Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have received a letter from the Leader of the Australian Greens proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The failure of the Government to lift people out of poverty in this year's budget.

I call upon those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This budget leaves millions of people behind while giving billionaires a tax cut. By spending a quarter of a trillion dollars on tax cuts for the wealthy, Labor is betraying students, jobseekers, renters and everyone who is doing it tough.

In Melbourne right now, people are sleeping in tents in the parks and sleeping in their cars. Queues at food banks are growing. Renters are skipping meals. Meanwhile, the government says they're acting on it. Well, jobseekers who are in poverty get at best an extra $2.85 a day—that doesn't even buy you a loaf of bread—and they remain in poverty after this budget. For the people lucky enough to get Commonwealth rent assistance they might get a dollar or so a day, but rents in capital cities have grown 10 times faster than that. And 5½ million renters who have seen their rents soar get absolutely nothing. This budget and this government just do not understand how serious the crisis is facing people right now.

But the government has managed to find money—over a quarter of a trillion dollars—for tax cuts for politicians, billionaires and the very wealthy. While people on JobSeeker get stuck below the poverty line, every politician in this place gets a $9,000-a-year tax cut, along with Clive Palmer, Gina Rinehart and all the billionaires in this country. But while 5½ million renters get absolutely nothing, the government continues to spend $7 billion a year of public money on wealthy property investors who've already got three or more properties to go and buy their sixth, seventh and eighth, which pushes up rents and pushes up housing prices.

While the government says that they're tackling the climate crisis, there's $44 billion in subsidies for fossil fuels in this budget at a time when they should be paying more tax, helping lift people out of poverty and helping finance the clean energy transition. The government says, 'Oh well, we couldn't do more because where could we possibly find the money to lift people out of poverty?' In this budget the government is raising more from lifting student debt that students and former students have to pay than they are from the changes to the rules for the big gas corporations. The big gas corporations, in the middle of rising energy bills and a war in Ukraine, are making windfall profits. The big gas corporations brought in $90 billion in revenue in one year and, instead of making them pay their fair share of tax, the government lets them off the hook. The gas corporations, who are gouging people in this country at the moment and who often don't even pay for their gas at all—they get it for free—send their profits offshore, together with the gas, tax free. If they were made to pay their fair share of tax there'd be an extra $9 billion in the kitty that could go to funding a rent freeze, that could go on getting dental into Medicare and that could go to wiping student debt. But, instead, the government asks them to find a bit of loose change down the back of the couch. It is no wonder the big gas corporations are lining up and asking this parliament to pass their gas tax, because the gas corporations know that the government has shifted the burden away from the gas corporations and onto everyday people.

The government is spending more on wealthy property investors than they are spending on building public housing in this country. The single business line item in this budget on housing is giving handouts to wealthy property investors who've already got three, four or five houses to go and buy their sixth, seventh and eighth.

But there is a better way. The Prime Minister said during question time that if the Greens had written the budget it would be a very different budget. You bet! We would make the big corporations pay their fair share of tax and we would not be giving a $9,000 a year tax handout to Clive Palmer. By making the billionaires and big corporations pay their fair share of tax and by not giving $7 billion a year to people who've already got multiple properties to go and buy more, we could lift everyone out of poverty in this country. By making the big corporations and billionaires pay their fair share of tax, we could fund a rent freeze, we could get dental into Medicare, we could make child care free and we could wipe student debt. That is how you address the cost-of-living crisis in this country.

Anika Wells (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It takes a remarkable level of cognitive dissonance to walk into this place and accuse the Labor government of not doing enough to help vulnerable Australians when the Greens party—and the Greens MPs in particular—spent their weekend dispatching their volunteers to try and block the affordable housing bill in Labor seats across the country. And while the member for Griffith himself, I'm sure, is about to talk about the need for alleviating poverty, he has been spending his time doorknocking electorates like mine to try and convince my constituents to encourage me to block an affordable housing bill that will make a very real difference and build 20,000 affordable homes across the country, including 4,000 homes for women fleeing DV and for older women at risk of homelessness—a fund that will fund 10,000 affordable rentals to alleviate crippling rental stress and $200 million to repair remote Indigenous housing. That is what they are spending their time encouraging their volunteers to try and persuade us not to do. It is a remarkable level of cognitive dissonance.

I will not be taking a lecture on housing affordability from the lord of the NIMBYs over there, who currently is opposing the construction of more than 470 new affordable homes and units in his electorate—I believe it's more than 1,300 all up—because it would create further congestion. I believe, as reported in the Australian Financial Review, that he is opposing more than 1,300 affordable homes in his own electorate because it would create further congestion and be a missed opportunity to extend parkland. That is a level of cognitive dissonance that it is difficult for us to process in the wake of the housing crisis in this country and given, supposedly, a sincere desire to alleviate poverty in this country—that you would oppose that, and spend your time to do that, instead of actually working to create more affordable housing in your own electorate.

