Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I start by acknowledging that I have no doubt that every single person that has spoken to this motion this afternoon has come from a place where we want to see the best outcomes for Australians, so we meet united on that front. I also have no doubt that if there is ever going to be a time or place when we should discuss how decisions are made around where money is spent, it is the day after a budget is brought down. I 100 per cent applaud those sitting on the side of the chamber representing the government in their unwavering support of the budget that was delivered last night, but I would ask them at the same time to be open to constructive discussions around where we may have been able to make different choices and where we may be able to do better in future years in the area of budgeting.

According to the Cambridge English dictionary, a band-aid solution is 'a temporary solution that does not go to the cause of the problem'. And, since examining the budget papers last night, I'm sorry to say I actually fear that what was delivered when it comes to lifting people out of poverty and addressing intergenerational inequity was actually typified by a number of band-aids put over areas that actually need fundamental and true reform. The truth is Australia's social security system, unemployment and underemployment, the cost-of-living crisis and the housing crisis are pushing more and more Australians in to poverty. A 2022 snapshot of poverty found there were 3.3 million people living below the poverty line in Australia, including 760,000 children. The impact on young Australians and single parents, the majority of whom are women, is particularly notable. Women experiencing domestic violence are frequently forced to make one of two decisions: stay in a violent relationship, or leave and live in poverty. The most recent data shows that of the 220,000 single mothers in Australia currently accessing single parent payments, three out of five had experienced violence. The additional funding in last night's budget for the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children is welcomed, and, yes, it is overdue through no fault of the current government. But the truth is, while domestic violence breaks families, it is arguably government policy which is leaving them in poverty.

Prior to 2006, a single parent could be eligible for the parenting payment plan up until their youngest child turned 16. Last night, we saw a change in strategy from this government that means single parents can now access that payment up until their child is 14. On behalf of the people of North Sydney, advocates and frontline workers, I was relieved to see this in the budget, and I want to thank the government for progressing it. But the reality is it is arguably a bandaid solution because single parents don't stop caring for their children when they turn 14; the caring cost burden continues through their teenage years. For those of us with teenage children, I hate to tell you: they get more expensive, not less.

In truth, there was very little in last night's budget when it comes to young Australians. There was no relief for rising university debts, little support for those struggling with their mental health and underwhelming action to meet the challenge on climate change. This is creating increasing intergenerational inequity. Hear me out: young people want to own their own home, but, increasingly, it's becoming unlikely. In 1981, 67 per cent of 30-year-olds owned their own home. In 2016, the equivalent figure was 45 per cent. As the Grattan Institute notes, however, this hides an even more disturbing and concerning disparity because there's a huge fall among the poorest young people. In 1981, 60 per cent of the poorest 25- to 34-year-olds owned their own home. Today, that figure is 20 per cent.

We must stop and listen to young people as they tell us what they need and how they want us to respond. Serious steps must be taken to advance housing affordability and availability, which is why I back the housing affordability fund. But we need to look at how we are boosting housing supply, and we need to look at whether that means we should be reducing tax breaks for investment properties which sit empty. We need to see improved outcomes for people who don't own their own homes by changing rental laws to give renters more rights, increasing the supply of social housing and giving an even greater boost to rent assistance.

Ultimately, the government must revisit the long list of productivity enhancing reforms that have been advanced by federal and state productivity commissions to boost long-term living standards. We must get our macroeconomic policy settings right.

See this speech in context