or can't participate. That is to say nothing of the stress, the worry and the anxiety, knowing that bills are due or that a lease is up or that you won't be getting enough casual hours of work. It's very hard to secure a good and decent job if it comes along. All of this is simply out of reach for so many people. It is hard to have a go when you can't even get a go. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer were the last people to come to the table to acknowledge that the rate of JobSeeker is too low. Labor and many others have long been calling for an increase to the rate of unemployment payments. This includes academics and experts, as well as the Governor of the Reserve Bank, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Retailers Association and the Council for Small Business of Australia, just to name some of them. Recently the Governor of the Reserve Bank said:

For me it's not a macroeconomic management issue, it is a fairness issue: what is the appropriate level of support we should provide to people who are unemployed?

He also warned that there was still quite a long way to go before we reach our goals of full employment and inflation consistent with that target, due to substantial spare capacity. There simply aren't enough jobs in Australia for everyone who needs one. There are almost twice as many people relying on unemployment payments as there were before the pandemic. The last figures from February show that there are 192,000 vacancies compared to over 1.3 million people relying on unemployment payments. The sums don't work. There are seven people on unemployment payments for every one job vacancy. Those figures are averaged. In some electorates that are represented by people in this place, the figure is much lower in terms of vacancies and higher in terms of people who are on unemployment payments, and that doesn't begin to count all those Australians who are unemployed or underemployed but who are not receiving payments.

For those getting by on payments, this increase will not end poverty, but it will reduce the depth of hardship that would be caused by going all the way back to the old Newstart rate at the end of March. The ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods told the inquiry into this bill:

For the people who were on that payment prior to COVID, basically it returns to the previous rate. With the slight increase we have seen in the JobSeeker payment by $50 a fortnight, there is a small reduction in that poverty rate. So, instead of it being around 83 per cent, it has come down to about 80 per cent.

For so many, it will be incredibly tough, after the increased payments that the government rightly switched to during the pandemic, to have to go back to juggling, to going without and to the sleeplessness and stress that people truly experience.

Australia's social safety net is a proud Labor legacy, which is helping Australians to age with dignity, helping Australians who are sick or unwell and unable to work, and helping Australians to get by while they are looking for work. It was the Fisher Labor government that introduced the age pension back in 1908 and it was the Curtin Labor government that introduced social security for unemployment in the wake of the Second World War in 1945. Australians were willing to accept a social safety net because Australians understand the random nature of misfortune. Australians understand that the loss of a job, or being unable to find one, is usually beyond one's control. Workers can rest assured that, should they ever find themselves out of work, the social safety net will be there to help them make ends meet. Workers should have peace of mind that they will still be able to put food on the table, keep the roof over their heads, pay the bills and look after their children.

The government's appalling legacy, on the other hand, has been to cut and undermine the social safety net. Their lack of compassion has been on full display. They know the situation they have put people in. If it were up to some in the government, there would be no increase in social security payments. With the help of the Greens and the crossbench, they have been able to cut over $12 billion from social security. This includes things like cutting the pension for 370,000 people by changing the assets test, completely cutting the schoolkids bonus, cutting pensioner concessions and freezing the family tax rate. Labor opposed each and every one of these cuts. Labor has also been able to block another $12 billion in cuts to the pension and social security. These include things like the government's plan to make people under 30 wait six months for unemployment payments—imagine that in a pandemic; cutting family tax benefits; increasing the pension age to 70; cutting PPL and calling mothers 'double dippers'; and scrapping the energy supplement for new applicants. And no-one will forget that this is the same government that gave us robodebt.

In this parliament, Labor have stood up for those on social security, and we will continue to do so. But improvements to the system cannot be made from opposition. A Labor government would approach issues of equity, poverty and social security in a much more compassionate way than those opposite. Labor can't undo all the damage done by this three-term Liberal-National government, but in every budget a Labor government will make helping those in need a priority, and we will balance payment rates against other investments in housing, jobs, health and education.

