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

The Ending Poverty in Australia (Antipoverty Commission) Bill 2023 is an incredibly important, constructive step towards ending poverty in Australia. If passed, the proposed antipoverty commission would provide parliament with independent and transparent advice on the causes of poverty in Australia and how to reduce it, and would advise on the minimum levels for social security payments, including JobSeeker, the parenting payment, youth allowance, the age pension and the disability support pension.

We know the need for this commission. It's because successive governments have used the lack of a national definition of poverty, which this antipoverty commission would create, as an excuse to keep people living on inadequate income support payments. We need a national definition of poverty, one that takes into account different needs and contexts, and one that the government can be held accountable to. By setting up an independent commission which would have that responsibility and which would provide advice to government, we would increase the transparency. It means that we could take real action to know the extent of the problem and what needs to be done about it.

But, of course, it's the Greens who are putting forward this bill; that's because we want to have that independence, transparency and integrity in how government decisions are made. This week in parliament we have seen that the Labor government has some major issues when it comes to dealing with transparency in politics. Establishing more truly independent bodies to advise government is an important starting point. This antipoverty commission, if established, would have the same standing as the Productivity Commission or the ACCC. It would be a trusted source of independent advice to government—independent advice that governments would ignore at their peril.

I do want to acknowledge that the idea for this commission builds upon the work that has been done by the interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, which was established before the last budget. At the moment this is a temporary committee. It published a report in April which builds upon their work and the advocacy of unemployed advocates, social service organisations and academics. The report contains really important evidence about economic disadvantage in Australia. The report found that, apart from a temporary boost during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the JobSeeker payment has been declining relative to median incomes and other Centrelink payments for decades. It articulated what the Greens, people on income support and many others already knew: the rate of JobSeeker is completely inadequate.

The committee put forward a suite of important recommendations for the government to reduce economic inequality in Australia. But as committee member and associate professor at the Australia National University Ben Phillips highlighted, the most pressing concern and the most important for immediate policy action is to substantially increase the JobSeeker payment. The report recommended that the government commit to a substantial increase in the base rates of JobSeeker and related working-age payments as a first priority, and suggested that increasing the rate to 90 per cent of the age pension would improve adequacy. Despite this salient and pressing recommendation by Labor's own Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, in the last budget the Albanese government decided to raise the rate of JobSeeker by just $4 a day. Four dollars a day is not the substantial increase that the committee recommended. Four dollars a day can't even buy a coffee, let alone pay someone's rent, groceries and medical expenses.

We know that poverty is a political choice, and right now the Labor government is choosing to keep millions of Australians on income support well below the poverty line. We know that the government is now committed to introducing a permanent Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee before the next budget. If this permanent committee is established then maybe the government would feel the need to pay more attention to its recommendations. What we believe, as Greens, is in setting up a truly independent commission rather than a committee, when the government seems able to just ignore its advice. A truly independent committee is what's needed.

The bill that I am putting forward to the parliament today is a template. It's a model. It is what, in fact, we would like to see in the government's permanent Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. We would prefer to see an antipoverty commission, with the true independence that a commission has. I would love to see this bill passed. It probably isn't going to be passed today. Given that and given that we know the government intends to establish a permanent Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee before the next budget—given that we expect to see legislation to do that at some stage before the end of the year—we are, by presenting this bill, offering to the government what we think needs to be included in that permanent Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee legislation, which we understand we will see in the coming months.

We need to ensure that if government makes an increase like the tiny increase made to JobSeeker before the last budget—there may be a bigger increase from the work of the permanent committee before the next budget—it's told we need more than that. We need to know that there is actually a really strong, independent body of advice that will be listened to and that the government would then take on board, ensuring that payment rates on income support are adequate so that people aren't living in poverty in the future. We cannot allow the one-off increase we've had this year—we might get a one-off increase again next year—to be an excuse for further decades of inaction.

In my roles as the chair of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee's inquiry into the extent and nature of poverty in Australia and chair of our inquiry into the worsening rental crisis in Australia, I have been hearing time and time again about the devastating impact of poverty on individuals and communities. We've heard how poverty prevents people from connecting with their friends and communities, how inadequate income support payments mean people have to leave their studies, and how some people can't afford to eat high-quality food, even though they know they have deficiencies in their diet. Just yesterday, Suicide Prevention Australia released a report saying that more than half of Australian families are reporting higher than normal distress due to the rising cost of living. Suicide Prevention Australia's community tracker found families were twice as likely as others nationally to call the frontline suicide prevention service for help. They also told us that in the last year the rate of suicide has increased by seven per cent. These are the real impacts of poverty. In our hearings into the rental crisis, we've heard that the number of people accessing homelessness surveys has also increased by seven per cent in the last year. This is the real human cost of poverty.

