Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to 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.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Cities and Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remember those lines, and I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Katie Allen (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021. This bill is an investment in the Australian people, helping them to get back into the workforce. It will go a long way to helping vulnerable Australians and will work for those who need it most.

The Morrison government is committed to this $9 billion increase to the pre-COVID-pandemic JobSeeker rate. This equates to about a 10 per cent increase on the government's annual JobSeeker spend and represents, most importantly, the largest year-on-year increase to unemployment benefits since 1986. There will be some people who will say, 'This is not enough,' but let me clarify that this is the first real increase to the unemployment benefit rate since the Keating Labor government increased the rate by $2.95 a week, or 42c a day, in 1992. What we're offering with this bill is a $50 a fortnight increase. That's more than eight times greater than what the ALP had to offer almost three decades ago.

We believe that the base level of support that exists within our social safety net needs to be adjusted, not just for the here and now but for the long term. That is why this increase is permanent. And it is something that all Australians can be proud of. It's about supporting those who are in need. It's about supporting our most vulnerable.

But let me be clear. While the JobSeeker increase is about increasing the safety net for those who need it most, it is not a wage replacement; nor is it an extension of COVID supports or stimulus. As always, the government's key focus is job creation and getting people back into work, because we know that getting a job is the best way to support people and their families.

This bill is timely, as we know, because the COVID pandemic has caused a once-in-a-lifetime disruption to the labour market. All Australians should be proud of our comprehensive welfare system and that it was able to provide emergency support to Australians who found themselves unemployed.

We all saw those huge lines outside Centrelink one year ago, and we all heard the collective sigh of relief right across Australia when the amazing JobKeeper program was implemented—a program that delivered support to those in a job and delivered dignity to those who were finding that their businesses were at risk.

At the beginning of the COVID pandemic, we put in place a series of emergency measures designed to protect Australian livelihoods and lives, and that is what we've done throughout the COVID crisis. We've always kept our eye firmly on the fact that the COVID pandemic was a dual crisis. This crisis was both a health one and an economic one.

By the end of March this year, we will have injected around $33 billion through emergency payments into our welfare system since the start of the COVID pandemic to support unemployed Australians. We backed in Australians facing a crisis that, through no fault of their own, was causing devastation, and, as the Prime Minister has said, we did it the Australian way. The coronavirus supplement, which was our first initiative, helped ensure that we strengthened the safety net that not every country in the world has already had in place but one upon which Australians have relied. At the same time that we announced this increased, strengthened safety net, we said that it had to be targeted, it had to be scalable and it had to be time-limited. Australians know they can expect certainty with our government. We've lived up to our word, and, as the impact of the COVID pandemic continued, we extended but scaled back the supplement as required.

Our emergency measures have worked. The comeback in Australia's economy is already well underway, and it betters the experience of most developed nations in the world today. It's something we can all be proud of, on both sides of the House. It means that we no longer need to rely on the supports which have sustained us during the last 12 months to the same degree. It is time for us to move on past this crisis.

With the commencement of the vaccination program, Australia is comfortably moving into the next phase of how we fight the COVID pandemic. We've aggressively suppressed it, and we're now moving into the vaccination phase. We will continue to battle to secure the livelihoods and lives of all Australians, but now that our vaccine rollout is underway it is time we moved from short-term emergency measures to long-term arrangements that people can rely on should they find themselves out of work.

We need to think about the fact that the economic outlook is improving and the recovery is well underway. The resilience in the labour market reinforces that Australia entered this crisis from a position of labour market and economic strength. Fifty-thousand new jobs were created in December alone, 71 per cent of which were full time, and 785,000 jobs have been created in the last seven months, with 90 per cent of the record number of jobs lost at the height of the COVID pandemic already recovered. Further, the unemployment rate has decreased from 7.5 per cent in July last year to 6.6 per cent in December. That is remarkable. Of the 1.3 million people who lost their job or were stood down on zero hours, 90 per cent are now back at work. Australian job advertisements, measured by ANZ, rose 2.3 per cent in the month of January—the eighth consecutive monthly gain, increasing the annual growth up to 5.3 per cent, with the series at its highest level since April 2019. These are encouraging signs, to say the least. According to the National Australia Bank business survey, both business confidence and conditions have increased above pre-pandemic levels—and their respective long-run average. The economy is pumped, primed and ready. And those facts are simply remarkable. Business conditions rose further in December, increasing seven points to a positive 14 index points, its highest level since late 2018. While consumer and business confidence has recovered as restrictions have come off, this will be further supported by the vaccine rollout.

The bill we debate today will support millions of Australians. In fact, from 1 April, if passed, it will provide 1.95 million Australians who are currently accessing working age payments with a permanent $50 per fortnight increase in their rate of payment. I'm sure they will be relieved to hear that this increase is permanent. In addition, we are also permanently increasing the amount of money jobseekers can earn before they lose a cent of payment up to $150 per fortnight. We are also temporarily extending the waiver of the one-week ordinary waiting period for certain payments for a further three months till 30 June 2021. Further, we'll also be temporarily extending to 30 June 2021 the expanded eligibility criteria for the JobSeeker payment and youth allowance for those required to self-isolate on the basis of directions from health authorities or to care for others as a result of COVID. We know there are still effects from COVID that need to be taken into account as we transition to our post-COVID recovery.

While the comeback in Australia's economy is already underway, we know we continue to confront challenges caused by the COVID pandemic. While we're scaling back the COVID economic stimulus payments, let me be clear that the JobSeeker increase is an increase to the base rate of payment. It is not a cut, as those opposite would have you believe. For it to be a cut, it would have to be a reduction relative to an ongoing measure. JobSeeker is fundamentally important, but so are the other forms of welfare that people can access. It is worth noting that 99 per cent of people on JobSeeker receive additional payments on top of their base rate. For instance, a single renter with no dependants will receive a fortnightly payment of $620 plus an $8.80 emergency energy supplement and $140 in rent assistance, a total of $770 a fortnight. Approximately 685,000 Australians, or 55 per cent of JobSeeker payment recipients, are in this position.

This increase was also not designed with stimulus in mind. The government does not make decisions about safety net supports based on how it will impact aggregate demand. While there may be a second-order effect, it is not the reason that we make changes to payments. In making this decision, we had to consider a range of factors while balancing three key principles: firstly, our responsibility to support those who can't help themselves, and unemployed Australians; secondly, to incentivise people to take up work; and, thirdly, to keep the welfare budget sustainable. Amongst the factors we considered was the fact that the minimum wage has been growing at a faster rate than unemployment benefits. This increase pushes the base rate up to 41 per cent of the national minimum wage, which is up from 37 per cent, putting it at the level it was during the early 2000s. The government also believes it is important for payments to cease before a welfare recipient's income reaches the minimum wage. This means that individuals will always be better off in a job than on welfare. People receiving the base rate of JobSeeker will cease to be eligible for payments once their earnings reach $1,217 per fortnight, or $1,449 for those receiving rent assistance.