I think the member for Griffith needs to atone to his own constituents. I'm sure that he promised in the election that he would spend his time campaigning for his people and working on issues that are important to the residents of Griffith. So why is he spending his time focused on the Canberra bubble, seeking to point-score against progressive women in a Labor government, instead of doing actual, tangible things to improve housing affordability in this country, like supporting Labor's affordable housing bill? He is all show, no pony; all sizzle, no steak. His focus seems entirely based upon point scoring in the Canberra bubble rather than genuinely trying to do anything to alleviate poverty either across the country or for the people that he sought to represent.

This budget provides real, tangible, responsible relief to people who need it—people like Maureen from Everton Park, who came to one of my mobile offices two weeks ago begging for help. Maureen is 54 years old. She juggles four or five part-time jobs to supplement her jobseeker allowance. She has no job security. She has shifts regularly cancelled at the last minute. Maureen is a domestic violence survivor, and she said to me that survivors 'have had the strength to leave and to try and raise children outside of violence, and our options are homelessness or suicide'. On top of that, Maureen has struggled to access any kind of bulk-billing health care for years. I said to Maureen: 'I have heard you and I see you, and we will not forsake you.'

The centrepiece of the Albanese government's second budget is a $14.6 billion cost-of-living package over four years that will ease pressure on people like Maureen while putting downward pressure on inflation. Almost 66,000 Lilley residents like Maureen will find it easier to find a bulk-billing GP, thanks to our record investment in Medicare. More than 7,600 people in Lilley will receive a $40 increase in their fortnightly Centrelink payment, with mature-age people like Maureen receiving an additional $92. More than 9,000 renters in Lilley like Maureen will benefit from a 15 per cent boost to the maximum rate of rental assistance. There are 500 single parents in Lilley with kids aged from 8 to 14 who will now receive an extra $176 a fortnight. Around 1.1 million households across Queensland will receive a $500 energy rebate, applied quarterly, from 1 July. And, for survivors of domestic violence like Maureen, we are extending the domestic violence payment, so that they are not forced to stay with their abusers because they cannot afford to leave.

The Albanese Labor government's second budget sees people through difficult times and sets our country up for the future. It helps Australians doing it tough, and it makes significant inroads in cleaning up the mess that we inherited from the coalition. Our aim throughout, whether it's our cost-of-living package, our broader investments in energy or our other efforts to grow the economy, is to make sure that this budget is part of the solution to high inflation and cost-of-living pressures, not adding to the problem. We are delivering more support for the most vulnerable in our country and in our communities because we know that they are doing it tough, and that is possible thanks to the way that we have responsibly managed this budget. These increases are responsible and these increases are targeted to help vulnerable Australians under the pump.

In the grand tradition of Labor governments that help those in need, this budget delivers $11.3 billion to improve life for aged-care workers, who for too long have been overlooked and undervalued. That lack of value and that lack of care ends now. It ends with this budget. We are turning the corner on aged care. We went to the polls on a promise to restore dignity to aged care, and now we are delivering on that promise with a record $36 billion investment in aged care in this budget. That is what Labor does: it supports people who need supporting.

That starts with our $11.3 billion commitment to fund the 15 per cent pay rise. For too long, aged-care workers have been overworked and undervalued. I know that because, back in 2021, I spoke to one of the aged-care workers from Queensland, who told me that she thought she had had one pay rise in the seven years prior and that it was about 25c. She said that she loved her residents but she felt like her boss exploited that love, because love doesn't pay the rent. I wish I could go back and talk to that aged-care worker again because now, as of last night, she could be getting a pay rise of $10,000 a year under this budget.

We anticipate that this pay rise will attract 10,000 workers to the sector, improving life for the aged-care workers and for the residents that they love to care for. This funding package is 10 times more than the previous government's investment in the workforce pillar. It will significantly help providers and facilities meet the 24/7 nursing requirements, it will help our care minutes increase in our residential aged-care facilities and it will ultimately help all older Australians to be safer and receive a higher standard of care. This funding signifies real progress towards genuinely valuing our aged-care workers, some of the lowest-paid workers in this country and some of those people who have been living in poverty while doing the job that they love. We are putting $11.3 billion towards giving them a pay rise. We recognise their dedication. We're rewarding them for their skilled and complex work and the care that they provide to older Australians. Our funding will benefit over a quarter of a million low-paid workers, with nurses receiving up to $10,000 extra per year and personal care workers earning an extra $7,000 per year if they're paid on the award.

