Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last night I was making the point that the Australian people had not heard of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee before the election, because it wasn't an election commitment from this government. The only reason we are here using precious time in this parliament to debate the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023 is the dirty deal done by the Labor Party in order to get one of their industrial relations bills through the Senate. The problem when you make dirty deals in order to just facilitate politics, like this government does, is that you waste Australian people's money. This is going to cost $8.7 million.

I know that the government on the other side of the chamber throw millions and billions around—it just sort of rolls off the tongue. At a time when they have just wasted $400 million on a referendum they now want to waste another nearly $10 million on a committee to advise them on things they should already know. What on earth do members of the government do for their day jobs? If they're not out there listening to the Australian people and getting a feeling for the things that they need and the policies they need, why on earth are they here?

Why on earth do they need to set up a body that's going to cost nearly $10 million to give them advice that they can then ignore? That's the other inconvenient truth of this whole charade that we're going through with the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. When it was set up in an interim fashion before being legislated it provided the government with a whole lot of advice and the government ignored it—I think quite rightly, given some of the advice that came out of it.

These are all hand-picked fellow travellers of the Labor government. The chair of the soon-to-be-legislated Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee is the former member for Jagajaga. What was she doing recently? She was just administering the Labor Party in Victoria. That's what she was doing. She was just administering the Labor Party of Victoria, deciding who was getting preselected and who wasn't. She was wielding quite extraordinary power in the Labor Party. Now it's proposed that she will chair this new legislated committee. There will be other fellow travellers, like the head of the ACTU, Sally McManus. It sounds like a bit of a make-work program for fellow travellers of the Labor Party.

If the government are saying that they need a separate body of unelected individuals outside of the Public Service or a department to give them advice on these sorts of matters then really the government have fallen a lot further than most Australians think. This is a government whose priorities are utterly wrong. This is a government that wants to talk about anything other than the issues that are affecting Australian people. I know that the Labor Party think that this $8.7 million is just someone else's money. It's someone else's hard-earned money. Do they realise that every day Australians get up, they get on the train, get in the car or get in their ute to go to work and they voluntarily pay their taxes—begrudgingly in some cases? The deal is that the government ensures that every single dollar is spent wisely.

Spending $8.7 million to get a group of fellow travellers of the Labor Party sitting around together thinking up new ways they can get the government to spend more money, for the government to then ignore, is just an embarrassment. It is an utter embarrassment. The fact is that this was negotiated with Senator David Pocock in order to get his support for a piece of industrial relations law. And there is obviously the union wish list, which every Labor government gets on day 1 after they're elected. They get the wish list—the unions walk in the door, and they say to the Prime Minister and each of the ministers, 'Here's the wish list; it's the list that we need you to deliver in exchange for all the support we've given you.' I give credit to the government! They're very studiously working through the union wish list, one by one, crossing off every item on the wish list from the unions!

The problem is that, here, we've got—sure, in the context of the Australian budget, it is a relatively small amount—$8.7 million that is literally being flushed down the drain. That's $8.7 million taken out of the pocket of a hardworking Australian, who contributes their taxes for the greater good of this country on the basis that the government zealously guards that dollar and spends it properly or spends it to help another Australian. It is not so a group of people who—let's be frank—are already doing very well for themselves, who are all high-income earners themselves, can come together and prognosticate to the government their wisdom, their remarkable wisdom. Seriously, if those opposite don't get enough belief in themselves from their electorates, or from their stakeholders if they're a minister, then they're in the wrong job. Give it up. Give it to somebody else. If you need an unelected body to tell you these things, spending $8.7 million in the process, then you're in the wrong game.

But the truth is, I suspect, in the defence of many of those opposite, that this was just a dirty deal in order to get a piece of legislation through. They know that they don't need this. They know that this is akin to pouring $8.7 million down the drain, down the gurgler. But they just see that as a cost of doing business, for them to get their destructive agenda for the Australian economy through the Senate.

