Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

This bill introduces a range of new measures designed to build a simpler, stronger and more sustainable welfare system. It will provide incentives and support for recipients to address barriers to finding and keeping a job. I thank all members and senators for their contribution on this comprehensive reform. From 20 March 2020, this bill will replace seven existing payments with one new jobseeker payment. Over 99 per cent of people will be no worse off under this change. Newstart allowance, sickness allowance, wife pension, bereavement allowance and widow B pension will cease from 20 March 2020.

Existing bereavement allowance recipients will continue to receive bereavement allowance for the remainder of their bereavement period following 20 March 2020. New applicants will receive bereavement support through the jobseeker payment. Widow allowance will close to new recipients from 1 July 2018 and close completely when all remaining recipients have transferred on to the age pension by 1 January 2022. Partner allowance will also close on 1 January 2022. The bill will also strengthen the employment focus for mature-age jobseekers while still recognising that volunteering can be a valuable stepping stone into paid work. Data shows that mature-aged people are 13 times more likely to find work when actively looking for it.

With the amendments, the bill will now ensure everyone who is eligible for bereavement support through the jobseeker payment or youth allowance other will be no worse off and some will be better off under the new arrangements. Following these amendments, intent-to-claim provisions will now apply to a person in vulnerable circumstances. Vulnerable claimants will include being homeless, affected by a major disaster or family and domestic violence, a recent humanitarian entrant, or recently released from prison or psychiatric confinement. For all other claimants the date of claim will be the date the claim is lodged rather than the date they initially contact the department.

The bill contains two measures to strengthen requirements for jobseekers who have substance abuse issues that may be preventing them from meeting their mutual obligation requirements. These measures better encourage and support these jobseekers to get treatment so that they can find work. From 1 July 2018 a new Job Seeker Compliance Framework will provide more support to those who are genuinely trying to meet their obligations while also introducing strong penalties for the small number of jobseekers who persistently and deliberately do not meet their mutual obligation requirements. The government has also agreed to introduce an additional demerit to the framework so that jobseekers would generally not face a lasting penalty until their sixth failure without good reason. This will mean that penalties are targeted only at those who are persistently and deliberately non-compliant.

Under the current framework 93 per cent of penalties for serious or persistent noncompliance are waived, and there is no consequence for the majority of jobseekers who repeatedly fail to meet their requirements or who refuse an offer of suitable work. There will still be discretion for providers and the Department of Human Services when it comes to deciding whether a jobseeker has a good reason for missing their requirements. It is critical to ensure that our welfare system remains strong and sustainable into the future. These reforms will help to do this. They are an important step towards creating a simpler system that is more work focused and more supportive of people who are receiving working age payments.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Disability and Carers (House)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I indicated yesterday when we looked at these detailed amendments before they were sent back to the Senate, Labor won't oppose the amendments to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017, because they do marginally improve the bill. But I want to reiterate very strongly here today that Labor opposes this bill. It is mean. It will result in around 80,000 vulnerable Australians facing cuts to support. And, as the chief executive of the Australian Council of Social Service said:

We are deeply disappointed that the Welfare Reform bill will pass parliament because—

and I really want to emphasise this point—

it will worsen the lives of people experiencing disadvantage.

This is what the Australian Council of Social Service is trying to say to this government, which unfortunately is completely deaf to their pleas—that this bill 'will worsen the lives of people experiencing disadvantage'. Ms Goldie went on to say:

This Bill will increase already shockingly high homelessness numbers. More than 80,000 people stand to be cut off from payments after just 12 months of this new legislation.

Yesterday I quoted respected columnist Ross Gittins, and I would say to the government: listen to the important messages in his column. He wrote:

You've never seen such a list of pettifogging nastiness, yielding tiny savings to the budget.

The unemployed will no longer be back-paid to the day they lodged their claim, meaning the longer Centrelink takes to process that claim, the longer the jobless go without (or have to go cap-in-hand to outfits like the Salvos) and the more pennies the government saves.