I have visited 30 aged-care homes in the 11 months since becoming the minister, and the most common issue raised by staff and residents to me is workforce shortages. We have heard residents and staff. We are putting our money where our mouth is. This record and historic investment is to pay for a 15 per cent pay rise to the award wage, the largest in the history of the Fair Work Act.

And this announcement will help close the gender pay gap. More than 85 per cent of the aged-care workforce is female, and, for decades, this care economy has been undervalued.

This is what alleviating poverty in this country looks like. It looks like valuing the people that work in the care economy. It looks like paying them properly. It looks like putting in place the supports that allow their working ecosystem to flourish. It looks like valuing their work and valuing the sector that they work in and preparing it for the future ahead.

It is the Albanese government that is improving the care economy. It is the Albanese government making record investments to improve the dignity of some of our most vulnerable Australians. We are ambitious for aged care. The Albanese government's historic billions of dollars' worth of funding, including the $36 billion that was in the budget on Tuesday night, will help improve safety and quality of life for older people, just as the royal commission asked us to. Our budget, as handed down last night, will help improve the lives of the most vulnerable Australians in this country—particularly those who do some of the most important work in this country, in our care economy.

Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What sort of government is it that can't guarantee a cent, a single cent, for public and affordable housing, but can guarantee $254 billion for everyone in this place to get $9,000 extra a year from tax? They can guarantee $41 billion for fossil fuel subsidies. They can guarantee $16 billion in tax concessions for property investors. But they can't guarantee a cent for public and affordable housing in the middle of the worst housing crisis we have seen in generations.

Government Member:

A government member interjecting—

Max Chandler-Mather (Griffith, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A Labor member over there, just before, told me to grow up. Do you think that your strategy is to tell everyone in this country it's immature to think that, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, we can put a roof over everyone's head? Do you think it's a strategy to call people immature because we think it's wrong that you're raising more money from charging interest on student debt than you are from raising taxes on gas corporations? If you think it's a good strategy to tell everyone in this country that it's immature to expect that, while politicians in this place are about to get $9,000 extra per year taken off their tax, no-one in this country should be forced to live on poverty payments, how dare you? The strategy that you resort to is to lie to the Australian public.

Now, if you're watching at home, here's the strategy that they're deploying: they are trying to crush your hope. They are trying to crush your hope. What they are trying to say to you right now is this: 'This is all you can hope for. And, if you hope for anything else, and if anyone comes out and says, "Do you know what? Since you can find $4.2 billion for a surplus, maybe we should be spending $5 billion a year on public and affordable housing," you will get attacked for it. They're trying to bash you down until there is nothing left for you to hope for. But, do you know what? The reality is that the reason they're doing this is not for technical or policy reasons. There's not actually any reason we couldn't tax big corporations and make sure that we build enough public and affordable housing in this country. The private construction industry is in decline. We could be using those skills and construction materials to build public and affordable housing. We could be freezing rent increases, the same as countries around the world have done and as Australia has done before. We could do that, but the reason they don't want to do it is because, really, they are on the side of the banks and property developers who make enormous profits in this country.

Here's the deal: in this budget they're guaranteeing money for property developers and tax concessions to build apartments, that when Mirvac built those apartments—by the way, the outgoing CEO of Mirvac, if you're wondering, is also the person they're appointing to head their National Supply and Affordability Council: what a sick joke—they charged 20 per cent above market rent. Above market rent! Well, guess what? No one in this country is going to take that for much longer. If you think your strategy is to yell and abuse and attack anyone who asks for more—if your strategy is that—you've got another think coming, because there are enough people in this country now who have been screwed over by a political system that snarls at and attacks anyone who asks for more while we have just seen the banks record tens of billions of dollars in profit.

If anyone thinks that's normal and is going to call the Greens radicals for suggesting that in a wealthy country like this the fact is the banks are making billions of dollars in profit and the government can't guarantee a cent for public and affordable housing isn't moderate, then they've absolutely got another think coming. The only radicals in this place are the ones who think doing that is sustainable. The only radicals this place are the ones who think it's okay to give yourselves $9,000 extra a year off on your tax while telling people they have to live on $52 a day. What a sick joke!

It's remarkable, and good to hear, that people are bringing up doorknocking. Maybe I will finish with this. We had someone come into our office, a woman who had just had her rent jacked up by $120 a week. And we were contacted by a man on Centrelink payments, unemployed long term because of a debilitating heart condition but unable to get on DSP. After rent, bills and food he literally did not have the money to pay the $70 train trip to get home to be with his mother. When my team told him we'd transfer $100 immediately so he could book the tickets straightaway and buy some food for the trip, he broke down weeping: he had spent two full days desperately pleading with Centrelink to give him an urgent payment. And you stand here and you think that it's good enough to give yourselves tax cuts while this is happening to people in this country. How dare you?

