Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution on the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020 and funding for some of the annual services of government. I argue now that some of those funds are misspent on poor services, the funds could be better spent and the services do not provide value for money, do not deliver outcomes and are hurting many Australians.

Over the past decade, Australia's social security system has increasingly become more and more based on conditionality and compliance. Under this government, punitive programs have become the cornerstone of Australia's social support system. Rather than helping people and truly supporting people, it is a hindrance to people. We need to look no further than compulsory income management, which has proven to not be successful—jobactive, the Community Development Program, Work for the Dole, ParentsNext and Centrelink's debt recovery program. Our government hides behind phrases like 'mutual obligation requirements' and 'targeted compliance framework'. These phrases are an attempt to gloss over the harsh, damaging and perverse outcomes of increase compliance arrangements.

Make no mistake: the targeted compliance framework is designed to punish people, and that is exactly what it is doing. Under jobactive, people face financial penalties and payment suspensions. People are forced to navigate compliance activities and jobseeker errors or are accused of making errors when it is actually the system that is making the errors. They get accused of not attending and get non-attendance failures; no show, no pay failures; and serious failures. This system is clearly not fit for purpose, yet the government wants it to go through to 2022 before any attempt at reform of the broader system is made. One of the biggest failures is that employment service providers design job plans that have errors or are inappropriate, and you only need to look at the targeted compliance framework figures to see that.

Jobactive participants pay the price for these errors, with around 48,500 jobactive participants having their three demerit points wiped because of inappropriate or wrong job plans. That is actually at a very strong emotional cost for those people who have to try to wrangle the system. These compliance arrangements seek to control and punish people instead of supporting and encouraging them. It is clearly not enough for this government to keep people in poverty by refusing to lift the rates of Newstart and Youth Allowance—and I will come back to that. This system is hurting people. It is keeping people in poverty. It is a barrier to trying to find work. They are paying $1 billion year for a system that does not work and that is keeping people in poverty and provides barriers to employment.

Through Senate inquiries into various programs and policies, we are starting to unravel some of the devastating consequences of the government's punitive approach to the provision of social security and the jobactive program. We are hearing evidence that a large number of people could be disengaging from the social security system because of its punitive and discriminatory nature.

First I want to turn to the Community Development Program. At the Senate inquiry last year, we heard of almost 6,000 people missing from or no longer in the Community Development Program. These numbers cannot be explained away by the government—as it attempts to do—by saying people have got work. It is highly likely that one of the reasons that thousands of people are disengaging from the CDP is because of the punitive conditions attached to the program. The recent review into the CDP—and this is the government's own review—found that CDP participants are the most penalised group of social security recipients. First Nations participants are 25 times more likely to be penalised then non-remote jobseekers and 50 times more likely to have a penalty imposed on them for so-called persistent noncompliance. Under that program, income suspensions last for an average of 23 days. CDP was meant to be helping people in remote communities into work. By focusing on compliance and punishment, the system is clearly missing the mark and failing to meet its objectives. Recently there were some changes—that do not go far enough—and some of those penalties for First Nations peoples have come down. However, the government should not mistakenly think that the program is now working, because First Nations peoples are still vastly disproportionately penalised compared to other Australians in other programs.

At the recent Senate inquiry into the cashless debit card, we also heard that a lot of First Nations people are disengaging from the income support system for a variety of other reasons, as well. To access the income support system, you need to navigate a complex and bureaucratic system. It also requires having access to the internet, a phone, computer literacy and strong English language skills. This means that many First Nations peoples in remote communities are shut out from the very beginning of the process, and that was part of the evidence to our inquiry just 10 days ago.

At Senate estimates in October, I asked the Department of Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business about people who disengage from Centrelink after a payment suspension. They told me that, between July 2018, when the TCF started, and August 2019, 104,480 people did not re-engage with Centrelink after a payment suspension. The department did not have clear answers, on that day, about what happened to these people. They said they presumed they moved into jobs. But, with this group of people, it is unlikely that many of them moved into jobs, particularly when you consider that 42 per cent of people on Newstart have a partial capacity to work, and only 14.5 per cent of them had reported earnings in the last quarter. In other words, it's highly unlikely that those people have moved into work.

The point here is that, for all the money we're spending on these services, the government cannot tell us, the government doesn't know, what's happened to those people. And it sounds, quite frankly, as if the government doesn't care. That's because those people are not on welfare, as the government calls it; they have dropped out of our income support system, and—guess what?—that's a goal of this government. It's a goal of this government to try and reduce the number of people on income support. You can do that by helping them into work, but we've just heard that the jobactive system is failing; it's not helping them into work. There's a growing list of people who are long-term unemployed, particularly older and younger people, who are not being helped into work. So it's highly unlikely that all those people got work. But it's okay! They've dropped off the income support system, so, tick, the government has achieved one of its aims!

The minister today couldn't or wouldn't answer the question about what has happened to those people. One of the biggest problems around the question of people missing off income support is that we don't have a clear picture of the situation through any data or research, and, therefore, it's impossible to find out. As the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress Corporation said at the Alice Springs hearing of the committee inquiry into Newstart the week before last:

… the system does not really want to know the real answers, otherwise the research would be done.