Labor is extremely disappointed that the Senate has passed this bill, even with these amendments—which do improve some parts of it, but certainly nowhere near enough. We do not think this will make Australia a fairer or stronger place. It will make Australia a nastier and meaner place, and everyone on the Liberal side and the Nationals side who is supporting this bill needs to take responsibility for the fact that that is what they are doing with this bill. Labor strongly opposes this bill just as we oppose the other major piece of legislation that this government is trying to get through the Senate this week.

If ever you wanted a description of this government, it's what's happening in this parliament this week. Over in the Senate, the government's trying to hand out $65 billion in the form of company tax cuts to big business and the top end of town, and here we are in this House of Representatives debating this incredibly nasty piece of legislation that will hurt the most vulnerable people in this country. It really sums this government up—give to the top end of town and whack in to the most vulnerable people and that is why Labor is so strongly opposed to both pieces of legislation.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to echo and build on the remarks of the member for Jagajaga. My regret in rising now is that I didn't have time after the last division to go back to my office and put on a black suit, because the irony is that this is a funeral and these are the funeral rites, if I can put it in those terms, for the bereavement allowance. We won't have an opportunity again—because these amendments will go back to the Senate where the bill will be finalised—to remark upon the death of the bereavement allowance. So I'll give what is perhaps a brief eulogy, in the context of the amendment, so that we are really clear what these amendments actually do and what the grubby little deal the government has cooked up with Senator Hanson actually means.

The bereavement allowance was a payment that's existed for many, many a year. It was paid for up to 14 weeks to someone at the age pension rate when their partner had died. It was subject to very strict income and assets tests so it was a well-targeted payment. If you happened to be a pregnant woman and your partner died, it got paid for a bit more than 14 weeks, until your pregnancy ended. That seems pretty reasonable. We've heard the minister say: 'This is all about consolidating payments. There's nothing to see here. Don't you worry about that. It's just kind of chucking a few things together and changing the name.' In the name of welfare reform, what the government really meant by this is saving $1,300 over 14 weeks through shoving people from one rate of the bereavement allowance into a jobseeker payment. It is entirely unclear of course whether pregnant women would have to go and start searching for jobs while they were grieving their partners, depending on whether they were in their pregnancy. That's what the government wanted to do.

Senator Hanson, of course, voted to get rid of the bereavement allowance, then ran around telling Australia that's not what she did—even though she actually did—had a panic and cooked up a completely ridiculous fix, so-called, with the government, which we are now seeing here in the form of these amendments, to make it a bit less awful. That is, to paraphrase the member for Jagajaga, why we are letting these amendments through: because it is a bit less awful than it would otherwise be. Then the minister tried to make us believe in his—what's the right word for his tone, member for Cowan?—calm, reasonable, 'nothing to see here'—that no-one is worse off now because of this weird grubby little deal with Senator Hanson. I think, member for Jagajaga, it took you three or four goes yesterday to finally extract something approximating the truth from him. He finally told us that at least 30 Australians will be worse off because of the way these amendments have been stupidly drafted and conceived. So the government may go, 'Oh, well, we've saved a bit of money.' But I'd look at that and go, 'What on earth are you picking on 30 Australians for? Why are you making them lose $1,300? That's your version of reform? That's going to make an impact on your $23.6 billion deficit, to take $1,300 off 30 grieving Australians? That's your agenda?' I say, shame on you. Vale bereavement allowance. You should be held to account for these kinds of nasty, mean little cuts.

I will finish on a moment of solidarity with the minister. When we finished the debate yesterday—which was longer and more robust, shall I say, than expected—we were walking out and the member for Jagajaga said, 'Well done.' I said, 'It's very disconcerting, I must say, verging on terrifying, having you stare at me while I'm talking.' So I think the minister well knows the pain that I was feeling, given your performance in question time and why you're looking at the table now.