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the late, great Gough Whitlam said, 'Only the impotent are pure.' I might remind my learned Greens scholars across the way of that. Nor have they ever governed, nor they ever will. Woe betide us all should they ever govern. One of the very learned political commentators pulled me aside after the budget lunch today and said: 'Meryl, you know you're doing pretty well when they're attacking you from both sides. It is the old pincer manoeuvre.' But I just have to say to those who have raised this matter of public importance today that they've sadly missed a great opportunity to really raise some of the matters that are of importance to the Australian people.

Yes, rightly, housing is probably among the top things at the moment. People don't want to be living in tents in parks, or in their cars with their children. This government is spending time and money, setting down good policy frameworks so that we will not only be helping those people as of the next financial year but into the next four years. We are saying that we will set a foundation, and not only for affordable housing—whatever that gobbledegook was then about not a dollar for public housing: it's just wrong. We are spending money on these things; we are assigning good trajectories for housing in Australia. That is one of the key fundamentals to anyone who is in poverty.

There's another thing that people in my electorate say to me. I do have areas of very, very high poverty within my electorate and also areas where people are not at such a disadvantage, but the people from the suburbs where they often struggle to make ends meet say to me is, 'You know, Meryl, some of these people in parliament have got so much money that they put up these ideas that none of us could ever afford.' So they actually get fiscal restraint. They get that we not only had to put forward a budget last night that deals with the here and now, with crippling inflation and the fact that the cost of living is very high for people, but had to be a responsible government.

I am exceptionally proud of the fact that Jim Chalmers delivered a surplus, the first surplus in 14 years. People on the opposite benches have been saying, 'A drover's dog could have delivered a surplus,' but, quite frankly, I think that if we listened to some of the policies and the suggestions that we're hearing in these speeches today, it would just be a dog's breakfast; the country couldn't run. They would run us into the ground so quickly that there would be trillions upon trillions of dollars of debt. How would we ever pay it back? Yes, it would be fabulous to spray money around willy-nilly and give everyone all the support under the sun, but we simply can't afford it. That is the reality, and that's the very sad thing. I feel that our friends in the Greens party seem to live in some sort of fiscal fantasy where we should be able to spray money around and give everyone everything. Well, we just can't. The poorest of the poor in Australia understand that, and they don't want us to do that, either.

They want us to be responsible. They want us to put in motion the manufacturing, the jobs and the technology of the future, so that their children might not have to do it as hard as they're doing it. That is one of the key principles of any intergenerational change. Every parent will say to anyone in a position of power, 'I just want my kids to be a bit better off than I was.'

That's what last night's budget was really about. It was about looking back over the last 10 years and asking: really, what has been achieved for our nation in terms of anything remotely financial or anything remotely environmental? I know that is a key tenet of what the Greens want. What has been achieved? Very little, sadly. So we have to go back to zero and say, 'Okay, firstly, what can we afford; secondly, how do we look to the medium and long term?' That's what we did last night. It was responsible and calibrated, and we are giving as much as we can to those who definitely need it. I'm particularly proud of how responsible we've been. 'Responsible'—that's the word that I'd ask you to take away from this budget and that I'd ask the Greens to think long and hard about.

Zoe Daniel (Goldstein, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What was it Amanda Vanstone said the day after the 2003 budget, 20 years ago exactly, talking about Peter Costello's tax cuts?

Five dollars? Hell, what will it buy? It might buy you a sandwich and a milkshake if you're lucky. Not much.

When it comes to this budget, if you're on JobSeeker, take out the milkshake. The increase in JobSeeker that was confirmed last night amounts to less than $3 a day—not even enough to buy a train ticket to go to a job interview.

That's the problem in this budget. Reasonable? Yes. Reforming? No. There's something somewhat uncommitted about it. Perhaps this reflects a desire to keep everyone slightly happy, leaving everyone slightly unhappy. I do not envy the challenge before the Treasurer—the need to balance cost-of-living relief against inflation risk—but the outcome is nothing more than tinkering at the edges. Programs are continued, but not many are born, and I see no real commitment to a new agenda. It's feeding the chooks for survival, not growth.

The Albanese government had the opportunity to demonstrate a little courage in the budget and a bit more fairness. Restoring the single parenting payment to single parents, more than 90 per cent women, until their youngest child turns 14 is a win for women, their children, their job prospects and our future prosperity. It's great news. But, even here, the single parenting payment has been left out of the list of working-age payment recipients who'll get the $20-a-week increase. So there's not even half a sandwich for those who were already on the payment, before the age range was expanded. It's a neat reflection of the budget overall, which tries admirably to partly do a lot of things. On election night, the Prime Minister pledged that his government would leave no-one behind. This budget does not fulfil that promise. There's still time.