We're all realistic in this place. We're all realistic. But to use taxpayers' money in such a wanton fashion to bring forward this bill is, I think, shameful. On a day like today, when we've just had a bill rammed through this House, a bill that doesn't keep dangerous, violent non-citizens detained, by the way, but a bill that still ensures that those people are roaming free in our community, we are using precious legislative time in a threadbare agenda from this government on something like this? Instead of the government focusing on their core duty of keeping Australians safe—instead of the government putting their energies towards developing legislation to ensure that murderers, rapists and paedophiles stay behind bars in detention rather than roaming the streets—they've used their energies on this, to appoint a whole lot of fellow travellers at the cost of $8.7 million. It just highlights that the priorities of this government are all wrong.

How on earth could a government think of doing this, today, when there are people fearful in the community of those who have perpetrated domestic violence against them? The government offers no solution to that.

Instead of dealing with that problem in a thorough way that keeps those people detained, we're dealing with this trifling matter at a cost of $8.7 million for advice that's going to be ignored by the government. Mark my words: nothing will come out of this Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee that remarkably changes the law of this country or the economic direction of this country. It will come up with recommendations that the government will ignore. It will prepare papers and reports that will go into a drawer somewhere, never to be read, never to be looked at.

Meanwhile, we've got a government saying: 'It's all too hard. We're sorry, Australia, but there are now 84, and potentially hundreds more, violent criminals, the worst of the worst, who are going to be wandering our community.' And this bill is what the time in this chamber is being used for today.

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is seeking the call on a point of order, I assume?

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's on relevance, Deputy Speaker. I have been very patient on this. He knows what he's saying and promoting. It's got nothing to do with the question before the House. He's advocating unconstitutional—

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for his point. I will listen very carefully.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the minister was listening, which he clearly wasn't, he would know that I'm discussing the priority that this bill is taking in the House. It's the absolute wrong priority. Instead of the government doing their job, we have this. It's the solemn duty of government to use their energy, time, skill and the Public Service to protect Australians. Instead, we have this. It's an utter embarrassment to those opposite.

There are good people opposite who I know feel embarrassed by these sorts of tawdry deals done in the Senate. It's been legislated at the eleventh hour now this year. It's close to the end of the year. Why? Because that was the promise made to Senator Pocock—'If you vote for our bill, we'll make sure we legislate this by the end of the year.' With all due respect to Senator Pocock, he hasn't really driven a hard bargain here. He's not exactly negotiated for himself, from his perspective, a phenomenal outcome, because what has he negotiated and what's the government delivered? The government's delivered him a committee of fellow travellers who will give them useless advice that they should already know and that they'll then ignore. How do we know that? Because they've already ignored it. The interim advisory committee, this committee that is now being legislated, has provided advice to the government that the government have ignored.

All of that you could put up with because, in the end, if people want to volunteer their time and give the government advice that the government will ignore, it's a free country. Absolutely. Do it. But to spend nearly $10 million of taxpayers' money to bring together a group of people who are already doing very well for themselves to prognosticate and give advice to government that is going to be ignored is an abject waste of money. We have seen that before this year, with $400 million spent on a referendum. That all of the energy and efforts of this government have been put into priorities that are completely not helping the Australian people in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis is remarkable.

When you look at what the government have delivered and what they promised, it's very interesting. I started my remarks by saying nobody in the gallery and no-one in the Australian public had heard of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee before the election. Why? Because it was never promised. We know it only came up as part of a dirty deal with Senator Pocock. But what the Australian people did hear before the last election very loudly from the Prime Minister and all of his MPs and shadow ministers at that time was that he was going to make their lives easier. Under this government, how have they made it easier? The cost of food is up by 8.2 per cent, the cost of housing is up by 10.4 per cent, the cost of insurance is up by 17 per cent, the cost of electricity is up by 18.2 per cent and the cost of gas is up by 28 per cent. An Australian with an average mortgage is paying $24,000 a year more.

The most repeated promise before the last election wasn't the promise of an Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee; instead, we got another promise on 97 occasions. That promise was repeated not as a slip of the tongue; not a moment where, as we all do from time to time, you get a bit excited and say something that you haven't thought through. On 97 occasions the Prime Minister said, 'I will deliver Australians energy price reductions of $275 a year.' The Prime Minister has never mentioned that since the election. It was something he was willing to promise 97 times before the election, but he's not been able or willing to repeat it once since.

