David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) | Hansard source

I'd like to associate myself with the comments particularly of Senator Janet Rice, whose work on delivering welfare payments above the poverty line has been strong, consistent and constant for so many years. Of course, my other Senate colleagues have contributed so powerfully to this debate. We must raise the welfare rate. We must lift people out of poverty. How we treat those who need our help says a lot about the values of a society. Do we prioritise dignity, equity and giving everyone a fair go? Or do we keep payments so low that people have to skip meals, can't pay their rent and can't turn the power on, with medical and dental care impossibly out of reach? Are we satisfied that, after this bill, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023, is passed, kids will still go to bed hungry? As an institution, this parliament would rather pay hundreds of billions for nuclear subs and forgo hundreds of billions of dollars more to give stage 3 tax cuts to the already wealthy than give a kid a meal or fix someone's teeth. They're the choices that this institution is constantly making. Because of the institutional agreement between parties that call themselves parties of government—Labor and the coalition—every time, it's the subs, the weapons and the wealthy who seem to get the largesse from this chamber. Kids? They can just go hungry.

Let's be clear: a vote of this place could literally end poverty in Australia. That's what we could do if we came together. We could end poverty in the country. It's a choice not to have that on the table today. In fact, to hear the coalition opposing even a $40 a fortnight increase—to hear that being said by people in such privileged positions, on the incomes that they are on—is a deep, deep insult to millions of Australians. It's a choice to make the welfare system impossibly complex, deeply punitive and degrading. It's a political choice to spend billions policing poverty rather than lifting people out of poverty. This government, in just the last week, have jumped out and promised a $20 billion budget surplus—and still they tell us they can't raise the rate of welfare above poverty. It's not that they can't raise the rate above poverty; it's that the Albanese Labor government won't raise the rate above poverty. Labor promised in opposition that no-one would be left behind. Does anybody remember that? We heard the Albanese cry, 'No-one will be left behind; vote for Labor—yadda yadda yadda.' That's what we heard when they were in opposition. But, of course, Labor in opposition and Labor in government are two totally different animals. We see it time after time after time. In opposition, they want your vote and they make promises. In government, they govern for the status quo. That's the Labor Party. That's actually it's job, it seems, in Australian politics—to back in the status quo with a smile and a well-meaning message. It's like the coalition with a good social media platform.

I call on Labor today to tell us how they'll deliver on that promise of no-one being left behind. How will they raise the rate, remove punitive mutual obligations and actually invest in committees? This bill does expand parenting payments for single principal carers whose youngest child is 14, up from eight years old. In actual fact, it's reversing a previous noxious policy put in by Labor. But I'll give credit where credit is due: that should be reversed, and it's good to see it being reversed. That's a meaningful change, but it's a meaningful change we need because Labor did that rotten deal to make the problem in the first place. Again, Labor in government compared to Labor in opposition.

Eight years old was never an appropriate limit for parenting payments. While we're heartened that the change is being made today, it's important to reflect on why it had to be made at all. The choice to save public money by cutting welfare payments is a cynical and damaging political choice, and it's a choice that has been made by both Labor and the coalition when in government. Both of them are willing to play the politics of punching down against people on welfare, punching down against single mums, punching down against people with mental health problems who are struggling to get by, punching down against people who can't get a job in a system that's designed to create structural unemployment. We saw from the robodebt royal commission how that punching down by both Labor and the coalition hurts so many. It hurts the most vulnerable.

This bill is a kind of light punching down, by pretending a $40 a fortnight rise is about addressing poverty. When you hear, if you're struggling to get by, that this government, which was voted for change, is giving a cup of coffee a day—maybe a cup of coffee a day—and celebrating it as no-one being left behind you know it's cynical, damaging and plain wrong. The last budget increased those payments by $40 a fortnight, or $2.80 a day, at a time when it's not unusual for rents to increase $100 a week, and when groceries and bills are spiralling out of control. That's what's been promised. It's an embarrassing increase for this government to be trumpeting.

If we want to talk about closing the gap for First Nations people across this country that needs to include raising the rate. We know that the rate of First Nations people in poverty is far too high. Data from ACOSS that's been given to everyone in this place—ACOSS reached out to all of us, gave us the data, gave us the information—estimates that almost a third of First Nations people live in poverty, sometimes entrenched poverty. And the rate is almost twice as high in very remote communities. How does anyone pretend that $40 a fortnight is going to lift people in remote communities out of poverty when we know that just going to the grocery store can be a heart-stopping experience, where sometimes the basic staples are two or three times what is required to be paid in capital cities?

I remember once going with community to the one store in Wilcannia in north-west New South Wales. The town is majority First Nations people, and the store is run by a white storekeeper, who I have very little time for. I remember going in and seeing a kilo of Black & Gold flour for something like $3. That's something you can buy in a Sydney store for about one third of that—a dollar or less. I remember also seeing in the freezer section so many pet bones, food for pets, which wasn't explained by the number of pets in Wilcannia, and the prices of every item. I thought, 'How could you possibly survive in this town on the kinds of payments that the government gives?' The answer is: you bloody well can't, not with dignity. Is $40 a fortnight going to address that? It absolutely will not.

Of course, this bill really isn't about lifting people out of poverty. This bill is about doing the bare minimum for Labor in government. It's nothing courageous. It's nothing generous. It's nothing to crow about. That's the Albanese government all over—nothing generous, just the bare minimum to satisfy a media release, to satisfy a vague promise in opposition on the way to the election but never to change the status quo, because that's Labor in government. They back in the status quo. They back in structural unfairness. And then they tell us about their surplus.