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

It's so wonderful that so many people are in the chamber; I think it's because everyone wants to see more economic inclusion! This is something that this Albanese Labor government is really proud to be working on. That's because we believe in a society where all people can achieve their full potential, and this government is actively working on how we can do this.

One of the things that we see often with economic exclusion is that it is systemic; it's often institutionalised. We are having a look at the ways we can put structures in place to make sure we can improve the lives of other people. This also includes women. One of the things that we've seen with this Economic Inclusion Committee is that we want to make sure that we look at options to reduce barriers and disincentives to work. This includes social security and employment services. It means creating equal jobs, and the government is working hard every day 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. That's quite a concern. The report also found that women do the majority of formal care work, which is generally low-paying. And in aged care, child care or disability support, again, it is women that are making up the majority of the workforce.

So we're lifting the wages for these workers. In WA, for example, we have 26,000 aged-care workers that have earned between $129 to $340 more every week—the result of our support for aged-care workers. Let's remember what we saw at the royal commission and what was happening in our aged-care facilities. We need to make sure that we look after our most experienced Australians. They deserve to be cared for, and the workers that look after them should be paid fairly.

The Albanese Labor government is working to encourage more women into vocations that are traditionally male dominated. This has been done through our initiatives in STEM education and career development, which is led by our wonderful Minister for Industry and Science. We're also providing cheaper child care and extending paid parental leave. These are tangible measures to reduce the barriers and disincentives to go to work. We must do this because the issue of economic exclusion is complex.

Complexity requires an integrated and whole-of-government approach: a statutory body which will have an important role in overseeing policy design and development—an oversight that can span across government when it comes to budgetary outlay and the implications of its decision. This is a bill I champion for these reasons. I want everyone in Australia to achieve their potential and not be trapped by disadvantage but thrive because the Australian government has their back. Our government puts people at the centre of policy development by advancing financial and economic inclusion, delivering economic growth that's inclusive for all Australians.

The committee established by the bill will contribute to a policy of inclusive growth under the umbrella of a statutory body which will advise the Albanese government and consult and work in partnership to achieve a better outcome for all Australians.

In closing, I urge you to recognise the profound implications of this bill. By establishing the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, we take a significant step towards a society where economic opportunities are accessible to all, breaking the chains of disadvantage and fostering a community where everyone can thrive. I commend the bill to the House.

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

It's a core belief of mine and the people that I represent that everyone deserves respect and a fair go, no matter their background. I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023.

Right now, many Australians are doing it tough. The cost of living is increasing, rents and petrol prices are skyrocketing, and it is the individuals and families on lower incomes or without work who are being hit the hardest. According to Mission Australia, over 3.3 million Australians are living in poverty, facing significant disadvantages and challenges in their day-to-day lives. The Intergenerational report released this year shone a light on the barriers to economic inclusion and participation in Australia for underrepresented and historically disadvantaged groups. These include women, who continue to face barriers to finding a job or working the hours they would prefer, with unpaid work and caring responsibilities particularly impacting those with young children. At the same time, the share of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in employment is around 22 percentage points lower than for non-Indigenous Australians. Similarly, people with disability have considerably lower employment rates than people without disability.

I believe we can have a healthy, productive, thriving and inclusive society, but to achieve this we must address the root cause of disadvantage, look for ways to ensure economic and social inclusion for all and provide an adequate social security safety net. In this context, I welcome the government's bill and congratulate Senator David Pocock, particularly, on his work to make this committee a reality.

This bill creates a committee to provide advice to government, ahead of every federal budget, on ways to boost economic inclusion and tackle disadvantage. In simple terms, the committee will advise government on ways to help those who are doing it tough. The committee will provide advice on policy settings, systems and structures, and the effectiveness of income support payments, as well as providing options to reduce barriers to work and economic inclusion, particularly for long-term unemployed and disadvantaged or disengaged groups. In providing this advice, the committee will consider the government's economic and fiscal outlook and fiscal strategy, workforce participation, existing policies, and the long-term sustainability of Australia's social security system in the overall context of the budget.

