Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Hansard source

I'm very happy to have an opportunity to set out the government's rationale for opposing the bill that is put into this place by the Australian Greens. We heard in Senator Rice's contribution that the Greens party accepts that this is not going to pass the Senate today, and I think that begs the question as to why one would propose the bill, knowing that it will certainly be defeated. What is really reflected in here is an argument between the Greens and Senator David Pocock. The political problem here for the Greens party is that Senator Pocock got there first. There is, in fact, an agreement that the preliminary Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, which was established by agreement with Senator Pocock will be replaced by a permanent Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee that will do all the work that is being proposed to be dealt with by what I think is a duplication and a very cumbersome approach to dealing with the set of information challenges that Senator Rice has outlined. I am grateful, and the government is very grateful, for Senator Pocock coming to the table with a concrete proposal that is capable of providing advice to government.

Poverty and financial hardship are challenges that affect the lives of far too many Australians. The government is committed to working across party lines. The government is committed to engaging with experts. The government is committed to working with people, including people who don't agree with the government, in the best interests of Australians who are suffering from the effects of poverty. We are not afraid of disagreement. We are not afraid of expert opinions. We are not afraid of evidence. I think we have demonstrated we are a government that is acting and doing what it can to contribute in this area.

The grand title of the bill—Ending Poverty in Australia (Antipoverty Commission) Bill 2023—is not matched by its content. What it does is establish a commission and a committee. The Greens party, after the introduction of the interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, acted very fast—which revealed the political embarrassment they suffer here to set up this proposed private senator's bill to establish this antipoverty commission. It also subsequently established a long-term inquiry into the extent and nature poverty in Australia by the Community Affairs References Committee. The interim report of that committee was handed down in May, ahead of the 2023-24 budget, and hearings continue across Australia. The final report for that committee is due to be handed down at the end of October this year, and the government will respond to that report.

The first problem with what is proposed by Senator Rice and the Greens party is the duplication of established government practices. The legislation will shortly be introduced to permanently establish the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. As Senator Rice has correctly pointed out, there will be a gap from time to time between what the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee proposes and what the government does. That's because the government values independent advice. We actually want the challenge to be there for government to act in these areas. We don't want a mouthpiece that simply reflects government policy. We want engagement from experts, we want engagement from community organisations that are active in this area, and we want policy propositions that can be considered over time.

The bill that will be introduced will outline the functions of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, including its approaches to boosting economic participation through policy systems, settings and structures in relation to the social security program and, broadly, 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. It has a very broad remit indeed. It will engage with experts and the sector, as it requires, to develop its recommendations. It will report to the Treasurer and the Minister for Social Services with sufficient time for its advice to be considered ahead of every budget. This is absolutely consistent with what the Prime Minister said during the course of the last three years in opposition, which was that a Labor government would consider, particularly in relation to JobSeeker but also in relation to other payments, what can be done ahead of every budget.

The commission as proposed by the Greens is a significant duplication of resources and expenditure to provide the same degree of advice on aligned issues covered under the proposed Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee legislation and the terms of reference of the committee itself. I understand what Senator Rice has said—this is an exercise proposed in this bill in providing a bit of an outline of what the Greens political party believe should be included in the terms of reference. You could have written us a letter. We're all ears for discussion across the parliament about what the terms of reference and the broad structure of it should be. But we're listening carefully during this debate.

The Greens bill would establish a new commission and a joint standing committee. What is required, of course, in this area of policy is not another inquiry but action. The only people that the Greens party proposal would lift out of poverty are the four to 12 commissioners that the commission would appoint. The Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee structure provides an efficient, responsive and practical method of researching, advising and recommending options to government. If you don't agree with that, take it up with its proponent. The permanent Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee will comprise 14 members, including a chair, who will be appointed by the Minister for Social Services in consultation with the Treasurer. It will be composed of leading economists, academics, community advocates, union and business representatives, and representatives of the community sector. Members won't be remunerated, although they can be reimbursed for reasonable travel costs. It will be independent of government. It won't rely on additional parliamentary processes, like a joint committee, to conduct or influence its practices.

Conversely, the commission proposed in this legislation would include a president and between four and 12 commissioners. The commission would also have a general manager and staff. The commissioners would be remunerated as determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. As I said, it would have the effect of lifting 12 people out of poverty. The proposed commission would be underpinned by a joint parliamentary committee on combating poverty—another committee. Not action—another committee! The existing structure of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee already allows an independent voice to government on matters within its remit without layering complexity and significantly increasing costs.

Now, I do accept that Senator Rice, along with former senator Rachel Siewert, have had a long tradition and scope of work in this place that has added to this chamber's and, more broadly, the parliament's consideration of issues around poverty. That is a serious and good contribution in this place. But the truth is this bill is another example of the Greens political party pursuing political points.