The government has always been focused on balancing support for unemployed Australians with incentives to work. We understand that it's hard to live without a job. This JobSeeker increase will work alongside the existing opportunities we provide to upskill and retrain job-seeking Australians and support people back into work. That's why, as a permanent reform, we're increasing the income-free area to $150 per fortnight. We want to encourage all unemployed Australians to dip their toe in the jobs market and take the first step towards re-engaging with the workforce. We know it builds confidence for them. That has been the consistent feedback from businesses in particular industries and regions where recruitment remains difficult, and it has been reflected in firm indicators such as the monthly employers survey conducted by the National Skills Commission. It is not right for these industries to suffer and for taxpayers to reach into their pockets while plenty of jobs go undone, including unskilled and low-skilled jobs that are suitable for a wide range of those who could do them.

This bill will provide people with additional support as the economy continues to recover and they're able to transition back to work. It will allow people to keep more of what they earn as they reconnect with the labour market. This plan is not only significant; it is fair and sustainable for both unemployed people and the taxpayers who fund the support. It is a historic increase in welfare payments, and it should be recognised as such. This is about making sure we get the balance right between support for people while they look for a job and incentives to work. I commend the bill to the House.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for the Republic) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021, increases the base rate of working age payments, most notably the JobSeeker payment, by $50 a fortnight, or about $3.57 a day, from the end of this month. But, in practical terms, people who are relying on social security will face a $100-per-fortnight cut to their household budgets. That's because the coronavirus supplement, which is currently $150 a fortnight, will come to an end at the same time.

For some years now, this has been a vexed issue in Australia. The Labor Party has recognised that the current rate of JobSeeker is way too low and deliberately leaves Australians living in poverty. There's been a chorus of Australians—leaders, former prime ministers, the Reserve Bank governor—who've called for an increase in the rate of the JobSeeker payment. Labor will not stand in the way of this increase, as modest as it is. But the reality is that $3.57 a day will not cut it for most Australians who will be forced to live on this payment for a period of time. The reality is that people will still be living in poverty. Under this government, if this increase goes through, they will still be living below the defined, official level of the Henderson poverty line. That is a cruel reality for many Australians who are trying to make ends meet at one of their most vulnerable times. It's simply not enough.

The other reality is that the only way you're going to get a decent payment from JobSeeker is if there is a Labor government elected in Australia, because it's only Labor that inquires into this and ensures that there are decent increases in social security payments for some of the most vulnerable Australians at their most difficult times, to ensure that they and their families are not deliberately forced to live in poverty. So Labor is calling on the government to use the power of the Treasury benches, to use the power of government, to do the right thing. This really is about fairness and decency for Australian people and about growing the Australian economy and creating jobs, because there's an economic benefit from ensuring that people aren't living in poverty and that social security payments are adequate for people to be able to participate in society.

Too often, discussions about social security do not put the people affected front and centre. Living in poverty or getting by on very little must be incredibly tough. Over the past couple of months, I've met with a number of people in the community that I represent who have lost their jobs because of the recession and are on JobKeeper—even with the supplement—and are telling me about their struggles. I've met historically with people who've been on JobSeeker for many years, pre-COVID, who relayed to me their struggles just to survive and feed themselves and their families, let alone try and find work. It's been the reality for too many Australians for too long.

In a country like Australia, where we have relatively high living standards and are relatively wealthy, people should not deliberately be left living in poverty, but that is the outcome of this government's approach to welfare payments and, in particular, of this change to the JobSeeker payment. It's a full-time job, being poor. That's basically what a few people have told me—negotiating payment plans, hunting down the cheapest options, dealing with inadequate and slow public transport, and explaining to people why you can't come along to events or participate, simply because you can't afford it. And that's to say nothing of the stress or the worry that comes from knowing that bills are due, that a lease is up or that you won't be getting enough hours, because those hours that you may get will only be casual hours. It's hard to be in the best position to secure a job, if and when one comes along, when all your money, time and energy is taken up in just getting by. A haircut, decent clothes, training and transport—all of this is simply out of reach for too many people who are forced to try and survive on this payment. It's hard to have a go when you can't even get a start.

Labor have, for a long time, been calling for an increase in the rate of unemployment payments in Australia, as have many others. They include the Governor of the Reserve Bank, the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Retailers Association, academics and experts, and the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia—just to name a few. Even former Prime Minister John Howard and others from the Liberal side of politics have called for an adequate increase to the JobSeeker payment. I want to point to the words of the Reserve Bank governor, who recently said:

For me, it's not really a macroeconomic management issue. It's kind of a fairness issue on what's the appropriate level of support we should provide to people who are unemployed.

He also warned:

… there is still quite a way to go before we reach our goals of full employment and inflation consistent with the target.

This is due, he said, to 'substantial spare capacity'.

Increasing the rate of JobKeeper to ensure that you try and get people out of poverty is not only the fair and right thing to do; it's also good economic policy, because we all know that people who are on low incomes spend a higher proportion of that income on the necessities of life, if they are given a boost in that income, as we have seen with the coronavirus supplement—which was specifically targeted by this government at ensuring that we were boosting spending in the economy to support investment and to support businesses and to support jobs—and you provide them with a livable supplement. But this struggles to do that.

So we know that people who are on lower incomes, who are struggling to make ends meet, will spend a higher proportion of their income on their needs in the economy. And that's good for jobs. If we're talking about a recovery from this recession, then that is good for jobs. There have been numerous economic analyses which demonstrate that improved income support and improvements in the rate of JobSeeker and unemployment payments will basically pay for themselves over time. The analysis that was done by Deloitte came to a similar conclusion: if you provide an adequate increase in the rate of JobSeeker, it pays for itself in the increased economic activity that's generated from the increased spending, the jobs growth and the income taxation that's generated by that—it's good for everyone. Yet this government can't get past the ideological obsession, which they often have, and their belief that everyone on a JobSeeker payment or something like it is a dole bludger and is gaming the system.

There are simply not enough jobs in Australia for everyone who needs one. There are almost twice as many people relying on unemployment benefits as there were before the pandemic. We know that there could be up to 143 job applicants for every job vacancy when the government's mutual obligation requirements increase. The Senate committee that looked into this particular bill said that, as part of the increase, Australians on JobKeeper were required to apply for 20 jobs per month from 1 July as part of their mutual obligations.

When Labor senators asked officials from the Department of Social Services who fronted the committee whether they were aware how many job applications are expected for each vacancy when the 20-applications-per-month-rule returns, those officials were unable to provide advice and took the question on notice. But there were 192,000 job advertisements in February, based on the Internet Vacancy Index, and 1.38 million people on unemployment benefits, based on DSS data. That means that there could be up to 27 million applications each month, or 143 applications per job vacancy, if this was applied in that particular month. We're calling on the government to explain how it's reasonable to require Australians who are going to be struggling to make ends meet to look for work and to make those 20 job applications per month, particularly given the number of vacancies that we know exist.