As the cost of living continues to soar, we must do everything in our power to ensure that communities are kept out of poverty and out of financial distress. If we do nothing, the consequences are devastating. Many of those consequences won't become apparent for many years. That's because by making a political choice to leave people in poverty now we are not only letting down millions of Australians but also abandoning future generations. There are countless children—one in six—living in poverty. They should be enjoying their studies and playing with their friends; instead, they're worrying about their next meal. Activities like sport and music are out of reach. How can they even consider these luxuries when affording food is a daily struggle? We've heard so many stories of what the impact of poverty on people is. Bonnie, who receives a JobSeeker payment, told me:

My life sucks. I pretty much don't go anywhere or do anything as I can't afford to as well as not wanting to because I have been suffering debilitating depression, anxiety, insomnia and a host of other medical issues so only really feel safe at home. I have nothing to look forward to. I find it hard to even communicate with friends as when they ask about what I've been up to, I don't want to lie but I also don't want to tell them about the dumpster fire my life has become. My unit has been sold twice in just over a year (currently for sale) and my rent has gone up twice in the time and will go up again in August (if I am lucky to be living in the same place … I have lived in my unit for just over 12 years and am terrified of what might happen in the next few months. I have no control over anything and the uncertainty leaves me in a constant state of stress, depression and anxiety. I barely sleep; my blood sugar is out of whack, and I am miserable.

This is the human cost of poverty. The Greens of course support the concept and the work done by the Interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee; however, we believe that the original framework does not go far enough to address poverty in Australia. The idea of an independent body is to provide clear advice to parliament on the issue of poverty, and it's something the Greens have long been advocating for.

Our antipoverty commission has a number of distinct features that we think are critical to establishing an effective, independent body to tackle poverty and inequality in Australia. These include an explicit focus on addressing poverty in its name and framework and a clear requirement for the development of a national poverty line. There would be a requirement for government to publicly respond to recommendations made by the independent commission, a clear requirement for legislated reviews of income support payments and the poverty line, and an independent parliamentary committee that would scrutinise appointments to the commission. We want to ensure that this isn't just another body that the major parties stack with retired ministers and staffers. We need people with skills, expertise and knowledge of poverty to guide policy, and a focus on lived experience that enables people with direct experience of poverty to be commissioners.

For far too long governments have used the lack of a nationally accepted measure of poverty to dodge responsibility for the inadequacy of income support payments. This is how the Labor government were able to ignore the explicit recommendations of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee and how they will continue to continue to keep people on income support in poverty. We urgently need a national definition of poverty, one that takes into account a diversity of needs and contexts and one that the government can be held accountable to. Multiple times on committees over the past year I have discussed and asked questions about why we don't have a national definition of poverty. Basically, the answer I get back from government is: 'It's too complex. We can't possibly do it.' That is just not good enough. Yes, it is complex. Yes, it may need to be multifaceted; in fact, it almost certainly will be. But we can do it, and we should do it so we have a benchmark for what the poverty line actually is.

Another important part of our bill is the focus on lived experience. Successive governments have implemented policies that fail to take into account the experiences and knowledge of people experiencing poverty. Enabling people with lived experience to be commissioners of the antipoverty commission will ensure that these voices are heard. This bill is a significant benchmark and an important part of the longer work that is needed to end poverty in Australia.

Another example of the need was articulated in the ACOSS report, released earlier this week, on the inadequacy of income support. There was a further report earlier in the week. Poverty is a critical issue that our country is facing at the moment. The ACOSS report found that inadequate income support payments push people to cut their food intake, that most people reported taking steps to reduce their energy use, and that 64 per cent went without other essentials, like food and medication, to afford their energy bill.

Poverty is a fundamental issue that, as a caring society, we need to deal with. I often think about the time when I was a young adult, in the 1980s, and I went overseas. I went to Europe and, for the first time in my life, saw homeless people on the streets. I remember thinking: 'I'm so glad we haven't got that in Australia. We haven't got people who are homeless and destitute in Australia.' We are a much richer country than we were then, in the eighties, yet the conditions some people are living in are just appalling. When we look at people who are homeless, people who are destitute, people who can't afford to put food on the table, it is a political choice that we're making to have those people there.