I am urging the government to better capture this data and find out just what is happening to people who are not re-engaging with Centrelink, who are clearly dropping out of the system and who are still highly likely to be eligible for social security. We desperately need consistent research and data on the different cohorts of people engaging with the system.

Given the number of people facing payment suspensions, and given that's growing under jobactive, I'm very concerned that we will see more and more people disengaging from Centrelink—people who have the right to social security. Australians are being locked out of and excluded from their basic right to social security, as a result of the punitive compliance arrangements. We know this, when 104,840 people have dropped out of the system and have not re-engaged. We know this, when we look at the way that the TCF is operating and the fact that there are also so many people whose vulnerabilities are not being picked up. They're having to suffer through the process of trying to meet their jobactive plans, although their jobactive plans are not meeting their needs and have been proved, by the system, to be inappropriate or wrong. We know these people aren't getting the support they need from the system. We're spending $1 billion a year on this system, when it's plainly failing people who need the support to find work.

As I said, the government sees fewer people on income support payments as a win. It doesn't matter what's happened to them; they're off the system. I think this is a very, very dangerous approach to the way that we support some of the most vulnerable members of our community.

Sitting suspended from 18:30 to 19:30

When we went to the dinner break, I was saying that people are coming off the income support system and we don't know where they are going and that that is not a satisfactory way to be providing services and an income support system in this country. People who disengage from our social security system actually don't just disappear if they haven't found work—and my very deep concern is that a lot of those people won't have found work, particularly when you look at the cohorts that are turning up very significantly. For example, over 50 per cent of those 104,480 people are young people. I'm deeply concerned that the system isn't meeting young people's needs. In fact, that's consistent with evidence we've been given in the Newstart inquiry, and with what people talk to me about personally. They're depending on an already overstretched community sector. They're relying on programs and services run by non-government and not-for-profit organisations. And we know that, for organisations like Foodbank, each year the calls on their services are increasing, so the government is outsourcing support programs to the not-for-profit sector and to the community, and also to family and friends and other community members. In some instances, they may well be people who are also receiving income support. In other words, that money is stretching further and further, and people are being pushed further and further into poverty. And there will be some—for example, those who are homeless—who don't have friends to rely on. What is happening to them?

The harsh compliance arrangements attached to our social security system have flow-on effects for the entire system. Deliberately punishing people in exchange for income support does not work and should be abolished. Our current regime is pushing people further into poverty. The last week we sat was Anti-Poverty Week, and we heard example after example of how that is happening—hence my argument that the system that we are currently funding is not producing the outcomes for the amount that we spend on it. Many people argue that we should in fact be spending more on, for example, our employment system to produce a really quality employment system. But my argument is that the money that we're investing now is not producing the outcomes—and the government knows that. They are trialling a new system in two small areas, but that system is not going to be rolled out, if it is proved to be effective, until 2022. We know, from the inquiry into jobactive, that the system is not fit for purpose these days.

The other thing that should be included in these appropriations is an increase to Newstart. Overwhelmingly, we know that Newstart does not meet people's needs. It hasn't had an increase for 25 years—25 years! Last time it was increased, I didn't even have a mobile phone. Most people wouldn't have had a mobile phone, or they would have had one of those bricks. The interweb wasn't a thing. Social media wasn't a thing. But, most importantly, what you can afford to buy, with the current rate of Newstart, means that people are having to choose: 'Do I buy my medication, or do I buy food?'

People are consistently eating one meal a day or going without. They can't afford public transport. It's a barrier to employment, which is what the government says it wants, but it does not give people dignity and equality of life. It is absolutely shameful that the government will not invest in the people in this community, and that investment is increasing Newstart. If people got $75 a week, not only might it enable them to afford to not make the decision to go without insulin, which is happening, and to instead make the decision to actually stay well, eat and pay a few bills rather than going without in that way but it is also a good investment in our economy. We know it will invest over $4 billion into the economy and create 12,000 jobs, many in regional communities, which are absolutely essential. We need to be investing in Newstart for the sake of the community and also, I'd argue, for our economy.

The government runs the argument that we need to be lowering dependence on social security and welfare and that Newstart is only a temporary repayment, ignoring the fact that the average length of time people are in receipt of it is 156 weeks—in other words, just below three years. The government runs the line that it's such a drain on the public purse and imply that the Newstart program and youth allowance are a major proportion of the social security and welfare budget. We spend $67½ billion on assistance to the aged. It's a very good investment. I'm not arguing here that we shouldn't be investing the money. We spend a significant portion of our money supporting people with disabilities: $44 billion. Again, it's a good investment. These are all good investments, as is the investment of $10½ billion on those that are unemployed or ill. That is a good investment. Why argue that the unemployed make up a significant proportion of the amount we spend on our social security system when investing in the health of the Australian community is one of the key things the government needs to be doing? Income support is an investment in Australians. That's what our social security system is. Why isn't an increase to Newstart included in this budget and this appropriation? It should be. We also need to make sure the money we are investing directly into things like employment services is well targeted in meeting people's needs and is not just lining the pockets of providers. It's not meeting people's needs. The system is demonising people and not supporting them into work. We need to improve that situation. We need to raise Newstart and make sure the services that are supposed to help people actually do help people and don't further complicate their lives and become yet another barrier to work.