Within this bill, I particularly welcome the provisions of independent expert advice to government, framed by consistent terms of reference. I also welcome the efforts to ensure the committee is comprised of a diverse range of experts, including a representative of the community sector involved in assisting or supporting persons who are economically disadvantaged, a representative of a peak employer or business association and an academic expert in social security. I also welcome the inclusion within the committee's functions of specifically having regard to the impact of economic inclusion policies on people with barriers to work, including those with caring responsibilities, Indigenous peoples and people with disability, as well as the impact of economic inclusion policies on gender equality.

However, I believe there are ways to strengthen this legislation to ensure the government receives the best possible advice on ways to lift economic inclusion and reduce disadvantage. The Australian Council of Social Services has put forward several recommendations that they believe would strengthen the integrity and diversity of this committee, to help ensure its advice is well informed. I'd like to particularly draw attention to the following of their recommendations.

Firstly, they recommend that the bill set out a process and time line for the development of national poverty targets and a national poverty measure or measures. This would ensure that poverty reduction is put front and centre on every agenda. They also recommend that the bill stipulate that reports must be published at least two weeks ahead of the federal budget, as this would ensure a minimum period of time for consideration of the committee's advice ahead of the federal budget. They also recommend that the bill ensure the committee includes representation from those people experiencing poverty by stipulating a minimum proportion of people directly affected, with a range of experience represented. To make this possible, they recommend that the bill provide that committee members be remunerated. They also recommend that the bill require that women should comprise at least half the membership of the committee, and, finally, that the bill ensure consultation with First Nations bodies to ensure there is sufficient representation of First Nations people on the committee.

It is my hope that the establishment of this committee will lead to better policy that addresses entrenched disadvantage and includes measures to ease cost-of-living pressures. I believe these recommendations would help make that a reality. If the committee's advice is truly listened to, and acted on, it could lead to powerful policy outcomes—policies that see more affordable early childhood education and care, and the expansion of paid parental leave; policies that increase income support to adequate and livable rates; policies that address entrenched community disadvantage and create more affordable housing; and policies that close the gap between outcomes for First Nations Australians and those for the non-Indigenous community. However, the establishment of the committee is not a panacea for retaining economic inclusion.

As we know, the Interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee was established earlier this year, pending this legislation being passed. The interim committee comprised the nation's leading economists, academics, philanthropists and community advocates. Their report, which was released on 21 April this year, just over two weeks before the May budget, had a number of recommendations, the primary one of which was:

The Government commit to a substantial increase in the base rates of JobSeeker Payment and related working age payments as a first priority.

The committee also recommended that any increase in income support be accompanied by, but not contingent upon, major reform of the employment services system so that it works much more effectively for disadvantaged jobseekers and employers.

I hear from the North Sydney community regularly about the need for major reform of these services, and I'd like to speak about that feedback for a moment. In calling for a substantial increase to the JobSeeker payment, the interim committee found increasing the rate to 90 per cent of the age pension would improve adequacy, which means it would be the minimum increase required to support a basic standard of living in line with community expectations. While the interim committee made several recommendations, they highlighted this as the highest and most immediate priority. According to the committee, substantially increasing the JobSeeker payment, potentially to 90 per cent of the value of the age pension, is the most effective way to tackle poverty. But come budget day, there was no such substantial increase in support to be seen. Yes, working age and study payments increased, but only by $20 a week; that's just $4 a day. That doesn't even buy you a coffee, and it is certainly not the substantial increase recommended by the interim committee. Adopting the interim committee's recommendation would have resulted in a rise of closer to $100 a week, and that's just to ensure people can cover the basics.

According to ACOSS research, in 2023, seven in 10 people on income support are eating less or reporting difficulty getting essential medicine and care because their incomes are inadequate. When coupled with poor services and stigma around receiving these payments, the inadequacy of JobSeeker payments is truly damaging. We must push for better employment services and payment rates for those facing barriers to employment. Adequate social and community services are critical to Australia's social cohesion and the development of a fair and equitable society.

I and my electoral team regularly hear from members of the North Sydney community who tell us about their difficult and sometimes traumatic experiences accessing these services. Many of their calls are truly heartbreaking. We hear from people experiencing major mental health crises who find that the process of engaging with Centrelink compounds an already stressful situation. We've heard from constituents whose wellbeing is suffering; they're losing sleep and they're struggling with their addictions as a result of unnecessarily navigating the Centrelink system.