Instead, as I said, we see that the cost of electricity is up by nearly 20 per cent. The cost of gas is up by nearly 30 per cent. Australians would have every right to be angry if energy prices had remained the same. They'd say: 'Well, hold on. You told me I was getting a $275 reduction. But it hasn't moved. It's still the same as when you were elected.' They would have a right to be angry. They have a right to be utterly appalled that, rather than prices staying the same or going backwards by $275, they're paying 20 per cent more for electricity and 30 per cent more for gas. This Prime Minister stared down the barrel of a camera 97 times and made that solemn promise to the Australian people. I suspect many Australians voted for him on that basis, because they believed that he meant what he said, that he was going to deliver what he said and that he was going to deliver energy price relief.

So, instead of delivering the things that they did talk about before the election, we're now spending the precious time today in this chamber, the people's house, on a day when the issues being faced in this country require urgent attention from this government, delivering on a dirty deal done by the government with Senator David Pocock in order to get some of their troubled industrial relations legislation through. It's a shocking precedent. Do the backroom deals all you want, as long as it doesn't cost Australian taxpayers. Somebody's got to stand up for those taxpayers, and on this side of the House we will, and I certainly will.

Let me repeat: these taxpayers are people who get up every day, those mums and dads who don't get home in time to bathe their young children, because they're working. They have to work that little bit harder every time the government does something like this today, spending $10 million on something that is akin to flushing money down the drain. Who's going to stand up for those people? Well, clearly, nobody in the government, but we will. It's a terrible precedent because I'm worried now, particularly with their very troubled and radical industrial relations changes seemingly being stalled again in the Senate, what other dirty deals they are going to do in order to get the union wish list ticked off. Who won't they sell out? Who won't they shake down for a bit more money in order to get their agenda through in order to pay back their union paymasters? This time it's $8.7 million, but the next dirty deal will be a lot bigger, and the dirty deal after that will be a lot bigger. And, like a gambler, they'll chase their losses. The only problem is that they're not gambling with their money; they're gambling with your money. It's very easy to gamble with and waste other people's money.

We will be opposing this bill. We'll be opposing the fruits of this sneaky, backroom, dirty deal between the Labor Party and the senator. We'll be calling on the government to save this $8.7 million. Put this $8.7 million into something better. Put it into the health system. Put it into mental health. Put it into the education system. There are a thousand things you could do with $8.7 million. If I went to my electorate and said, 'What on earth could we do with $8.7 million?' there'd be a list as long as your arm of decent, worthy projects and people to support, including for cost-of-living relief, that everyone in this place would say is absolutely worthy. It would be a worthy use of $8.7 million.

But flushing $8.7 million down the drain to bring in a group of Labor fellow travellers to give them advice that they're going to ignore is terrible policy. It shows no regard and no respect for the Australian people. It completely disregards those millions and millions of Australians who work hard, get up every day and make sacrifices in order to work hard and pay their taxes. The one thing they expect in return is a decent government that spends that money wisely. They'll look at this and know that every single one of those 8.7 million dollars is being utterly wasted, disregarding their efforts, and that's why we will be opposing this bill.

Louise Miller-Frost (Boothby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One of the really important things that any government can do to build a thriving and cohesive society is to address disadvantage. Australia is the lucky country, but it's important that it's the lucky country for all. A fairer society is a more cohesive and peaceful society, and that benefits us all. A fairer society means that when you fall on hard times you know that you are still part of the broader community and that the broader community supports you to get back on your feet. We're there for you. Of course, that experience of community support comes through the actions of a caring and compassionate government that is here for all Australians. That's not what we've seen over the last 10 years, and I'm not surprised to hear that those opposite are opposing this bill. They have demonstrated over the last decade and, in fact, more recently that they stand for division, not for that cohesive, peaceful society that we are looking for.

Before I came to this place, I ran a number of not-for-profit agencies that focused on those experiencing disadvantage. I was the chair of UnitingCare Wesley Bowden, the CEO of women's homelessness service Catherine House and the CEO of St Vincent de Paul Society in South Australia. I've seen how cruel and random life can be and how hard it can be to pick yourself up when life has kicked you in the guts. Advantages and opportunities are not distributed evenly. For all that there are those of us who've been blessed with all the advantages—health, education, a stable childhood home, a supportive partner, gainful employment—there are others for whom poor health, poor education, an unstable childhood home, an abusive partner, unemployment or predatory employment experiences have been barriers to full participation in our society. This is not their fault, but these barriers can be very difficult to overcome.