The government's also gone further with this. Again, this goes to the ideology of this government and those opposite about people who are receiving supplements such as this. The government's now introducing a hotline for employers to report people who haven't agreed to a job, regardless of the reason. They're really showing the hallmarks of their ideology with this reform. I'm in full support of the amendment that's been moved by the member for Barton asking that this requirement be removed. Of all the bizarre things to emerge from this government, a hotline to report people for an interview has to be near the top of the list. It's not a plan for jobs. It's not a plan to get people back to work. This is a bizarre hotline that will inevitably see the government hound people looking for work, rather than assist them to get into employment. The philosophy of this, as I said, is about automatically seeing people who are receiving this supplement as welfare cheats and people who are trying to game the system, rather than people who have genuinely lost their jobs, are struggling to make ends meet and are trying to get back into the workforce.

The other point to make about JobSeeker recipients is that, in non-COVID times, the majority of people that were receiving the JobSeeker supplement aren't your stereotypical—in the eyes of the Liberal Party—welfare cheat. They're not young people who look like hippies that the government think are enjoying a good time being on JobSeeker. They are people who are over 45 and have lost their job. In non-COVID times, for men it's about 45 per cent and for women it's almost 55 per cent who make up those numbers of people who are over the age of 45 and are receiving job-seeking payments. So this ideological notion that all people are welfare cheats and they need to be punished by a hotline is simply wrong.

All it's doing is demonising older workers and making it harder for them to get back into the workforce and making them feel like they're not supported by this government and like they've been thrown on the scrapheap and that they don't matter anymore because of their age. That is completely unacceptable, particularly on the back of a recession, when people, in many respects, lost their jobs because of government regulations to keep people safe, to maintain safe borders and to ensure that we reduce the impact of the spread of the pandemic. So it's not fair for this government to have that approach and to try and implement changes such as this. That's why it's important that this parliament should consider supporting the amendment—the very sensible amendment that's been moved by the member for Barton—to remove that punitive and ideological approach of punishing people, the majority of whom are older workers trying to get back into the workforce, rather than supporting them, as Labor would do.

Angie Bell (Moncrieff, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If my ears don't deceive me, the member for Kingsford Smith just said in this chamber that all people on welfare are cheats. They were the words that came out of his mouth. He used negative words to describe jobseekers; they came out of his mouth. He used his own words to describe those people who need extra support during this pandemic, and I won't repeat them in this chamber. I think it's disgraceful that that's the way he described those people who need a bit of extra support. The member just mentioned hippies. I ask the question: what's wrong with hippies having a good time? There's nothing wrong with that, in my view.

Australians have always understood that social safety nets are necessary, and this pandemic has reminded us that a large proportion of our population are vulnerable to economic shocks. Australians know that welfare is at its best when it helps people get back on their own feet and avoid disincentives to work when it's available and people are able to work. The government's suite of temporary measures have been successful in supporting Australians through the significant impact of this pandemic. When we think about the coronavirus supplements and how much they've helped people get on and stay on their feet, it's been a very important supplement. Of course, it was a temporary measure by the Morrison government to help people through this very difficult time of the pandemic. This is not to mention the $86 billion worth of JobKeeper that went into Queensland alone to help the local economy, which of course will also help those people who are on JobSeeker once the economy starts to kick in again. Confidence is starting to return to our economy as restrictions are relaxed, and, of course, the end of border closures have had a lot to do with that confidence. My community tell me that confidence is the most important issue right now, particularly on the Gold Coast, where tourism is so important.

I also mention the $1.2 billion tourism package that the Morrison government has delivered to 15 destinations across our great country to stimulate the economy after JobKeeper is stepped down at the end of the month. I commend them for listening to the Gold Coast community and the tourism community around Australia, particularly in Queensland, a tourism state, and for delivering that package pretty much within a month of the roundtable that I held on the Gold Coast.

We are a government that has always understood that a job is the best economic support for individuals and for families. The best form of welfare is a job; we say it time and time again. It is the truth. To sustain oneself and one's family through work is meaningful in people's lives. There are people in our community who need extra help to get to that point, and that's what the Morrison government is delivering. We're now moving away from emergency settings that were necessary for the twin economic and health crises towards more sustainable settings that support recovery and are more sustainable in the long term. The safety net settings need to match our circumstances so they do not hamper our recovery and are fiscally responsible in the long term. Australians understand that. Reasonable, good Australians around our country understand that these measures are temporary and targeted.

The Morrison government is moving from broad emergency support to a sustainable safety net and targeted industry support, as I just outlined. Some key changes to Australia's safety net include that unemployed Australians will be supported whilst strengthening their obligations to search for work and that, from 1 April this year, 1.95 million Australians will receive an extra $50 fortnight in support from the government. This will include those who receive the JobSeeker payment; youth allowance; Austudy; the parenting payment, single and partnered; Abstudy living allowance; partner allowance; widow allowance; farm household allowance, which is very important for the regions; and the Department of Veterans' Affairs education schemes, which, of course, honours our veterans community. For single people on the JobSeeker payment without children, this will see the current payment rate increase from $565.70 a fortnight to $620.80 a fortnight from 1 April, taking into account indexation on 20 March—and, of course, indexation will continue. Payments are indexed regularly, and that will continue to keep up with CPI.

The income-free area will permanently increase for JobSeeker and related payments to $150 a fortnight. This allows those receiving income support to keep more of what they earn. That is a key pillar to this side of the chamber. That is what liberal democracies are all about, and that is what the Morrison government is about when it comes to tax cuts.

The waiver of the ordinary waiting period eligibility will be expanded for those required to self-isolate and will be extended for a further three months until 30 June 2021. That will assist during this period when we're rolling out the COVID-19 vaccine. It's important to note that not since 1986—I think I'd just finished high school at that point—have unemployment benefits been raised this much year on year. This is quite a raise and hasn't been done for some years. The total cost is $9 billion to support our national safety net for Australians that need that extra support right now. That $9 billion figure is across the forward estimates. It equates to approximately a 10 per cent increase in the typical annual spend on JobSeeker. This is a continuation of the Morrison government giving Australians the support that they need. The Morrison government stands behind those Australians who need extra support, first from the shock of the pandemic and now through our recovery phase.

Since the start of the pandemic, around $33 billion in emergency payments—that's quite a lot, isn't it, Mr Deputy Speaker?—will have been injected into Australia's welfare system by the end of March. Measures such as the coronavirus supplement and four economic support payments, which have been very important for Moncrieff and my dad in South Australia—he's a pensioner, he's received the extra payments and he tells me that it it's helped him immensely during this period—are all examples of the action that we have taken as a government since COVID-19 hit.