The 15 per cent increase in Commonwealth rent assistance is welcome, but, with one per cent vacancies and inflation so high, the net result of this change is unlikely to be life changing. The government has ignored the recommendation of its own Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee to return JobSeeker to 90 per cent of the pension, where it once was, at around $70 a day.

This would be more defendable had the government taken the opportunity to make other budget decisions with foresight—decisions that could move us closer to leaving no-one behind. This is what we need to talk about. For example, with inflation now too high for comfort, there could be a review of the stage 3 tax cuts—the timing and the numbers. There are a range of options beyond dumping them altogether. Or, more pointedly, there could be a root-and-branch review of the tax system to find more effective and fairer ways of raising revenue than our current overreliance on income tax, both personal and company. Stage 3 is now forecast to cost $69 billion over the forward estimates. That's inflationary. We do need to deal with bracket creep—we do—but, as Ken Henry notes, with proper tax reform and if we reduce our overdependence on income tax we might be able to afford stage 3 cuts and fund prosperous communities.

The government has also low-balled the opportunity to get a real return to the Australian people from the mega profits our gas producers receive. The value of LNG exports rose by more than 60 per cent in the past year to $90 billion, but the revamped PRRT is forecast to bring in less than one per cent of that. Something is not adding up. Broad based tax reform and appropriate taxation of what lies beneath our feet would assist budget repair.

This budget is an opportunity missed, and what about other matters like housing and student debt? Experts I've consulted are unanimous that the government's housing package won't do the job. Neither will capping rent—it will simply limit supply—and nor will raiding super. There may be small steps we can take. Rebooting and expanding the National Rental Affordability Scheme would be a start. As for FEE-HELP, and the impact of the recent and unprecedented indexation and graduate debt—which, among other things, impacts their ability to get a mortgage—a bandaid would be to be alter the indexation formula to CPI, the Wage Price Index or the RBA's cash rate, whichever is lower, while working towards an urgent review.

The small-target approach the government showed in its cautious lead-up to the election is still evident in this budget. There is still time to be courageous.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Supporting our most vulnerable and delivering a slim, responsible budget surplus are not mutually exclusive. Just because the Greens can't fathom that doesn't mean Labor can't do it. The best way that we can respond to a cost-of-living crisis is to halt the scourge of inflation, and for the government to pay its dues. Much in the same way that households feel the cost-of-living pressures, so do government. It's easy to posture and post moronic graphics on social media, all the while moving the goalposts on acceptable fiscal policy, but it is a whole other matter to deliver a budget that supports single parents, invests in women and restores funding to our national institutions.

We've had to clean up and consolidate projects that the other lot left behind, because it has become increasingly obvious that the opposition can't finish anything. But the Greens can't fathom balancing a budget or understand the real, grown-up challenges that come with a budget. I suggest that maybe it's time they grow up. Maybe it is time they gave up word art and got into the modern day when they're posting their memes. What we saw last night was just an example of the student-politics-based Greens party in this place. They've gone from a green environmental movement and a social justice movement to nothing but a bunch of obstructionists, who actually sit there and pontificate about all these wonderful things that they could do, but they will never be in a position to do them, and they never do. The hypocrisy over there is writ large. You hear them talking about how we should have rent freezes and we should do this and we should do that. The Greens own 15 investment properties. That includes members who have three.

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't know any of them; maybe you'd be able to help. But, of course, all we hear from them is constant carping, whinging and complaining but never real solutions. You would think, if public housing and affordable housing were issues as big as the Greens like to pontificate they are, they would do something about them. At the first opportunity that came forward, Greens MPs, Greens counsellors blocked public housing. Because, when they talk about public housing and affordable housing, they don't want it in their inner-city electorates—'Oh, no, we can't have those people living in our areas.' They blocked every one. Go and talk to the member for Melbourne and ask him about the blocking by the Yarra council on Fitzroy. If you want affordable housing and if you want social housing, you need to put them where jobs are. You need to put them where services are, and you need to put them where transport is. But every single time there is a proposal to build affordable and public housing in the city where these things are, they say no.

The reality is the elitists that sit over there want to have public housing areas but not in their areas—'Oh, no, let's put those people out in the suburbs,' then complained there are no services. It is absolutely ironic that you sit there and say, 'I'm going to bring a matter of public importance to the parliament. This is the most important thing we need to deal with on a day-to-day basis, but they couldn't even last five minutes on their speech. All they were doing was ranting and raving about nothing. They had no positive plans, no solutions, no support. You would think, if you wanted public housing to be there, you would be supporting homes for people fleeing family violence. But, no, they don't; they blocked the bill. You've got the senators over there in the sleepy Senate. Go in there and tell them to support the bill and get things happening. All we see is a continuation by the Greens to constantly block, obstruct and carry on like pork chops—as we saw last night with that meme by the Greens that went out on the budget. It was the most childish thing I've seen in this place, and, believe me, I've seen a lot of things. That was ridiculous.