While each individual experiencing disadvantage needs an individual response—and that's what the not-for-profit sector does so well—it's important that we address disadvantage at a systemic level. This is the classic metaphor of the fence at the top of the cliff, not just the ambulance at the bottom. That's why I decided to leave the not-for-profit sector and seek to be elected to this place so as to address those systemic issues, and that's what is at the heart of this bill, and it's what Labor governments are all about.

This bill will establish the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee in legislation. Ahead of every federal budget the committee will provide advice to the government on economic inclusion and tackling disadvantage. This is really important information to be under consideration when setting economic plans and levers—the impact on Australians from all walks of life experiencing various types of disadvantage. An interim committee was established in December 2022, which provided advice to the government ahead of the 2023-24 budget. This bill now supports the government's commitment to legislate a permanent role for the committee in 2023.

The bill outlines the functions of the committee, the contents of its reports and the provision and publication of the committee's reports. This includes economic inclusion, including approaches to boost economic participation through policy settings, systems and structures in the social security system and other relevant programs and policies; the adequacy, effectiveness and sustainability of income support payments, including options to boost economic inclusion and tackle disadvantage; and options to reduce barriers and disincentives to work, including in relation to social security and employment services.

The bill requires the committee in preparing its report to demonstrate its regard to the government's economic and fiscal outlook and fiscal strategy. The bill also requires the committee to report to the Treasurer and the Minister for Social Services with sufficient time for its advice to be considered ahead of every budget. The government will annually publish the committee's findings, without a requirement to formally respond.

The committee will comprise up to 14 members, including the chair. Members will be appointed by the Minister for Social Services, in consultation with the Treasurer, and be leading economists, academics, community advocates, union and business representatives, and representatives of the community sector. This committee will bring together representatives from various parts of our communities.

The current membership of the interim committee includes representatives of community advisory services to the NDIS, various economists and academics, a representative of an Aboriginal women's organisation in Fitzroy Crossing and representatives of ACOSS, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Council of Trade Unions. It's really good to see, in addition to academics and economists, a broad representation of people working or living with experience of disadvantage, who can speak of the lived experience of disadvantage and analyse proposals through that lens.

The Albanese Labor government is committed to boosting economic inclusion and tackling disadvantage. This bill will ensure that there is an ongoing mechanism for the provision of independent expert advice to government on matters relating to economic inclusion and disadvantage. This bill will ensure that there is an enduring mechanism for government to benefit from expert advice on how best to support Australians most in need and minimise disadvantage in our communities. The establishment of the committee as a statutory body furthers the government's commitment to provide support to Australians most in need and the commitment to listen to experts, stakeholders and community views to inform decisions in the budget, while acting in a fiscally responsible manner.

The Albanese Labor government is committed to a strong social security safety net. We will always look to provide more support where we can to those most in need where it is responsible to do so in line with the government's economic and fiscal outlook and fiscal strategy. The committee is an example of the government's commitment to listen to experts, stakeholders and community views to inform decisions in the budget.

Disadvantage is a complex and systemic problem. This is an issue that is not limited to consideration in a single budget process or resolved within a single portfolio, so it's important that this committee has an ongoing role established in legislation to provide advice for this budget and the next and the next and to consider various portfolios where it sees they are relevant, because disadvantage is not only persistent but multifaceted and changing. As policy changes the impacts change. This committee's reports will provide important information for consideration now and in the future.

The committee's membership will include a diverse range of individuals representing the views of people impacted by the work of the committee along with the relevant experts. The committee will include a number of members who work closely with and represent the views of income support recipients and people with lived experience of disadvantage. Through its work, the committee will also consider and listen to perspectives of people experiencing economic exclusion and disadvantage.

The committee will consist of a chair and up to 13 members, comprising economists, academics, union and business representatives and community advocates, who will be appointed by the Minister for Social Services in consultation with the Treasurer. Members will hold the office on a part-time basis for a period of three years, and they will be eligible for reappointment once their term ends. Members of the committee will not be remunerated. The government has committed ongoing funding of $8.7 million over the forward estimates to support the operation of the committee, including the ability for the committee to commission independent research and for secretariat support.