This bill goes further than the interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. It sets out a clear framework for a robust and independent body to tackle poverty. I urge my colleagues, particularly the government colleagues, to use this bill as a benchmark to assess the legislation for the establishment of the permanent Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, to ensure that we have the best chance of eradicating poverty in Australia. The Greens will certainly be using what's in this bill as a blueprint for our deliberations when we see that legislation over the coming months.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to 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.

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

Setting the agenda.

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Setting the agenda.

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

The agenda was set by the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. This is a Johnny-come-lately proposal that will have no influence on the government's consideration of these issues.

The Greens political body should take a constructive approach. Of course, it's the same approach that the Greens political party takes on housing: blocking legislation that the government has a mandate for. I saw over the course of the weekend, just as a symbol of this, in Redfern small teams—not a lot of them—of Greens doorknockers. What were they doing?

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

How dare they!

Honourable senators interjecting—

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ayres, resume your seat. The interjections—I have let them go, but they are disorderly. It's difficult for me to follow the minister. Minister Ayres.

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

They are about to get more disorderly!

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not helpful, Senator Ayres.

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

What were these characters doorknocking about in the middle of the Voice campaign? What were they on about? They were doorknocking about Max Chandler-Mather and housing. In the middle of the Voice campaign, what are these characters up to? It's all about the slogan. It's all about the social media post. It's all about column inches in the Jacobin magazine and the Green Left Weekly. It is never about building additional homes. In fact, because of their posturing and their connivance with their friends in the Liberal and National parties, 30,000 fewer homes will be built. It's the ultimate victory of university Trotskyite politics, a long discussion between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in the Greens about what position they can take that will sharpen the class struggle. What is the position they can take that will materially disadvantage working-class Australians in the interests of them having the capacity, as Mr Chandler-Mather set out in his lamentable peace in the Jacobin magazine, to have issues to campaign on rather than substantially change the economic, political and policy landscape in Australia so that real change can be made? Thirty thousand homes or 30,000 fewer homes? Where were they when the government increased Commonwealth Rent Assistance by the largest amount in its history? Nowhere. They were nowhere. They were posting furiously in their hope that they would be able to persuade Australians that memes, slogans, Instagram posts and Facebook nonsense will somehow—

Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They're so dank!

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

Dank memes, Senator Steele-John says. Dank memes indeed. I think that's what the old people say! The young people have moved past dank memes.

The problem for the Greens political party is that low-income Australians can't feed themselves with a poverty commission or property commissioners. The truth is that Australians who don't have access to a home can't house themselves in a slogan. They can't close the door on a meme. What Australians without homes require is a government that— (Time expired)

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm reluctant to get up! I should just let those on the other side carry this debate. It's very enjoyable. We had more longbows from Senator Ayres than there were at Agincourt! That was a very, very enjoyable contribution, but I'm not sure there was much substance in it. In fact, in the first two contributions we've had on this bill, there's been hardly a mention of what's actually driving pressure on Australian families, particularly Australian families on low and relatively fixed incomes: inflation.

There's been hardly a mention of inflation. This is because those on the other side, the alliance partners—Labor and the Greens—have no idea how to tackle poverty. They have no idea how to actually address the issues that are confronting Australian families and the cost-of-living pressures that are bearing down on every Australian family at the moment. There was barely a mention of inflation in both a speech from the Greens and a speech from the Labor Party on poverty. That's extraordinary.

The average Australian family has seen their costs increase over the last 12 months of this Labor government by around $20,000 per year. We've seen mortgages skyrocket. We've seen power bills go up massively. We've seen grocery bills go up massively. We've seen fuel prices increase. Meanwhile, real wages are plummeting, thanks to inflation. Inflation is the destroyer of a standard of living. Inflation is the destroyer of people being able to draw themselves out of poverty through attempts to better their lives via things like education, getting a job or starting a small business. Inflation destroys those things. Yet, we've had two speeches on poverty—one from the Greens and one from Labor—with barely a mention of the inflation that is so negatively affecting the overall economy and individual families in this country.

Those opposite don't have a clue how to run an economy. They have very little idea of how to manage a household budget or the pressures Australians are under at the moment. They continue to stand up and talk about indexed increases to working-age payments and pensions, which are built into the system. They're claiming credit for large increases, when in actual fact they are driven by the inflation that is forcing so much pressure onto Australian families.