This government's punitive and counterproductive mutual obligation changes will not do anything to help Australians looking for a job. If the best the government can come up with for the two million Australians looking for a job is a hotline for employers to report people who haven't agreed to a job, regardless of the reason, they really are showing the hallmarks of a tired and empty eight-year-old government. In a list of all the bizarre things to emerge from this clueless government, a hotline to report people for missing an interview has to be near the top. Where is the hotline for people who have been systemically underpaid? This isn't a plan for jobs—this is a bizarre hotline that will inevitably see the government hound people looking for work rather than help them into a job—and neither are the changes that require those on the job hunt for over six months to undertake short courses, instead of making a real investment in their skills, nor are the plans for jobseekers to apply for 20 jobs per month. The government has no real plan for the millions of Australians who have found themselves without work because of this pandemic.

Labor will also be moving a detailed amendment to put some principles into the mutual obligation system. I'll be totally clear: Labor supports and believes in mutual obligations. We support mutual obligation. It is an important part of the Australian social contract. However, it needs to be mutual; it needs to be based on reciprocity. Mutual obligation should not be a punishment. It should help a person looking for work and it should be about making a contribution to society, either directly or by preparing people for the workforce.

I've heard countless stories of people who are being utterly failed by the current system—'just sit on a computer' or being told the wrong time for an interview. There are many other examples that I know people will be talking about. People are offered pointless training jobs and refused practical help. They are told to apply for jobs that require a car when they don't have one. They are told to apply for jobs that require physicality that many people do not have. That's to say nothing of the discriminatory Community Development Program, which subjects First Nations Australians to excessive and arbitrary requirements instead of working with communities on jobs and projects that matter locally.

Over the forward estimates, $8.5 billion will be spent on unemployment services. Taxpayers and jobseekers need to know that this very significant investment is actually going to help people prepare for work. Labor's amendment will require mutual obligation rules to help people to get a job or to get the skills to get a job; to take into account the availability of suitable jobs and a person's skills; to take into account a person's personal circumstances, including caring responsibilities, access to transport, medical conditions and disabilities; and to not be an unnecessary burden or annoyance to employers. The last point is very important. Under the government's plan there would be at least 141 applicants for every single vacancy. We know from speaking to employers that in many cases there are hundreds or even thousands of applications to some jobs. It annoys them, it makes them feel powerless and it means a dreadful outcome for people applying for these jobs.

There is a better way to do this. Punitive mutual obligation does not create jobs; it just wears people out—both those who are unemployed and employers. The Australian Retailers Association told a Senate inquiry:

We think it doesn't really add to solving the real problem here.

…   …   …

The concern we would have is it may just drive the wrong behaviour: that people go through the process just for the purpose of securing unemployment benefits. That could just add more administration and costs to the retailers going through that process.

This point is so important. 'Mutual' means reciprocity. 'Mutual' means two ways. My fear is that this government sees mutual obligation as a one-way street for people who are experiencing great difficulty and want to do the right thing. The mutual obligation that the government's proposing is not mutual obligation; it's just harassing people. Labor believes, as I said, in mutual obligation. It's a fundamental tenet to the contract that people enter into. People understand this, but it has to be a two-way street. Labor's amendments are a set of principles that should guide mutual obligation in the social security system. They are principles that we have thought about, they are principles that will work, they are principles that apply the important point of mutual obligation in a mutual way.

In conclusion, we will not be giving cruel false hope to people by moving money amendments that simply cannot succeed because of the rules of the parliament. The only way to change the budget is to change the government. In every budget a Labor government would make helping those in need a priority. Poverty will be high on our agenda, and we will balance payment rates against other investments in housing, jobs, health and education. I want to finish my contribution today by saying that we will not vote against this bill, because it does mean more money into the pockets of those who are unemployed. However, I want this House to listen carefully to what I have said today in this contribution. It is important for 1.3 million Australians, and who knows what the change for those 1.3 million people will mean when JobKeeper finishes. The Treasurer has said—twice now, two days in a row—that, when JobKeeper comes off, it's going to be 'rocky'. It's going to be rocky for people who don't have employment. It's going to be rocky for people who find themselves lining up out the front of Centrelink. As I started my contribution today by saying, we will never forget Monday 23 March 2020; that was the day that we saw those lines in each and every one of our electorates. And people were frightened. They were shocked. They did not know what the future held. I don't want to see that again.

See this speech in context