The committee will provide annual advice in a report to government on a range of matters, with a focus on economic inclusion and boosting participation, the adequacy and sustainability of income support payments, and reducing barriers to economic participation. In its report, the committee will be required to demonstrate regard to the government's economic and fiscal outlook and fiscal strategy, workforce participation, relevant policies and the sustainability of the social security system. The committee's findings will be published on the Department of Social Services's website.

There is an interim committee already in existence, and the committee provided advice to the 2023-24 budget. The government delivered significant income support measures in that budget which came into effect 20 September 2023, providing much additional support to Australians who are doing it tough. These measures included increasing the base rate of working-age and student payments by $40 a fortnight, reducing the qualifying age to 55 years, down from 60 years, for the higher rate of JobSeeker payment for single recipients who've been on the payment for nine continuous months; increasing the maximum rates of Commonwealth rent assistance by 15 per cent; and extending the parent payment single to parents until their child is 14 years of age, up from eight years.

In its next phase of work ahead of the 2024-25 budget, the government has asked the committee to focus on improvements in the social security system that would support participation, in particular for disadvantaged groups experiencing or at risk of long-term unemployment. The committee's advice will complement other processes, including the employment white paper and the inquiry into employment services, which should be reporting some time this month.

The government believes that everyone deserves the opportunity and the dignity of work. We recognise the wide range of benefits that come from having a job, including economic, social and personal benefits. The Albanese Labor government will always look to provide support where we can to those most in need, where it is responsible and affordable to do so and to weigh it up against other priorities and fiscal challenges. This is consistent with the commitment that government made to consider income support payments ahead of every budget and to give consideration to measures where we can support people in Australia who are doing it tough, because Australia is a lucky country, but we want it to be lucky for us all. Thank you.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023. This bill is thanks to the efforts of Senator David Pocock in the other place, and I pay tribute and thank him for ensuring it has come to fruition with the government's agreement.

This bill establishes into legislation the committee that has in fact already been up and running prior to the previous budget. This legislation puts it on a statutory footing. It brings together experts from across Australia to provide ongoing expert advice to government, because what's clear is too often decisions in this place are not sufficiently based on expert advice. In particular, when we look at how we support those most vulnerable in our community, they are all too often used as political pawns, for attack, for wedge, for headlines, for shock jocks on radio, rather than looking at what their genuine needs are and what the merits are behind policy.

I absolutely welcome this committee, and the basis on which experts will be able to make recommendations so that we actually pass legislation and, hopefully, have budgets that are geared towards assisting—not scoring political points. This committee will provide expert advice to government, and it will help ensure the widest range of stakeholders will feed into each yearly budget process.

The advice this committee will give to the government will include advice on areas such as the adequacy, effectiveness and sustainability of income support payments; options to boost economic inclusion and tackle disadvantage; options to reduce barriers and disincentives to work; options for tailored responses to address barriers to economic inclusion for long-term unemployed and disadvantaged groups; the impact of economic inclusion policies on people with barriers to work, including, without limitation, people with caring responsibilities, Indigenous Australians and people with disability; and the impact of economic inclusion policies on gender equality, because far too often we see policies and budgets that have imbalance and inequity.

Whilst I welcome that we had the Women's Budget Statement return in the last budget, it is important that the advice going to the Treasury—prior to the budget being determined and finalised—includes an assessment of the impact and the effect of possible decisions. Regarding the trends of inequality markers in Australia and international comparisons, are we falling behind our OECD partners and countries?

I urge, as an additional consideration in that aspect, that we look at generational equity. We need to make sure that young people and young people's interests are front of mind when budgets are being determined and when we are allocating spending in this country, because, if young people are not supported in an equitable way, we are heading down a road of great trouble.

There's a lot to cover for this committee, but it's heartening to see a good policy advisory mechanism reporting directly to government on the most effective way to deal with thorny, long-running issues around people who face barriers, hardship and disadvantage, so we can help those people to fulfil their full potential. In that respect, we obviously have to address the ongoing gaps of disadvantage that First Nations Australians face, but also, in particular, the gender inequity that remains persistent and the fact that women are still not paid equally and are still not retiring with equal amounts to men. Decisions are incredibly important around budgets and around opportunities for how we assist women back in the workforce and to get equitable pay in the workforce.