Cassandra Fernando (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Using clip art!

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Using clip art! It's not even a program from this decade. That's how far behind they are. It was absolutely silly and childish.

What we've done is sit down and look at the mess that we were left by those opposite, and we've actually formulated a budget that helps people. People will be able to see a doctor. People fleeing family violence can get a house. People on low incomes can get a house—all these opportunities to go forward. Yet we keep hearing the wailing and the screaming and the carry on about billionaires getting tax cuts. What the Greens have proposed is people earning $45,000 a year do not deserve a tax cut. That is exactly what they've said, and they've tried to claim that's the billionaires. Well, I can tell you that people earning 45 grand a year do not own three investment properties.

Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge that the government made some attempts to alleviate poverty in the budget released last night, and these are important, but the biggest impact government could have on alleviating poverty would be increasing JobSeeker to above the poverty line. So what is the right amount of support? In a country like Australia, we should be able to set our safety net at a level that means people can still access the basics of life and live with dignity but that we're not destroying incentives to work. We should be able to avoid people living below the poverty line, which is about $68 a day for a single adult. This assumes the basics and no complexities in your life. As anyone trapped in poverty knows, there are complexities that add to costs—health issues, family complexities, mundane challenges like not having a big enough fridge or transport so you can't buy in bulk. Below this level, this poverty line, we're trapping people in poverty. They can't focus on getting a job because they're worrying about how to feed their kids or keep their housing.

In my work at Anglicare WA, I heard heartbreaking stories about choosing between food and medication or how one bill can spin you out of control. Our system is punitive: people feel shame and isolation, they lose connection with their communities and they find themselves in entrenched disadvantage. So what are we doing now? People on JobSeeker are living on $49 a day, now increased to $52 a day, which is well below the poverty line of $68 a day. This increase is better than nothing, but it won't make a significant difference.

What does the government actually think about this? The government's own Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee found that every available indicator showed that the current rates of JobSeeker and related payments were seriously inadequate when they're measured against payments overseas, against the minimum wage, against pensions or against poverty lines. It recommended restoring the relativities of the mid-1990s, when unemployment benefits were about 90 per cent of the age pension. This would be an increase from $49 a day to $68 a day. The change made in the budget is $3 a day, instead of the $19 a day recommended by the panel.

What do communities think? There is broad community support for a substantial increase. ACOSS has issued an open letter calling for this $19 a day increase. This has been signed by a huge range of MPs, community leaders, economists, prominent leaders and academics. The BCA and the Committee for Economic Development of Australia backed this change too.

My community of Curtin is relatively wealthy. One of the things that constantly impress me is that my community is not entirely self-interested. I meet people every day who are worried about others, people who want to live in a country where we treat people fairly. The data bears this out. Surveys consistently show that a majority of people think that JobSeeker should be higher than it is.

What would it cost to put unemployed people out of poverty? ANU analysis shows that lifting JobSeeker to 90 per cent of the pension rate would cost about $5.7 billion a year, which is a four per cent increase in total welfare payments and less than one per cent of total government spending. So we could increase government spending by one per cent and lift nearly one million people out of poverty.

How could we pay for this? I acknowledge that we need to address the structural deficit in the budget—inflation affects everyone—but in a budget of $680 billion surely we can find $6 billion so that all Australians can be fed and housed and live with dignity. There are numerous ways to do this. There's broad appetite for a Ken Henry-style review of our tax system. We could consider taxing passive income. We could increase the GST. We could make serious reforms to the PRRT. Or, in the absence of broader tax reforms, we could reshape the stage 3 tax cuts.

After COVID we have a greater understanding of how easily hardworking people can slip into crisis. In every budget we as a country are making decisions about what we value. Of the $680 billion we spend, we can find $6 billion to significantly change the lives of one million people. I urge the government to listen to the voices of the community, business and its committee and make a commitment that no Australian will live in poverty. (Time expired)

Fiona Phillips (Gilmore, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last night I watched the Treasurer deliver a responsible commonsense budget, and I am proud because this government is delivering on its promises. We are addressing the immediate challenges facing people right now and delivering much-needed cost-of-living relief. But don't take my word for it.

Less than 24 hours on from the budget I am being told how much this will help my constituents, particularly those on low incomes. In fact, this morning I received an email from a constituent, Tom. Tom is a GP at Kiama Downs. Tom told me that he's so happy after seeing the budget news last night. Do you know why? I'll tell you. Tom told me, and these are his words:

People in our community on low incomes, and those with chronic severe diseases will now have a fighting fair chance at affordable health care again.