Australians' sense of fairness includes a sensible balancing act between those who need support and those who fund the support, so there are two sides to it. The $50 increase in the rate of payments was carefully chosen. There were many considerations that I know that the minister for social services and the department looked at: balancing support, incentives, sustainability and the minimum wage, which has been growing at a rate faster than unemployment benefits. We've pushed up the base rate to 41.2 per cent of the national minimum wage so that it's now at the level it was during the early 2000s under Prime Minister Howard. Avoiding Labor's mistakes, such as changing the pension rate but leaving unemployed Australians behind, which is what they did, the JobSeeker base rate will now rise to be 72 per cent of the age pension. The Morrison government, as I said, has the back of all Australians.

The tax burden on Australians for the social security safety net must be sustainable long into the future. We are making sure that a job is always better than welfare by ensuring that $50-a-fortnight support payments for working age recipients will cease to be payable before reaching the minimum wage. It's important to note the support I've been outlining dovetails with significant other support measures. In fact, 99 per cent of people on working age payments receive additional supplements, and those include around 20 different supplementary payments that are targeted to people based on their individual circumstances. Here are a couple of examples: the energy supplement, Commonwealth rent assistance—very important for those people who need extra help—family tax benefit, remote area allowance, telephone allowance and the education entry payment—and there are many others that allow the government to tailor the support that's needed for those Australians who need extra support.

The best support of all, of course, is our economic recovery across our great nation. All Australians stand to directly benefit, and more people in jobs means a more sustainable safety net. More people come off JobSeeker and go back into the workforce, so there are more jobs in the market. Therefore, there are fewer people relying on JobSeeker and the supplements, so our economy and our overall JobSeeker bill are far more sustainable for the country.

The Morrison government is delivering our economic comeback in unison with hardworking people—those in Moncrieff and those all around Australia. We're putting more in the pockets of everyday Australians by lowering taxes. In Moncrieff alone there were $200 million worth of tax cuts just to about 100,000 people, I want to say—I'll say it was below that level, just to be safe. Perhaps it's 70,000 people in my electorate, but it's worth about $200 million of tax cuts. Of course those tax cuts go back into the economy. They go back out into small business and come back to the families that actually put them there in the first place, which is the beauty of a circular economy. Supporting job creation, delivering more training, evolving a more digital Australia, making it easier for businesses to run, providing tax concessions and business incentives, providing more economic security for women, supporting Australian industries: these are all supports that the Morrison government has put in place.

Some of the support measures are supporting business. I've got about 30,000 businesses in my electorate of Moncrieff, and the recent $1.2 billion tourism stimulus package that I outlined before is going to help our economy tremendously in its comeback. The JobMaker hiring credit is going to help. The offset of tax losses against previous profits and tax paid in or after 2018-19 will certainly help, as will temporary full expensing of eligible depreciable assets for businesses with a turnover of up to $5 million—and that's pretty much most businesses I would imagine—and supporting 11,400 companies by increasing R&D tax offsets. The Boosting Apprenticeship Commencements wage subsidy is already supporting 900 apprenticeships in Moncrieff, and its expansion is expected to support hundreds more, which is good news for businesses wanting to hire apprentices.

We are accelerating reforms and investments to enable greater adoption of digital technologies, and we're investing an additional $4.5 billion in the NBN to bring ultrafast broadband to millions of businesses around the country, as well as streamlining and digitising regulatory processes, which will save businesses time and money. Time is money in business, as we know, so that's certainly helping. We are removing barriers to exports to make it easier for Australian businesses to access international markets. That's very important for our recovery, as trade and tourism will be key moving forward. We're removing unnecessary barriers to the flow of credit so that consumers can continue to spend and so that businesses can invest and create jobs. We've heard about some of the changes to SME loans from the Treasurer just in the last week. We are supporting up to $40 billion in lending to SMEs through those guarantees. That's the area I'm talking about that will help those businesses. They can borrow up to $5 million with a two-year no-payment period, which is fantastic.

Many Australians will retain jobs and many Australians on JobSeeker will find jobs due to the government investing in infrastructure, which creates jobs. I'll just say a little bit about infrastructure and what a great champion of regional Australia the Deputy Prime Minister is. He's been up to the Gold Coast four or five times since I've been elected, helping and making announcements around the M1 and around light rail. There's $110 billion being spent on infrastructure by this government. This government is spending $110 billion over 10 years on infrastructure that is so important to the Gold Coast, and it's also important to jobs. Jobs—

Opposition Members:

Opposition members interjecting—

Angie Bell (Moncrieff, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, he's up on the Gold Coast, the Deputy Prime Minister, making jobs for Gold Coasters, just like he does all around the country, with $110 billion worth of infrastructure. He is a great champion of infrastructure, and he's in good company with me about the importance of infrastructure because I absolutely believe in the importance of infrastructure and the jobs that it brings. In the private sector on the Gold Coast, they say that the Deputy Prime Minister is spot on. In my discussions with Geoff Hogg, the head honcho at The Star, he emphasised the importance of transport links to the tourism industry. He's absolutely right. We need to be able to transport as many tourists as possible from around the world to the Gold Coast once we recover properly from this pandemic, so that they can enjoy our beautiful beaches and our beautiful accommodation providers and restaurants all over the Gold Coast. So I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his support around infrastructure. (Time expired)

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There's much in this bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021, and there's much that's been left out. I think it's important to acknowledge that this is the first permanent rise in years to JobSeeker, formerly Newstart. However, I think it's pretty clear—and I think most Australians agree—that $25 a week is woefully inadequate. It's an additional $3.57 per day! It really will fall short. There are 1.9 million Australians who will effectively lose $100 a fortnight. That's because, at the same time as the government provides the $50-a-week permanent increase, it will be taking away the $150 coronavirus supplement. So, really, $100 per fortnight is what will be removed from people's family income.

There are just over 11,000 people in Mayo receiving the COVID supplement. There is going to be a double whammy here, which is going to affect the economy seriously. When JobKeeper ends, there will be a large cohort of people moving to JobSeeker. The estimates are saying it will be around 250,000 Australians. I actually think that's incredibly conservative. I think that there will be far more. I hope there aren't, but I think there will be. I think we in this place need to acknowledge that for a very long time not only welfare groups but also business groups have been saying that we need a substantial lift in the base rate of JobSeeker. Somewhere between $75 and $90 a week has been the broad consensus on where it needs to be—enough for people to live on and actively look for employment. It costs money to look for work. I think we all recognise that.

What we need—and I've been calling for this for some time—is an independent body that determines the rate. It shouldn't be determined in a joint-party sitting meeting, where there's a whip around the table: Who wants $50 a week? Who wants $25 a week? I think that's where we got to. There's no policy structure in that. What we really need is an independent social security commission that would set payments that keep up with the cost of living and recognise Australia's economic circumstances.