I know many of my constituents in Warringah will welcome the sorts of measures that improve the policymaking process and try to address the longstanding complex policy conundrums that have been an issue for successive governments and have failed to progress for much too long. We see that in all communities around the country. And, whilst Warringah may be more affluent than others, I still deal with constituents facing great hardship who struggle to make ends meet and who need help to get their lives back on track. It's concerning when you see the statistics of women over 55 being the group most facing homelessness, for example, the difficulties and barriers to getting back into employment, and all of those issues.

At the moment, as we grapple with cost-of-living issues, we know some of the highest cost-of-living areas are in our urban areas, for example. In Warringah, in particular, recent data came out relating to housing affordability and rental availability of properties, and areas like Seaforth were identified as some of the most expensive in the country.

It is incredibly important that when decisions are made by the executive, by government, it is with the benefit of sound expert advice that is non-partisan and that hopes to close some of these gaps that have remained too wide for too long. This bill will ensure substantive, sober policy work is undertaken and provided to the government to act on in order to help constituents.

The committee has already, in fact, issued the report, in April this year, with a series of wideranging recommendations for the government to examine, including a substantial increase to the base rates of JobSeeker payments and related working age payments. I have to pause here, because, again, what we saw with the recommendation for a substantial rise was that the government did not match the recommendation. My concern in relation to this legislation is that we don't really have a requirement for the government to explain why it will depart from that expert advice and recommendation in relation to certain policy areas. I think that is a level of transparency that is required. If you are going to depart from sound recommendations of a committee that you are putting in place and endorsing, something you should do in this place is explain the decisions of government. I think that is part of the transparency that the Australian community would like to see.

The committee has also advocated for an increase to Commonwealth rent assistance and a reform to its indexation to better reflect rent paid. Again, not all of those recommendations were taken up in full at the last budget, so that explanation is important. But I look forward to hearing more from the government on how this committee is specifically driving it to make better policy and take onboard the recommendations that it receives. There's always a risk that governments will set up committees such as this because it looks good and it's a great headline but ultimately ignore the recommendations. That is why it is important for government to come back and explain and respond. It's a bit too easy to say you're going to respond in the form of the budget papers—they are extensive documents, and you're really saying we should go fishing and finding to get your explanations of why you've departed from the recommendations.

I support this bill. I support the work of the committee. I welcome it. For too long, these areas have been fraught with wedge politics for the sake of politics and not for the good of communities. But the proof will be in the pudding whether the government will take up the advice of the committee. So I await budget 2024 to see how much it does.

Zaneta Mascarenhas (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am proud to be a part of a government that makes positive choices and creates positive bills. We're building, not blocking; we're choosing love, not hate. We want to empower people, not hold them back. And we choose inclusion, not exclusion. So I welcome the opportunity to speak to the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023, which, once passed, will establish the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, as a statutory body. The committee will be put in place in statute to provide important advice to government—advice given to government in the lead-up to the budget each year about the best ways to tackle disadvantage. That's because we're a country that believes that all people should be able to achieve their full potential. This is a significant step towards ensuring that the government considers policy implications of its budgetary measures in relation to tackling financial disadvantage.

The Albanese Labor government has been committed to creating a permanent role for such a committee. It was a commitment that arose after the interim committee was formed in December 2022. It was advice from this committee that was submitted to the government in advance of the 2023-24 budget. Now, the Albanese Labor government again is wanting to deliver. The function of this committee will be to promote economic inclusion through boosting economic participation via, firstly, an effective mechanism in our social security system and, secondly, promotion of relevant programs in the community. Doing this is important because economic exclusion means entrenched disadvantage. To have the opposite—economic inclusion—it means a society that is more equitable and distributing income more fairly, including wealth, jobs and economic opportunities. An equitable distribution of income is better for everyone because it means prosperity, wellbeing and financial security for more people, not just the few. This includes boosting economic inclusion for our most vulnerable populations—the disadvantaged and the marginalised. This can include the most vulnerable and marginalised people in our community, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, the elderly, women and people who live with disabilities.