They talk about wage increases, which are driven by inflation, which, again, is putting so much pressure on Australian families. Real wages are actually going down under this government. The hypocrisy, the propaganda and the level of misinformation are extreme from those opposite. We need a good government back in place who can actually manage an economy and who understand the family budget. That's what you'll get if you vote for the coalition.

(Quorum formed)

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Ending Poverty in Australia (Antipoverty Commission) Bill 2023 would establish an antipoverty commission, as Senator Rice has said. An antipoverty commission in Australia is critical because it would provide parliament with independent and transparent advice on the causes of poverty in this country and on how to reduce poverty in this country. It would also provide advice on, for example, minimum levels for social security payments including JobSeeker, the parenting payment, the youth allowance, the age pension and disability support pensions.

The context for this bill is that last year the government established an interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. The role of the committee is to provide independent advice to government on economic inclusion and disadvantage. The committee released a report in April this year, ahead of the budget, which put forward a suite of recommendations. Critically, the first recommendation was that the government commit to a substantial increase in the base rates of the JobSeeker payment and related working-age payments as a first priority. The committee suggested that increasing the rate to 90 per cent of the age pension would improve adequacy. This was ignored by the Labor Party during the budget, as they only committed to increasing JobSeeker by $4 a day, plus indexation.

We need to be very clear here that poverty is a political choice, and the fact that so many Australians—an ever-increasing number of Australians—are living in poverty is a political choice that's being made by the modern-day Labor Party, which prioritises a budget surplus over lifting people out of poverty; which prioritises hundreds of billions of dollars on nuclear powered submarines, in an agreement with the US and the UK that will make Australia a less safe place, over lifting people out of poverty; and which prioritises hundreds of billions—over $300 billion—on stage 3 tax cuts for the top end over lifting people out of poverty. Make no mistake: leaving people in poverty is a choice that the Australian Labor Party has made. They cannot cry poor while they are proceeding with Scott Morrison's stage 3 tax cuts and with Mr Morrison's thought bubble around the AUKUS deal with the US and the UK—hundreds of billions of dollars, collectively, on nuclear powered submarines that will make Australia a less safe place to live and on stage 3 tax cuts for the top end. Those are the priorities of the modern Australian Labor Party, which was formed to actually look after people who'd been economically excluded from the wealth of this country. Today, as people are struggling to pay their rents or make their mortgage payments, and more and more people are falling off the cliff into poverty or are at risk of ending up in poverty, the Australian Labor Party is making a political choice to ignore them and to prioritise things like stage 3 tax cuts for the top end. That's where we find ourselves today—an extraordinary circumstance, a circumstance that wouldn't surprise anyone if it were occurring under an LNP government but that ought to surprise and horrify Australians when it's occurring under an ALP government.

Ahead of the committee's interim report, the Greens introduced our Ending Poverty in Australia (Antipoverty Commission) Bill as an alternative framework for an independent advisory body on poverty. The features of our bill include an explicit focus on addressing poverty, a clear requirement for the development of a national poverty line, a requirement for the government to publicly respond to recommendations made by the independent commission, a clear requirement for legislated reviews of income support payments and of the poverty line, and an independent parliamentary committee that can scrutinise appointments to the independent body.

We want to make sure that it isn't just another body the major parties stack with retired ministers and former staffers. We need people skills, expertise and knowledge on poverty to guide policy, and we need people with lived experience of poverty to help guide policy that responds to poverty. For too long, people who don't have a job or who are living in poverty have been marginalised out of this debate, and we need to centre them in this debate and make sure that the platforms and the frameworks are in place so that people like us can hear from people with lived experience, including contemporary lived experience, about what it's like to live in poverty, because living in poverty is bloody hard—making choices about whether you're going to use your scarce financial resources to pay the rent, put food on the table for your kids, pay your power bills or pay your school levies. Those are difficult choices, and more and more Australians are having to make those choices every day as a result of an economic framework in this country that looks after the wealthy and allows the wealthy and the big corporates to make out like bandits and get away without paying their fair share of tax while more and more Australians are being ground into the dust of poverty.