I'd like to backtrack to the previous parliament and its Select Committee on Intergenerational Welfare Dependence. That committee handed down a final report called Living on the edge: inquiry into intergenerational welfare dependence. I had the great privilege of being on that committee. It pains me that, while there were 16 key recommendations, I don't think the government has addressed any of them as yet. I'd like to highlight two of those recommendations today. Recommendation 14 requested that the Australian government review the effects of government policy, including the adequacy of payments for young people and single-parent families. Recommendation 15, one that we don't talk about in here, was that the government consider changing the point at which a single parent moves from the single-parent payment onto JobSeeker. At the moment, that happens when the youngest child turns eight, and the recommendation was it that it be changed to when the child turns 12. I think it would have a profound impact if the government actually considered this and made some changes.

I think we need to remember that the face of the Centrelink recipient has changed. A decade ago, a person receiving JobSeeker, formerly Newstart, was more than likely a young man aged under 35. Now, half the recipients are over 45, and the fastest-growing group—and there have been more women in this category than ever before—is women over 60. While the government's proposed increase to the JobSeeker base rate is $307, which I believe is completely inadequate, the great challenge is this: do we accept this, or do we play chicken with the government and hope that they will reconsider and lift this rate?

My office is regularly contacted by constituents who are seeking assistance to obtain affordable housing, and more than ever it's older Australians who are contacting us. I know that in my electorate I have older people who are living in cars because they are unable to secure private rental, and the proposed reduction in the payments is only going to make it harder.

Let's go beyond the individual recipient of JobSeeker. This change—this shrinking of money circulating in the economy through getting rid of JobKeeper and also shrinking the amount that a jobseeker has—is going to have a significant impact on small businesses in each of our electorates, because around 58 per cent of a person's Centrelink payment is spent on retail goods and services within the local community. So I think that we could have quite a compounding effect from the fact that we are shrinking JobSeeker and doing away entirely with JobKeeper.

In my electorate, we have a very high number of people who are on JobKeeper. We are a tourism destination, and we don't have the international tourists, particularly on Kangaroo Island but also right across the electorate, that we relied on so heavily. While I appreciate that the government has given vouchers or funding to the airlines, the tour operators, those small businesses and micro businesses, are not going to receive the benefit of those airline tickets. It's just not going to happen. It's not going to trickle down. As I said earlier, over 11,000 people across Mayo have been receiving the COVID supplement, and this, on my calculations, is going to mean a shrinking in my electorate's economy of around $1 million a fortnight. That's $1 million every fortnight that's not going to butcher stores, greengrocers and every business in between. Who are going to be the big winners? The payday lenders, the pawn shops and the buy-now pay-later schemes.

So I call on the government to reconsider a couple of things—firstly, the rate and, secondly, the income-free area for the JobSeeker payment, for youth allowance (other) and for the parenting payment. The income-free area should remain, I believe, at $300 a fortnight, and it also needs to be indexed. We know that millions of Australians are currently underemployed, because there just aren't the permanent jobs that there used to be, and so many people are accepting insecure or casual work and coupling together two or three jobs. So I think having that income-free area where they're not penalised with their JobSeeker rate is a prudent thing to do..

There are a number of other measures that are not highlighted in this bill but are part of this package. A couple of those are changes to mutual obligations, and these changes are not required to be made by legislative instrument. But I would just say to the government, which has always said it's a government for small business: you are putting such an onerous burden on small businesses through people on JobSeeker having to go back to putting in for 20 jobs a fortnight. The reason I say that is that a business will advertise a job on SEEK or some other platform and they will be bombarded with applications, which they will have to filter through, from people who do not have the qualifications for the job but need to put in their applications so that they don't lose the payment they receive. So I don't think that we've thought this through too well.

Similarly, on 'dob in a jobseeker'—that scheme that Minister Cash announced at the same time as these rates were announced—during last week's Senate committee hearing the Australian Retailers Association CEO, Paul Zahra, stated that the association was not supportive of the 'dob in a jobseeker' hotline. He believed it would drive up anxiety among retailers and not really add to solving the real problem. Why do we want to do that to retailers? This is an industry telling government, telling this place, that it's not going to work and it's not something that they support. Yet it looks like we're still going to have it go through, simply because it's something that can be done without passing this place.

Finally, I'd like to share with you an email I received late last week from an Adelaide Hills woman in her 60s who lives in my electorate. She said: 'Rebekha, I'm distraught at the seeming disregard of the federal government regarding the review of the JobSeeker rate. I found myself on JobSeeker, and I have just reviewed my budget and find that I'm having to choose between paying utility bills and buying food.' Come on. We can do better than that in this nation. We were never a nation that would say to people, 'We think that you should choose between keeping your heater on'—and it gets really cold in my electorate—'and food.' This isn't a 25-year-old bum who'd rather go surfing; this is a woman in her 60s who is struggling to look for work and who is going to face enormous, extreme hardship. The government has been quite clear. There's no negotiation; it's $50 or nothing. I urge the government: please, you still have time. We have a current coronavirus supplement that is $75 a week. Why not just leave it at that rate? That would benefit Australians, whether they are on JobSeeker or not. It would benefit our small businesses. I urge the government: please, give this another thought.

Bridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to rise and speak in support of this increase—a very modest increase, but an increase nonetheless. It's a step in the right direction, one I've long advocated for with many others in this place. I understand that there are a range of views on raising the rate. However, this increase is much needed and one that I fully support. It's the first raise in what we now call JobSeeker since the early nineties, which was around the time that I finished school. As we've already heard, this is the single biggest year-on-year increase to the rate of unemployment benefit since 1986, an increase of 9.7 per cent between 1 April last year and 1 April this year. We've also heard that this increase is an investment of $9 billion, which is not an insubstantial amount, and, if we want a safety net, we do need it to be sustainable. This increase is a start in balancing the need to support Australians who need our help and also ensuring that our social security system can be maintained for decades to come.

Before I go on, I do want to acknowledge Minister Ruston for her work in bringing about this change. The minister has worked diligently to ensure an increase has been possible. It's no secret that I've been advocating for an increase since I was elected, and I thank the minister, who has always been prepared to meet with me, listen to me and work with me on this issue. It is important to point out that, for all the grandstanding we hear from Labor, Labor did not deliver on this in their own time in government.

Whilst the coalition government is working to deliver some change, I still believe there is much more work to be done. You've heard me say it in this House before, but it bears repeating again: we can't and we won't move the dial on long-term unemployment or intergenerational unemployment if we don't have wider reform—in particular, reform that addresses the barriers preventing a JobSeeker recipient looking for or accepting meaningful work, such as access to child care; reliable transport; mental and physical health challenges; trauma; and disadvantage. The consequent changes to mutual obligation are, in my view, very unhelpful. There is an opportunity to ensure that we look at how mutual obligation can be a more useful tool for those seeking work, rather than the increasingly meaningless burden it puts on both the potential employer and the potential employee. I fail to see how encouraging jobseekers to apply for jobs that they are in no way able to fill is helping anyone.