There are complex factors that lead to economic disadvantage. The reasons are often systemic and institutionalised. It could be due to a lack of access to education and training in early years or intergenerational trauma and disadvantage. People with a disability or our seniors find themselves economically excluded, particularly in a world where the majority of our financial services are provided online.

Family and domestic violence is also a factor that directly correlates to economic exclusion. Often, economic exclusion is a tool used by perpetrators to inflict abuse on a victim. Financial abuse is a form of domestic and family violence. It includes the use of bank accounts to perpetrate abuse and the use of money to control victims. It's a very hidden form of abuse that often doesn't get talked about, or sometimes victims don't even know that it's happening until after the fact. It's often a problem that will have a prolonged effect, reminding the victim-survivors for years to come of the abuse that they suffered at the hands of their perpetrator.

I have talked with advocates and victim-survivors in my community and have heard some difficult stories, and often some really confronting stories, of abuse. I remember door knocking in one of my communities and meeting a lovely elderly gentlemen who was living with his older daughter and grandchild. He explained the financial abuse that his daughter had been subjected to, which included the withholding of money for things as simple as sanitary products, which I think is really awful for someone who's supposedly a partner to do to their wife.

In more recent consultations with victim-survivors and advocates, it seems that, when it comes to perpetrators, where there is a will there is a way. Bank accounts are being used to harm women. Many of these women do not hold a bank account in their name. They will work, but their pay is deposited into an account controlled by their abusive partner. Financial abuse can often leave victims in debt and without access to resources to escape unsafe situations. This means that people who are economically disadvantaged are often trapped in a cycle of financial exclusion.

To exit disadvantage, to overcome economic exclusion and to achieve economic inclusion, all consumers need to have access to safe, secure and affordable financial products and services. This often starts with something as simple as having a bank account in your own name, which is something that I'm hearing eludes many women, particularly those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. But the truth is that I've even had this conversation with highly educated women who aren't from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. For many women, accessing something that seems to simple to us, their own bank account, is a big step forward to financial inclusion and wellbeing. A bank account can mean independence, autonomy and, ultimately, the ability to escape from an unsafe situation for them and their children.

Understanding the system and their financial rights is an important aspect to the path of economic inclusion. That's why next week I'll be launching the WA branch of the Economic Abuse Reference Group. Consistent with the commitment of the Albanese Labor government, I recognise the importance of listening to stakeholders, people with lived experience and those with expertise in this area. The Economic Abuse Reference Group is an informal group of Australian community organisations which influences government and industry responses to the financial impact of domestic and financial abuse. Its members include domestic and family violence services, community legal services and financial counselling services. It was initially established to consider recommendations of the Royal Commission into Family Violence in Victoria.

The EARG has provided input into national issues such as banking and insurance to create products that empower people to overcome economic exclusion. Over 20 organisations are involved. It's an example of bringing experts together to explore complex factors that lead to economic abuse and, ultimately, economic exclusion. I look forward to supporting WA organisations to establish a branch in my home state to advocate for positive change.

Consumer Credit Legal Service and Women's Legal Service WA have been driving this initiative, and I congratulate them on their hard work and advocacy. The WA reference group will be an important vehicle to raise awareness of the issues around financial exclusion caused by family and domestic violence. It may also provide advice on policy relevant to the social security system. It's a system that we need to provide to support and to protect women, with strategies to encourage their economic empowerment by overcoming economic exclusion, exclusion that has been reinforced by family structures or a system that does not allow for economic independence when needed.

Another function of the committee is to identify options to reduce barriers and disincentives to work, including in relation to social security and employment services. It means creating equal jobs. The government is working hard every day in this area to address the gender pay gap. The recent report on women's economic equality revealed that Australian women are much less likely to work full-time than women in many other OECD countries. And, despite more women working more than ever before, gender segregation still persists. The report also identified that women are more likely to be reliant on award-based, low-paid insecure work and tend to work fewer hours than men, and most casual workers are women.

The government is tackling these issues from a variety of angles such as the closing the loopholes legislation that disadvantages casual workers through our new Fair Work legislative reforms. The report found that women do the majority of formal care work. I ask leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.

Leave is granted.

Debate adjourned.