He went on to say that the patients who attend his practice will be happy for years to come. That is a fantastic outcome.

I have GPs calling and emailing me to tell me that they're now going to be able to bulk-bill everyone who needs it. That is an incredible achievement, and one that I'm proud of. Eighty-nine thousand people in Gilmore will benefit from the strengthening of Medicare. That is an absolute win because being able to avoid and/or manage chronic conditions and being able to see a doctor when you need to are the best ways to lift people out of poverty. Our cheaper medicines policy will halve the amount of money that 50,000 people in Gilmore will pay for their scripts—50,000 people will have their medication costs halved.

And what about electricity prices? In Gilmore, we have a lot of veterans, a lot of pensioners and seniors and a lot of people who hold concessions cards. I'll tell you what, $500 off their next electricity bill will mean a lot. It'll mean a whole lot. Helping people pay their electricity bills is a good way to alleviate the rising cost of living and help keep people out of poverty.

You know what isn't a good way to lift people out of poverty? It's to oppose the Housing Australia Future Fund, which is what the coalition and Greens are doing. They are fighting against the millions of people the Housing Australia Future Fund will help. People like a young mum in Worrigee who I've spoken about in this chamber before and the dozens of other people contacting my office every single week looking for help finding a home or the 50 people in Moruya living in a campground with nowhere else to go. I encourage the coalition and Greens to have a think about that and to support the Housing Australia Future Fund.

But what about renters? In the budget, we've increased the Commonwealth rental assistance by 15 per cent. This is the largest increase to Commonwealth rent assistance in more than 30 years. Around 1.1 million households will benefit from this increase.

We wanted to ensure that this budget would help people through difficult times, which is why we've increased the parent payment for single parents. As a result of our changes, 57,000 single parents will see an increase to their income support payment, and payments for single parents are one of the higher payments in the income support system, recognising the difficulty of balancing care and work as a single parent with young children. That's something I'm proud to support.

We're delivering more support for the most vulnerable in our community, because we know they're doing it tough. Not only that, we've also responsibly manage the budget. We are providing real assistance to people who need it. We're delivering real cost-of-living relief. Last night we delivered the biggest ever investment in bulk billing, lowered the cost of medicines, funded the biggest-ever pay rise for aged-care workers, offered real relief on electricity bills, and that's not even all of it. The Albanese Labor government is creating opportunities that all Australians can share in and making the services we rely on stronger. Our plan will grow the economy, create new jobs, boost renewable energy and invest in skills and training. It is a responsible budget, a practical budget.

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm currently running a survey on housing in my electorate. The responses have been astonishing and heartbreaking. I've heard from renters struggling with exorbitant rent increases and mortgage holders being pushed to their absolute limit by interest rates hikes: cutting back on groceries to only bare essentials, no longer able to pay for preventative health care or exercise. Only recently one person shared with me that, even with a full-time job, they've had to rely on family support and food banks just to get by. There are families living in cars and tents in Ryan—in Australia. Shame!

Is this the Australia we want? It's not the Australia that I or the overwhelming majority of Australians want, but it's the Australia that the Treasurer seems to be more than happy with. Budgets, more than words, reveal who's side a government is on. With this budget, Labor have shown clear as day that they are on the side of billionaires, of big coal and gas corporations and of property moguls. They are not on the side of everyday Australians struggling with the cost of living. The Treasurer talks of $14.6 billion in cost-of-living relief. Sounds big, right? But that's actually over the next four years, so, in fact, it's only about $3½ billion dollars. Sounds a bit less now, doesn't it? If you divided that evenly across the population, that's $137 each a year. Sounds quite small now, right? Well, it gets worse. That $3.5 billion is one-eighth of what the government is spending each year on tax cuts for the very wealthy. It is one-quarter of what the government is shelling out each year on those nuclear subs that we don't need. It's one-fifth of the government subsidies to property investors every year, and it's far less than this government pays to fossil fuel corporations. The federal government is also spending twice that amount, about $7 billion, on the Brisbane Olympics. Make absolutely no mistake: cost-of-living relief is not a priority in this budget.

So spare us the 'difficult decisions' rhetoric, Treasurer. You didn't make difficult decisions in this budget. Difficult decisions are the ones millions of Australians are making every day, and your budget will not make any difference for those having to make those decisions. Your budget will change nothing for families having to choose between paying for groceries or filling up their car. None of the, frankly tokenistic, cost-of-living relief is going to help my constituent who told me they are under such severe mortgage stress that they can no longer afford meat for their family. An extra $1.15 in rent assistance a day is not going to help renters facing eviction after a $150-a-week increase.