Last year I spoke to a local business that epitomises some of the many challenges that both jobseekers and employees are facing. After advertising for a machinery operator position, the business received almost 100 applications, the majority of them just fulfilling the mutual obligation requirement to apply for a job. After much time spent sorting through applicant after applicant, three were selected to come in and interview for the job. Further challenges were then presented, with one applicant disclosing an addiction problem, another applicant having a significant health challenge that would leave them unable to perform all the duties required of the position, and the third applicant, who was successful in being hired for the position, leaving the role after just a few weeks due to considerable mental health challenges. After all this time and effort, it was back to the drawing board. This is an example of an issue I heard several times from employers across a variety of industries in Northern Tasmania. There are some jobs there, but there are not people suitable to fill them.

While I certainly accept that there are a portion of jobseekers who don't want to engage, they make up an incredibly small minority of jobseekers. So where's the gap? When we talk about making someone job ready, what does this really mean? It needs to be about ensuring that someone is ready, beyond just having skills. What are the other barriers that may stop them from accepting work? We can't be expected to fix every challenge faced by an individual when they're looking for work. But, when many of our population who need employment and want employment are bumping into one or more roadblocks, I do believe that as a government we have a responsibility to address some of the broader issues.

I've spoken in this place before about a group of diverse constituents whom I met with in 2019, very shortly after I was elected. Levi, Sue, Merridee, Abbey, Maddi and Terry are all participants in the Skills for Education and Employment program in Launceston who came to me to raise the issues they faced as Newstart recipients looking for work. They raised the issue of mandated appointments with job agencies, which are seemingly nothing more than a box-ticking exercise. The issue of transport and the often prohibitive cost of personal transport prevent jobseekers from accessing employment and job-seeking services, particularly in a regional area like Northern Tasmania. Public transport is an option, but it's certainly not as robust a system as you would find in a major city, which leaves many jobseekers stuck, particularly when a number of job listings advise that those reliant on public transport need not apply.

Accessibility issues surrounding mobiles and internet services are also challenges that were raised with me by this group and have been raised by others. Jobseekers are required to be available at set times by phone for appointments with service providers, to apply for jobs online or to complete their Centrelink reporting obligations. These are acceptable requests. But they do present a challenge to those who can't afford this technology on a regular basis. Perhaps this is an area where we could look to be more flexible or offer more flexibility. It also sends a message to jobseekers that their time is not valued.

It also needs to be said that this area is an incredibly complex policy space. No matter the government, when it comes to addressing the challenges, we seek to apply a broad policy to fit a group of people that just aren't homogeneous. Certainly, someone living in a small rural or regional town will see their rent assistance go further than someone living in a metropolitan city. By the same token, someone on government assistance will likely see their budget for food extend further if living in the city, compared to someone buying groceries in a small town. There are individual people with individual needs, and a one-size-fits-all policy is not going to fit all. You are always going to have those who will be worse off than others. We have to look at striking a balance between support for unemployed Australians and incentives to work, and we are making some headway.

This bill does include a permanent reform to increase the amount of money that jobseekers can earn before they lose a cent of their payment—up to $150 a fortnight. I've had a number of discussions with constituents in my electorate on this issue during my community catch-ups recently, and I know this permanent reform will make a difference. Temporarily extending the waiver of the one-week ordinary waiting period for certain payments until 30 June is also welcome.

Some people might move on and off JobSeeker a number of times throughout their working life, but, for those who are on it long-term or where there is intergenerational disadvantage, we have to examine why. This raise is a welcome step in the right direction to lifting Australians in need, but I will continue to advocate for further reform to ensure that we can support people to gain meaningful employment.

Alicia Payne (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak about the government's increase to the JobSeeker payment—the permanent increase of $50 per fortnight. Labor will support this increase because, otherwise, the almost two million people relying on this payment would not get that paltry increase of $3.50 per day. But I want to be extremely clear that this increase is completely inadequate. It is an insult to people trying to survive on this payment, particularly as we're in a global pandemic and a recession. People cannot find jobs, people are trying to get by on this payment, and the government is just pulling the rug out from under them. Let's not forget that this is a government whose social services minister said that increasing the JobSeeker payment, or the Newstart payment as it was then, would just go into the hands of drug dealers. This is a government that constantly peddles myths about people receiving social security and the system itself. This is a government that says, 'Oh, they get other supplements.' Yes. They get the energy supplement—65c per day. I'm not sure what the government thinks that is going to help with. They may get rent assistance, which, by definition, they only get if they're paying rent, and it doesn't cover their rent. So all these supplements that the government speaks about are not making a difference for people's lives.

The devastating thing is that in this pandemic, in responding to COVID-19, the government actually did acknowledge two things when they delivered the coronavirus supplement and effectively doubled the JobSeeker payment to people out of work. They acknowledged, firstly, that people cannot live on $40 per day—I would add that they cannot live on $43.50 per day either. They acknowledged that, and they also acknowledged that a decent unemployment benefit, a social safety net, has an important role not only in lifting people out of poverty but in stimulating the economy at a time when we needed it most. They delivered that and, at a time of peak unemployment, in our worst recession in many, many years, we actually saw the rate of poverty in Australia decrease.

Between the introduction of JobKeeper—the wage subsidy that Labor argued for and the government introduced—and the increase to JobSeeker, we saw a decrease in poverty overall. We saw people protected from poverty. We actually saw, as a result of that doubling, that the rate of poverty among people receiving the JobSeeker payment reduced from around 80 per cent to around 25 per cent—and that is research from the ANU that I'm quoting there. It didn't alleviate poverty completely among jobseekers, I'll note that, but it decreased it significantly. Here the government had a real opportunity to use that to reset and actually deliver a decent social safety net for Australians. We had the opportunity to actually be like the society that we claim to be, an egalitarian society where people look after one another and people get a fair go. Instead, this is a government that wants to push people into destitution.

What does poverty mean? What I talked about there, where we actually lifted people out of poverty, that is the poverty rate as calculated as a proportion of the median income. It is a relative number based on the distribution of incomes of our entire community. But what does it mean to the people actually living on these payments? As someone at the Early Morning Centre here in Canberra once said to me, 'Poverty is trying to choose between baby food and tampons.' Let that sink in. I think the people on the other side of this chamber obviously don't speak to people in their electorates, or they're just callous and they're ignoring it. That's what poverty is. On the other hand, when they introduced this coronavirus supplement, we heard people receiving JobSeeker speaking of living with some dignity for the first time in a long time and having some of the things that so many of us take for granted every day—things like being able to put petrol in the car or even afford a bus fare, getting a haircut, buying their children a school uniform so they can fit in at school and not feel ostracised because they're living in poverty, heating their homes and getting shoes without holes in them. These are the sorts of things that we in this place take for granted. This government could have continued that, and they are taking it away. It is an absolute disgrace.