Many constituents comment on their lifetime of paying taxes and doing the right thing, only to feel betrayed by their government when the chips are down and they need help. Instead, they're being made to feel they cannot be trusted and are somehow scamming the system when legitimately trying to access Commonwealth support.

When people try to follow up on their claims on the phone, they are met with a circular recorded message, or an automatic disconnection when the system actually recognises that they have called before. Sometimes the call simply fails, regardless of how long they've been waiting. One constituent told my office that seeking to contact Services Australia is like trying to talk to the man on the moon. Another said, 'If you don't speak to someone, my income will be reduced; yet I cannot get anywhere. It's impossible and makes life 10 times harder—for what?' We hear a lot about customer accounts failing to be updated with the latest data and missing documentation that was submitted online, as well as inconsistencies in information on the myGov account versus the customer records. The recently-announced increases to staffing at Services Australia is, therefore, long overdue and welcome.

However, as inflation, interest rates and other living costs continue to rise, it's disappointing to reflect that, while the interim committee made clear recommendations to raise the adequacy of income support payment rates and services, those recommendations were neither heeded nor implemented. Other recommendations of the interim committee have also gone unheard.

The interim committee called for the scrapping of the activity test for childcare subsidies. Childcare accessibility and affordability are other key issues for my community in North Sydney and are also complicated by a frustrating level of administration, often at odds with the economic and social outcomes we, as a society, want to achieve. The activity test is a major barrier to families accessing early learning and child care, as it adds unnecessary complexity to the social security system, increasing job-search costs for unemployed parents and creating uncertainty for parents engaged in casual work. If it were removed, children and families would have greater access to early learning and child care, and we know that that supports children's development and allows parents to participate in the workforce. Specifically, the interim committee recommended that:

The Government abolish the Activity Test on the Child Care Subsidy and commit to guaranteeing all Australian children access to three days of early childhood education and care. All children benefit from access to early childhood education and care, and government policies that ensure affordable access can lift female participation.

This call has been made by numerous experts and independent bodies, including, most recently, by the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce report, which again recommend that the government:

Abolish the Child Care Subsidy Activity Test, as an immediate first step towards universal access to early education for Australian children.

While I welcome the establishment of this committee, we must acknowledge that, in and of itself, simply establishing it does not solve the extensive challenges to economic inclusion of all Australians. The committee's advice is not binding, and, as this very recent history shows, the government may choose to ignore the committee's recommendations. If that continues to be the case, this committee will simply become another box to tick, another advisory body whose advice goes unheeded while people continue to struggle to make ends meet. That will mean more individuals and families battling every day, despite the existence of commonsense, workable solutions, and, in fact, will leave many of them feeling like the solutions that could be directed towards them are being deliberately ignored.

I really, truly hope that, with the passage of this legislation, the government intends to not only establish this committee but also properly consider and act on their advice. To ensure this, I point again to the recommendations made by the Australian Council of Social Service which I believe would strengthen this legislation, and I'd like to advise both the House and the minister that I'll be moving several amendments during consideration in detail on this legislation to try to effect some of those amendments. We can only make our nation greater if we are prepared to listen to each other and move forward when good ideas are presented. I look forward to being a part of that process.

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

I'm proud today to be speaking on the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023 to establish a permanent role for the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee as a statutory body. The government is committed to boosting economic inclusion and tackling disadvantage, and this bill will permanently establish a role for this. It 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 is an issue that is really close to my heart and, honestly, is central to why I am in this place.

Governments have an incredibly important and critical role in delivering the policies, services and foundations that enable Australians to live the happiest, healthiest and most fulfilling lives that they can—the policies that ensure that no matter where you were born and what your parents' income, you have the best shot at life here—and in creating the safety net that is there for all of us when life events happen that mean we need that support. It's what makes us a relatively egalitarian society. This is something that I think most Australians deeply value. Governments do this best when they look at the evidence and focus on assessing the need in the community and how to respond to that using the evidence. This is what the EIAC is about.

