House debates

Thursday, 19 October 2017

Bills

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2017; Second Reading

4:22 pm

Photo of Justine KeayJustine Keay (Braddon, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

It is like groundhog day to be back here in the chamber speaking on a bill that again attacks the most vulnerable in our community. I have only been in this parliament a short time—hopefully, I will be here a lot longer—but I can say that, day after day, the government seem to bring into this place legislation that attacks women, pensioners, carers and students. It seems to attack all those who have very limited ability to go out there and get a job because of some reason—whether it is that they have left school before grade 12; they are at home caring for a parent, particularly if they are a young carer; they have a disability and there are a number of barriers in their way; or they are a student in a regional community. The government seem to really not like them very much at all.

With the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2017, it is like the zombie measures of 2014 rearing their ugly heads again. I really like the comment from the member for Bruce earlier today when speaking on this bill that to kill a zombie you need to find its brain. This government has yet to find its brain. I wonder when the Australian public will find that brain—maybe never. Maybe an election is needed for the Australian public to realise that they cannot have a government which continues to attack the people in our community who need our help the most.

I will welcome the opportunity to speak on the second reading amendment to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2017 that will be moved by the member for Jagajaga. I know that people in this House hold the member for Jagajaga in high regard, particularly those on this side. She is a person who has been relentless in her pursuit of fairness. I use the word 'fairness' because I remember hearing the Prime Minister use the word 'fairness' like it was some epiphany to him: 'I can say this word 'fairness' to the Australian public because my 2017-18 budget is about fairness.' How can it be fair to cut payments that help people in our community actually be in a position to go out there and get work? This is what the bill does. Those on the other side just cannot seem to help themselves. They bring forward a bill that, in part, Labor could support; yet there is absolutely no way we could support most of the bill, because it is simply not fair.

It is just rank hypocrisy that people on the other side have been walking around this week wearing Carers Week badges and lining up to have their photo taken in front of Carers Week posters to say 'I support carers'. What I can say for the carers in my community is they would not be very supportive of this bill. I don't know what the members on the other side think when they talk to carers, particularly young carers who have had to sacrifice years or maybe even full-time education in the state system to look after a sick parent and might think, 'I've got some time; I might go out and study part-time, and there are some payments I can get from the government to help me do that.' But this bill cuts those payments. It is absolutely shameful.

I want to talk about those payments, because there is a young person in my community that I know very, very well who is a young carer. He has been trying very hard to better his education because when he was at school he had to sacrifice so much time to look after his mother. His name is Jaeyden. Jaeyden has just turned 18 and he is a full-time carer for his mother. Earlier this year he visited this parliament with other young carers, as part of a delegation of young carers from across Australia, to raise awareness of the struggles they face. They met with the minister. I was in the room, and the minister seemed quite engaged with what these young carers were saying about the support they need to be in a position to access education and to be able to afford to do that. But it seems that was paying lip service to the situation of Jaeyden and other carers, if this legislation is any indication.

I have known Jaeyden since early last year and I would like to share with the House his story, as published in our local newspaper almost 12 months ago. He is one of an estimated 73,800 carers in Tasmania. That's a huge number for a small state like Tasmania. Jaeyden looks after his mother, who has been diagnosed with a heart condition. The article says:

Jaeyden takes his mother to her appointments, cooks and cleans.

Besides having the responsibility for looking after his mum's medication, Jaeyden also manages his family's finances and cares for his siblings.

And he's been doing this for a long time. It says:

He's been his mother's primary carer for three years and has helped manage her chronic condition since he was 10 years old.

It wasn't until he was 13 people recognised the role he'd taken on.

It continues:

This is a tough job that is deserving of a reward, not a punishment.

Jaeyden, is not unlike many other carers in our community who are on call 24-hours a day, and the effects on their lives is real and worthy of more than just negativity from the Turnbull Government.

Let's look at what is in this bill in relation to someone like Jaeyden who may decide to study part-time—and I know he has. This bill reinforces the point made by the shadow minister and other speakers on this side that this legislation is about cutting payments to people that really need them—those people whose study load is 76 per cent or less. A person whose study load is between 51 per cent and 75 per cent has their payment cut by $52 in the case of an education entry supplement recipient. A similar pensioner education supplement recipient has their payment cut by $15.60. That may not seem like a lot of money to those on the other side, but if you speak to these people it is a huge amount. It is the difference between making ends meet and not making ends meet in those households. A person whose study load is between 26 and 50 per cent has their payment cut by $104 in the case of an education entry supplement recipient. A similar pensioner education supplement recipient has their payment cut by $31.20.

I know that for the member for Wentworth and many on the other side these aren't huge sums of money, but for people like Jaeyden it is a lot. It goes to demonstrate how out of touch those on the other side are—or they just don't care. The most vulnerable, the group this government constantly targets, the group famously described by the former Treasurer as 'leaners', are again being attacked. Yet, if they really want to get ahead and undertake study, they are punished.

Jaeyden has completed three community service diplomas but has had to stop doing this because of his caring responsibilities. Clearly, he is unable to study full-time. This is a concept I think those opposite don't quite grasp—that these people really are not in a position to study full-time. It doesn't seem to matter to those opposite. But, if someone like Jaeyden wants to return to study, why should he be punished?

There is another aspect of this bill that I think those opposite really don't understand either. It's the continual attack on women—

Debate interrupted.

Photo of Tony SmithTony Smith (Speaker) Share this | | Hansard source

The honourable member will be able to continue her remarks when the debate resumes.