The other parts of this announcement—which, I note, are not in legislation and will be done by the minister through regulation—are the mutual obligation changes, which are just punitive. They're all just part of this government's agenda to really demonise people. What a joke to have a 'dob in a dole bludger' hotline for employers. Employers don't even want this. They don't have time to do that. The government want people to apply for 20 jobs a fortnight. I ask this government: where are these jobs? How about a plan for jobs? We're in a recession. We've also had the Reserve Bank governor say that a decent unemployment benefit is part of stimulating the economy. People on low incomes spend the majority of their income because they have to, and that money would be going back into our economies, back into our small businesses. This decision, this pathetic increase, is driven by ideology, not economics and certainly not the proper modelling that should have been done to set this payment.

Labor has long been committed to seeing this increase. We have been arguing in this place for a decent permanent increase to the JobSeeker payment, formerly Newstart. At the last election, Labor committed to reviewing the payment. That was always about how much the payment needed to be increased by. There has never been any doubt that it needed to be increased, just as there is no doubt that this increase is inadequate; it falls so far short of all the amounts that people have been calling for for many years. This increase is $25 per week. At the moment, the Australian Council of Social Service is calling for an increase of $25 per day. So you can see that it is well short. They've previously called for increases of $75 per week and $95 per week. It is also well short of that.

As someone who has worked my entire career on social security policy, looking at finding the policy answers to addressing poverty and inequality, I understand there are complexities in setting this rate. It needs to be done right. The government has the resources and the data to do that modelling right now. They should have done it and delivered a proper increase. There are things you need to consider, and anyone who says that we don't need to consider this rate properly is ignoring both the depth of the inadequacies of our social security system and the power of these payments to lift people out of poverty and to stimulate our economy—the important role that they play.

In this country, we do not take the pride that we should in our social security system. It is the most powerful tool that we have to keep people out of poverty. We have child poverty at the moment. We have around a third of sole parents living in poverty, and that rate is only going to be higher when, in only a few days time, this government snaps back—sorry, there'll be a $3-per-day increase from the end of March—or removes the JobKeeper payment and assistance before we are anywhere near getting out of this recession. Instead, they could lift people out of poverty, as they did during COVID.

The government need to look at where this payment should be set to ensure that people have a decent standard of living. That is not necessarily the poverty rate as defined by the OECD poverty line. I completely agree with the statement that people should not be living in poverty. People don't need to be destitute to have an incentive to work. Hello, over there; that is a fact. The incentive to work is all around us. So much of our identity in this country is around our jobs; so much of our society is centred on work. For the people in my electorate who are on unemployment benefits and dreading this reduction to $43 a day at the end of March, there's no doubt that a job is a better alternative to being on social security. I think the people who would argue that most strongly are the people trying to survive on this payment, the people who have been told that $3.50 a day is going to help them with that. The thing that comes to mind is to say that it won't even buy a coffee, but these people aren't buying coffees—they're not buying food. They're trying to survive. They're going to food banks. That has become the social safety net in this country, because our government funded social security system is so inadequate. It is the community sector that is keeping people alive. I'm not overexaggerating this problem; that is exactly what it is.

Coming back to the proper modelling and analysis that needs to happen, it is important that we look at the rate of the unemployment benefit in relation to other payments, like the age pension and the disability support pension. It is important that we look at it in comparison to the minimum wage. It is important that we look at it in comparison to the poverty line. But the most important thing is that we can guarantee that people have a dignified and healthy standard of living in this country. We can do that, in my view, by doing a proper review of JobSeeker and of the social security system. I think it should include what is called a budget standards analysis, where we look at a basket of goods and services that a person in a certain type of situation—a single person, or a family with children—needs to live a decent life.

A lot of this work has been done by Peter Saunders, from UNSW. The work he did for ACOSS in 2017 was the basis for their original call for an increase of $75 a week. The government could update that work and look at all these other factors, with their proper administrative data, of who is receiving these payments, and they could look at the data and work out an amount which would mean that people could live decently—people like Julie Stephen, who presented to the Senate inquiry on this bill on 9 March. I would encourage everyone, particularly people from the other side of this chamber, to read her testimony about what it's like to have an aggressive cancer, to be receiving chemotherapy and to fear what will happen when this payment is reduced at the end of March: how on earth is she going to survive, how is she going to put petrol in her car to get to her treatments and how is she going to buy food? These are the issues facing Australians right now, and we've got people saying that $3.50 is an increase. It is an insult. It is an insult to people living in poverty in this country.

Bob Hawke said in 1987 that no Australian child should be living in poverty by 1990. We all like to have a laugh about that, but he introduced changes to family benefits after that, and poverty among jobless families with children was reduced by 80 per cent by 1994, because these payments are powerful. The No. 1 most powerful and important thing we can do to address disadvantage in this country is to make sure that people have an income they can live on, that they can have housing and that they can participate in their community. We'll support this increase. You couldn't stand in the way of that $3.50 because people are so desperate, but it is not enough.

I just wish that this government would look up from their demonising and ideological crusades and talk to people in their electorates, in this country, who are really suffering. It is really going to come to crunch time on 31 March when this assistance is ripped away from people. God help us. (Time expired)

Anne Aly (Cowan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I first of all congratulate the member for Canberra on such an impassioned and heartfelt speech about this issue. I'm going to do something unusual here and also congratulate the member for Bass for her very thoughtful and informative contribution to this debate as well. I have to say, it is so refreshing to hear something from somebody on the other side that isn't just about demonising people who are on welfare in this country, that isn't about lifters and leaners and that doesn't buy into that discourse and narrative that everybody who is on JobSeeker—or Newstart, as it was—is some kind of long-term dole bludger who just wants to get their hands on everybody else's money and live a life of luxury. I commend the member for Bass on standing up, arguing her case and being an relentless advocate for people who are on welfare, as I do the member for Canberra.

I think about what $3.57 a day means. As the member for Canberra said, it's often likened to a cup of coffee, but she's absolutely right that people who live in poverty do not go out and buy cups of coffee. That's not what they'll spend it on. They will spend it on essentials, if they can. They'll spend it on food. They'll probably put it aside to pay for their electricity bill or their petrol bill to get them to where they need to get to. They will certainly not be spending it on coffee, avocado on toast or any of the other things that we here in this place take for granted.

