Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reason I moved this disallowance motion was simple. It was to allow greater access to the disability support pension for many people who are struggling to get by. These are people who are generally living on JobSeeker, youth allowance or student allowance and would benefit so much from the extra income support they would get if they were able access the disability support pension. Disallowing part of these regulations would have meant that people's conditions didn't have to be diagnosed, stabilised and treated in order for them to have their disabilities assessed against the impairment tables. It wouldn't have created a perfect system, but it would have allowed greater access.

During the debate the government told us, in fact, that if this disallowance succeeded around 30,000 more people would be able to access the disability support pension. Both the government and the opposition said: 'We can't do this because it will allow people whose disabilities aren't permanent to access the disability support pension.' I put to you that that is one of the very features that I wanted to achieve in this disallowance, because there are so many people struggling with disabilities who can't work, who can't get by, who are in absolutely dire straits and who, because their conditions are not diagnosed, stabilised and treated, because their conditions aren't necessarily permanent, are not able to access the increased rate of support that the disability support pension allows them.

There's a difference of around $160 a week in the income that people get if they've got the maximum amount of JobSeeker versus the DSP. So I worked that out. As the government told us, if this disallowance succeeds, there will be about 30,000 more people able to access the DSP. At that extra cost of about $160 per week, it adds each year about $250 million or a quarter of a billion dollars to our social security payments. A quarter of a billion dollars would help 30,000 people to get by and to be able to live dignified lives. It's a quarter of a billion dollars! Yet this government and the opposition say you can't afford it. In fact, only two arguments were put up against this disallowance: (1) that it would allow more people to access the DSP and (2) that we can't afford it. I tell you this government and this country can afford it. If you decided not to go ahead with the stage 3 tax cuts, that would be an extra $30 billion a year, an extra $300 billion and counting over 10 years. Compare that $30 billion a year to the quarter of a billion dollars that would help these extra 30,000 people. Of course, at the moment we've got a government that's sitting on a surplus at the moment—$20 billion and counting. Compare that $20 billion with a quarter of a billion dollars. We can afford it. We can afford it easily.

It would make such a vast difference to people's lives. Let's think about it. Let's just reflect on the difference. If this disallowance succeeded, if we had greater access to the disability support pension, let's think about the people that it would benefit. A lot of these people have contacted my office over the last year. One of these 30,000 people is likely to be a woman from Tasmania—let's call her Wendy—who wrote to me saying: 'I was diagnosed with severe scoliosis and almost-fused bones in my neck. I applied for the disability support pension but was rejected. I am in constant pain and was bullied by the job providers, who had the cheek to indicate that I was lazy. I was doing two short TAFE courses at the time and stuck between a rock and a hard place. I'm not well enough to work due to my spinal issues, but I'm not sick enough to get the DSP. It is hard, as I cannot afford specialist reports. The system is broken, but I could not give myself the DSP even if I wanted to. Something has to be done.'

Another constituent from Victoria—let's call them George—let me know this: 'I'm currently on JobSeeker while studying to join the mental health workforce. My disabilities are chronic, without cure, and I've had to stop taking medication for my mental health conditions because the impact on my body conditions was too high. Every week, I'm assessing whether the priority is to buy myself protein to sustain myself or if I need to make room in my budget for a specialist appointment. I want to get to the bottom of my mobility issues. I want to finish my studies and placement so I can support the wellbeing of my community. I want to go dancing with my friends without having to scrimp all week for the $25 door charge. I haven't been able to save money since I was laid off at the start of 2020. Only due to the generosity of friends am I still mostly debt free. Scraping by on income support and the measly $50 of rent assistance makes me feel like our government has forgotten what people need to survive in the economy they have created.'

Let's hear the story of Stephen—not his real name—from Queensland, who also got in touch last year. Stephen told us: 'I've now been trying to get onto the DSP for three years. I appealed last month, and they denied me, because I couldn't get a GP appointment the very next day to complete a form. I don't have money to afford two meals a day. At my last place, the landlord sold the property, so I had to move. The new place—the only one that would accept me—is at the top of my pay bracket. I can afford it only by going into my funds for meals, medications and other bills. I have a growth on my brain—a benign tumour. I have medication to try and live comfortably. My condition isn't changing, and it's not going away. I have all the evidence from my doctors, but Centrelink refuses because it's not fully treated and stabilised. There have to be better ways to treat people with DSP. The mutual obligations are dehumanising and make people on DSP feel even more at the bottom of the barrel than they already do.'

These are just three of the approximately 30,000 people who would have benefited if we had disallowed these parts of these regulations today. And there are thousands more Australians with similar stories. In my immediate circles, I can immediately bring to mind two people. In the last few months, Carol, a friend, was suffering with severe mental health issues. They have suffered with severe mental health issues over the last 10 years. They are up, they are down, and they are struggling at the moment to keep their apartment because they can't afford to make the rent on Jobseeker, and they are so anxious. It doesn't help their depression at all. In fact, they are too scared to apply for the DSP. They applied for the NDIS and were rejected. They are too scared to apply for the DSP, because they know going through the process would actually just exacerbate their mental health issues.

Another close friend of mine, Lee, has applied and been rejected for the DSP twice in the last six months. Lee suffers from chronic pain and a multitude of physical health issues. Not surprisingly, associated with that, Lee suffers from some pretty difficult mental health issues. Lee has had eight eye operations over the last year. Lee has detached retinas. They are almost blind. Yet, their two applications for the DSP have been rejected. I would hope that someone like Lee, would, if we had passed this disallowance today, be eligible for the DSP and would be able to get the extra $160 a week that would enable them to at least have some ability to scrape by and to live their life with dignity. The only way that Lee gets by now is because of the generosity and charity of family and friends who help them out. There are so many people who don't have the family and friends like Lee does to help them out. They are desperate and are just being left at the bottom of the barrel—absolutely left behind by this government. The government is making a choice to leave these people behind.

You are making a choice today. If you vote against this disallowance, you are choosing to leave those 30,000 people like Lee behind. You are making a choice to still be giving tax cuts to the rich—$9,000 in tax cuts every year to every person in this place—while not allowing people like Lee, Wendy, George, Stephen and Carol the dignity to be able to survive. This is a big country I thought we lived in. I thought we lived in a fair country, a fair country, what kind of society are we living in when we're leaving people like that behind? I call on everyone in this chamber to support this disallowance and support those 30,000 people and allow them to live a life of dignity.

Sue Lines (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the disallowance motion moved by Senator Rice be agreed to.