But, wow, congratulations on the surplus, Treasurer! Gold star! I'm sure that a surplus is really comforting to people out there on the brink of homelessness, people who are unable to afford anything more than the barest essentials at the supermarket or people struggling to pay to heat their homes this winter.

There's an alternative. If we got rid of the stage 3 tax cuts and the nuclear subs, and if we made multinational companies pay their fair share, we would have well over half a trillion dollars to provide real cost-of-living relief. And here's what we could do with that. We could invest $5 billion in public and affordable housing each year and build enough homes to ensure everyone has a secure place to live. Surely that's what we want, isn't it? We could wipe out all student debt. We could freeze power bills at their pre-crisis levels and substantially invest in cheap and reliable renewable energy to bring down power prices long-term. We could raise the aged pension and JobSeeker, as my colleague mentioned, over the poverty line. We could make public transport free for everyone. This is the money we could have. We could fully fund our healthcare system by putting dental and mental health into Medicare. We could fully fund our public schools and eliminate out-of-pocket costs for parents.

The government wants you to believe that genuine help for struggling Australians is impossible, but ask yourself this: why can they find the $368 billion for subs and $254 billion in tax cuts for the wealthy, but only $3.5 billion for cost-of-living relief? Why? Thank you.

Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When I look at this MPI, I shake my head in disbelief. It reminds me—and has a similar hypocrisy to it—of when, in 2009, the Greens blocked the CPRS scheme, and then each day since have called for more urgent and greater action on emission reductions and climate change. I don't know what cloud the Greens have got their head in, but let me just quote some of the headlines from the front pages of today's papers. From the Herald Sun in Melbourne: 'Jim's battler bulk-up'; the Hobart Mercury: 'Boost to battlers'; the Sydney Morning Herald: 'Jim's war on bills'; the Courier Mail in Brisbane: 'One for the true battlers'; the Canberra Times: 'Pain relief'; and the Daily Telegraph in Sydney: 'Jimmy brings', and it goes on to say, 'Budget works a Chalm for mum', with the first line being: 'Treasurer Jim Chalmers knocked on the door of low-income Australians with a delivery of goodies in last night's federal budget.' Here we have the Greens saying that we are not doing enough for those in real need in this country, and yet the front page of just about every major publication in Australia today says the exact opposite. Someone is clearly out of step with reality, and I suspect it's the people in the Greens who have moved this motion.

Other speakers in this debate have talked about what was in the budget last night that goes directly towards helping the most needy in this country. I'll touch on some of that because, quite frankly, in the time I have, I don't have time to go through all of the assistance measures that were proposed in last night's budget. The bulk billing initiative of $3.5 billion—which will help concession cardholders and children under 16—is direct assistance to everyone in Australia who needs that assistance, including the very people that the Greens and the Independents would say that they are speaking up for. It's projected that the pharmacy dispensing changes will help some six million Australians by reducing their medicine expenses by up to a half. Again, who needs that most? The very people that are in the greatest need.

The $3 billion energy price relief plan in conjunction with the state governments will help households and small businesses. The $4.9 billion JobSeeker payment increase also goes to youth allowance and student income payments and the like. I heard those speakers that support their motion saying that it doesn't go far enough. They forget to say that those same jobseekers also benefit from the bulk-billing changes and benefit from the cheaper medicines. They also benefit from the rent relief that is being provided, and they benefit from the 300,000 fee-free TAFE skills training places announced in last night's budget as well. We then go to the Commonwealth rent assistance, which I just mentioned has been allocated $2.7 billion, and the $1.9 billion for the single parent payment, which has now been expanded until the youngest child is 14 years of age.

Of course, there is the $11.3 billion for the aged-care fund, which the aged-care minister spoke about earlier. That fund will not only support the 250,000 workers in the sector but, just as importantly, will provide some real benefits to the very people in aged-care homes for whom we on this side have been calling for more funding for years. These are some of the most vulnerable people in society, many of them locked away in aged-care homes without any support whatsoever and without the proper care. That's what I call vulnerability, and that is why this government is putting $11.3 billion into supporting those very people. I turn to the stage 3 tax cuts which members opposite continuously refer to. They don't come into effect until 2024-25. They are not in this budget, and why they keep referring to them I don't know. But quite frankly it diminishes their arguments when they are dishonest about the stage 3 tax cuts.

This is indeed a responsible budget that was handed down last night by the Treasurer. It build the foundations for the future. It tries to control inflation, interest rates and unemployment, all of which directly hurt the very people they claim they are standing up for in this place. That's why the Treasurer brought down the budget he brought down. It sets the foundation for the future to help those very people in most need.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The discussion has concluded.