I am pleased that the EIAC will be established to look at this and give advice before each budget each year and that its membership will include a diverse range of individuals representing the views of people impacted by the work of the committee, along with relevant experts. Before the last budget we saw the interim committee report and make some really important recommendations about what is needed to ensure economic inclusion in this country. There's a long history of this. As I said, this is close to my heart because my first job was working at NATSEM, the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, an organisation that is all about modelling the impacts of policies on households and modelling poverty and inequality. I had the great privilege to work with the inaugural director Professor Ann Harding, who, very sadly, passed away earlier this year. Her work—and I've talked about this in this chamber before—was very much about putting that evidence around poverty and disadvantage and how best to address it at the centre of public discussion and at the centre of policy development. NATSEM was instrumental in that for many years.

At a recent memorial event for Ann I had the great pleasure to meet Brian Howe, one of Labor's greatest reforming ministers, including as the social security minister. He talked in his remarks there about the importance of governments focusing on poverty and the importance of focusing on that evidence. It was an incredibly inspiring speech, particularly coming from someone who has played such a role. Brian was there because he was also instrumental as the minister at the time in establishing NATSEM and seeing a role for the important provision of data and independent advice to governments and community on these issues.

In 1986, as the minister, he also instigated the Cass social security review, which led to substantive restructuring of the social security system and the inclusion of some really important payments and changes, including the introduction of a family allowance supplement and important changes to unemployment benefits, the guaranteed indexation of benefits to the cost of living, the ongoing monitoring and evaluation of programs, and the removal of gender based eligibility for payments. Those were some really important changes. He has continued his contribution in this area over many, many years.

Most importantly, Brian Howe was the minister in the Hawke government when Prime Minister Bob Hawke said that by 1990 no Australian child should live in poverty. While that statement is often ridiculed, less attention is paid to the measures that he introduced. There were a range of changes to child support, to family payments and to the social security system that meant that child poverty was immediately reduced by a third. By 1994, poverty rates for the children of jobless couples had reduced by about 80 per cent, and by 50 per cent for the children of jobless single parents. The social security system is an incredibly powerful tool that governments have to address poverty. We have also seen that in 2009 in response to the Harmer review, when the Gillard Labor government, under the social services minister, Jenny Macklin, who I am so proud to have worked for as the shadow social services minister after that, delivered the biggest increase to the age pension in its history and lifted a million pensioners out of poverty. These things can have a huge impact.

The interim EIAC committee made some recommendations around the JobSeeker payment. They recommended that it should have a substantial increase, and in the findings of their report they talked about it being 90 per cent of the age pension. I'm about to run out of time, but I do want to talk a bit about the history of that payment and about this discussion around evidence and poverty in our community that has been going on for over 20 years. If we go back to March 1994, the Keating government increased the Newstart payment by $2.95 a week above the rate of inflation. For a long time after that, it was not increased. That would be the last time that Newstart was raised in real terms. Following that, in 1997, the Howard government made the decision to tie the indexation of the payment to inflation—unlike the pension, which is tied to wages. This effectively froze the payment. This is what began to lead to JobSeeker being so incredibly low. It has structurally lost its connection with the cost of living and living standards—unlike the pension, which is indexed to wages if they are increasing more than the cost of living.

In 2002, the Senate held another major inquiry into poverty and disadvantage. It had a huge impact on the community in response and then a continued impact on the community conversation that was happening around poverty and disadvantage and the government's role in addressing it. This was the 2002 inquiry into poverty and financial hardship. Around that time, Anti-Poverty Week was established, which had its 20th anniversary last year. We also saw the Make Poverty History campaign. This was, of course, an international campaign with a focus on addressing absolute poverty around the globe. Here in Australia, it had a key focus on the unemployment benefit and the need to increase that as well. This saw a huge coalition of community groups, faith based groups, advocates and people in the community, and, discussing this with people, they say that there was a real change in the discussion. For example, here in the ACT, there were forums held where all of the Senate candidates and House of Reps candidates were in attendance to discuss—

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

The debate is now interrupted in accordance with standing order 43, and the debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Canberra will have leave to continue her speech when the debate is resumed.