Labor is not going to stand in the way of this modest increase, but, as the member for Canberra said, it's hardly an increase; it's more of an insult. The rate of JobSeeker—Newstart, as it was called—is absolutely disgraceful in a country like Australia. I don't say that as the Labor member for Cowan. I say that as somebody who's lived on it; I say that as somebody who found herself in a position where she had to rely on welfare raising two sons; I say that as somebody who's had to live on $40 a day; I say that as somebody who has had to walk to a Centrelink office, feel the degradation and the humiliation of going to a Centrelink office, and ask for a payment; I say that a as somebody who has gone to her bank account to get some money out and found that her bank balance was minus $6 and then gone to cross the road, being nearly hit by a car and wishing that the car actually did hit me, because I was so desperate; I say that as somebody who's had to put half the shopping back at the counter, with two young boys crying, because I just couldn't afford it; and I say that as somebody who had to budget so hard that, once a fortnight, my sons would get a Happy Meal because, by buying a Happy Meal, they could get a little toy in there as well. Once a fortnight, they got a $3 Happy Meal. That was their treat. That was all I could afford. I also say that as a mother who had to make her sons' school uniforms. My father gave me an old sewing machine, and I sewed my sons' school uniforms because I couldn't afford to buy them. That's why I stand here today and argue that $3.57 a day is not enough. It is an insult. But, at the same time, we are in a position here where we cannot stand in the way of even this modest increase to the JobSeeker payment.

I want to talk about some of the other things that the member for Bass raised, and I'm very pleased that she raised them. She raised reasons for unemployment. So often when we talk about social welfare, when we talk about JobSeeker—or Newstart, as it was—we focus on people getting jobs. Therefore you have this discourse that goes around and around: 'There are jobs, but people don't want them. If people wanted jobs, they would get them,' and all of this rubbish. But we don't really have an in-depth conversation about why people are unemployed, about what contributes to long-term unemployment and what contributes to generational unemployment. It's not laziness on their part. There might be a tiny minority of people who don't want to work.

Every Australian should be afforded the opportunity to contribute to their country, to the social, economic and political fabric of the society in which they live. When you go out there and ask people what matters to them the most—'Do you care about jobs? Do you care about education? Do you care about this? Do you care about that?'—when you really dig down deep into it, instead of just giving them a multiple-choice question, you find that what really matters to people is security. I'm not talking about national security and the kind of stuff that I used to write about. I'm talking about personal security. I'm talking about a sense of wellbeing. A sense of security and wellbeing comes with job security, financial security and economic security.

If you want to talk about unemployment, we need to talk about more than just the rate. We need to not just give people crumbs of $3.57 a day and say: 'Here you go; that'll do you. You can go and buy a cup of coffee now.' We need to talk about their sense of wellbeing and what that means, and how we enable that in people. If there's one thing that we can come together in this place to do it is to ensure that every Australian has a sense of wellbeing—that every Australian has personal security, economic security and job security. But that's not happening at the moment. We're not going to 'fix' unemployment and 'fix' our welfare situation by giving people the crumb of $3.57 a day. Right now—today, in fact—each one of us will get more in travel allowance than we give people on JobSeeker per week. I want everybody to think about that.

Alicia Payne (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's shameful.

Anne Aly (Cowan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is shameful, as the member for Canberra says. It is shameful. We're here, staying in our nice little comfortable hotels or wherever it is that we're staying. We're free to eat our meals at the trough or to go and buy vegies at Coles and cook our own food. Let's stop and give a thought to the fact that, just today, each one of us is getting a travel allowance that is more than what people on JobSeeker are getting per week. Think about what it would be like if you had to make today's travel allowance last a week—with children. Then, on top of that, you have to fulfil your obligations to look for a job. Then, on top of that, you have to go to job interviews, using public transport—it might be $30, maybe $15 a day if you're lucky—or filling your car up with petrol. Then, on top of that, you have to put aside some money for your electricity bill, your rent, your gas bill and your water bill. Then, on top of that, if you've got school-age children, you've got to get them off to school every day, buy their school uniforms and fill their lunch boxes with the things that children want in their lunch boxes so that they don't stand out from the rest of the kids. Take a minute to imagine making today's travel allowance last a week.

That is what it's like for millions of Australians who, on 31 March, will have their JobSeeker allowance reduced to what we're given per day in travel allowance. We tell them, 'That's okay, because you're going to get a $3.57-a-day increase.' We couldn't survive on that. None of us here, I guarantee you, could survive on one day of travel allowance to last us a week. I guarantee you none of us could do that. Those of us who have had to do it are the ones who know exactly how hard it is, along with those of us who speak to our constituents who are doing it and who come to us and say: 'I've got a choice. Do I buy my food or do I buy my medication? Do I feed my kids or do I feed myself?'

I've been there. I've been the one who waits for her kids to finish eating so that she can have the leftovers, because you just can't afford to feed everyone. Just take a minute to imagine what that's like. I know that there are good people with good hearts in this place, and perhaps if we did that—perhaps if we cut through all the discourse and all the narrative and the rhetoric and all this crap about lifters and leaners and all of those people who are spending their Newstart allowance on drugs and are lazy—we could find the heart in this place to feel something more for the Australians who are left behind. Maybe we could find the heart in this place to find a little more generosity for those people who find themselves in situations not of their making, the victims of circumstance out there.

So, as I said, we're going to support this increase, because it's an increase. Three dollars fifty-seven might buy another Happy Meal as a treat for a kid every fortnight, might buy a cup of coffee, might buy a tin of dog food or might buy a pack of chewing gum. In fact, it just covers a pack of chewing gum a day. But I stand here and support this knowing full well that it is not enough. But I'm heartened by the fact that there are, at least on this side, enough people who understand that, and I'm heartened by the fact that, on the other side, there are some people who understand that too. I'm heartened by the fact that we can find the heart in this place. We can bring the heart to parliament. We can be more generous. We just need the political will.

Patrick Gorman (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Western Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reality is that this government has no plan for poverty elimination in Australia, and I deeply believe that poverty elimination must be our goal in this place. Here at home and abroad, and in this place, we hear so often that Australia is a rich, successful, multicultural country. So why does this government leave so many people behind?

This bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Income Support) Bill 2021, does not lift people out of poverty; it simply makes them a little less poor. We just heard my good friend the member for Cowan talking about the need for all of us in this place to find the heart. She told us her personal story of actually having lived on these measly payments. I say to the people who are watching this debate—and, indeed, to many people who are on Newstart and have a deep vested interest in how this debate plays out—that we stand with all Australians who are on these payments—some 1,950,000 Australians who are on these payments. We know that there are many Australians who have a go but don't get a go. The Prime Minister's formula simply does not work for them. All they're seeking—again, as the member for Cowan said—is some economic security and a sense that they can do all the things that they want to do for their family. They do not wish for luxury. They do not wish for generosity. They simply want some simple economic security.

When I say that this government doesn't have a plan to lift people out of poverty, at least on that front it is very consistent. It doesn't have a proper jobs plan. It doesn't have a plan for the future of Medicare. It has no plan for social housing. It killed the Gonski reforms, which we know from David Gonski himself—

Debate interrupted.