We need to completely change the way that we share the fruits of our economy. Big corporations and the superwealthy should be forced to pay their fair share of tax so that governments can do more to offer cost-of-living relief to ordinary Australians. The Australian Labor Party are making a choice not to significantly increase the corporate tax rates and not to introduce a corporate superprofits tax or a wealth tax in this country, and as a result they say, 'Oh, we can't afford to put dental into Medicare, wipe out student debt or increase income support.' Well, of course they can afford to do those things, because they could, if they wished, put in place a corporate superprofits tax. They could, if they wished, put in place a wealth tax. They could, if they wished, walk away from the stage 3 tax cuts. They could, if they wished, walk away from AUKUS. They could, if they wished, end fossil fuel subsidies, where we are directly and encouraging the burning of fossil fuel using public money in the middle of a climate crisis. These are all choices that the Australian Labor Party is making, and how far they have fallen from their roots. Honestly, the people who formed the Labor Party in this country would be rolling in their graves at what their much-loved party has become, because, of course, Labor is here to deliver for a corporate agenda. Labor is here to deliver for the gas cartel. Labor is here to deliver for the coal industry in Australia. Those are the things that the Labor Party is here to deliver for—to approve five new coal projects in recent times in the middle of a climate crisis.

During this debate, colleagues need to understand that the Greens are putting forward a constructive step towards ending poverty in Australia. An independent body to provide advice to government on the issue of poverty is something we have long advocated for. Interestingly, successive governments have used the lack of a national definition of poverty as an excuse to keep people on inadequate income support payments. That is why we need a nationally agreed definition of poverty, one that takes into account different needs and contexts and one, critically, to which the government can be held accountable.

This bill does go further than the interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee and deliberately so, and it provides a clear framework for a robust and independent body to tackle poverty. The government is due to establish its permanent advisory committee on economic inclusion ahead of the next budget, and we will be using this bill as a blueprint for our deliberations on this legislation. It is absolutely critical that this parliament take the issue of poverty far more seriously than we collectively have in the past and it is critical that the government comes to the party here. We need to make sure that people with lived experience of poverty and people who are actually living in poverty have their voices heard. It is not good enough for them to be marginalised out of this debate and it is not good enough for this parliament to fail to put in place a framework that would provide them with a platform to have their voices heard. We should be hearing every day about the lived experience of the large and growing number of Australians who are in poverty. We are hearing some of them, for example, through the Senate inquiry process chaired by Senator Rice into the rental crisis in Australia. The stories are just heart-wrenching of people being ground into the dust of poverty by unscrupulous landlords, who see houses as an investment, an asset class, rather than as a home for people to live in.

I repeat again: housing minister Julie Collins said the quiet thing out loud on 7.30, when she said Labor regards housing as an asset and investment class. Well, that is what got us into the problem we are in. One of the primary causes of people being ground into poverty in this country is because houses have become an investment and asset class rather than places for people to make a home. That is the problem; that is Labor Party for you in a nutshell. Ms Collins said the quiet thing out loud on 7.30 and I was horrified but not surprised to hear it—

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are you talking about your investment properties?

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Watt, because that is exactly the modern-day Labor Party for you, a party that regards housing as an investment and asset class. This is a party that's overseeing a tax framework which says, 'If you go to work and work hard every day, we're going to tax you more through the income tax system than someone who is already wealthy enough to buy an investment property.' This, of course, is because of negative gearing and the capital gains discount. That's the problem we're facing here—it's one of the many problems we're facing here. And when I say 'we' of course I'm really talking about Australians who are being ground into poverty and Australians who are living in poverty every day. They're having to make these awful decisions about what to prioritise in terms of the very scarce financial resources that they have.

I'll say to the Labor Party again: you need to stop regarding housing as an investment and asset class. You need to stop being the party of the property speculators, the party of the landlords—

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You own four properties!

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

which is what you are, and start being the party that actually believes houses are all about—

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Acting Deputy President.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This won't be a point of order; I guarantee you it won't be a point of order!

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me, Senator McKim, if you would just take your seat. The standing order number is what, Senator Watt?

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't have the exact number, but it's about misleading the chamber. Senator McKim should admit that he owns four investment properties while he's lecturing Labor on asset classes—

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's a debating point, thank you very much. Take your seat, Senator Watt.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Four! One, two, three, four—you're a hypocrite!

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Watt! Please allow Senator McKim to make his contribution in silence. I'm sure there will be other opportunities during the course of the day, or on other sitting days, for you to take Senator McKim to task if you think it necessary. Thank you very much, Senator McKim.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll look forward to that, because of course the problem that Senator Watt has is that I am here, and the Australian Greens are here, arguing against the capital gains tax discount and arguing against negative gearing. We are arguing against those things, whereas Senator Watt is arguing for those things! It's Senator Watt and the Australian Labor Party here who are the party of the profit— (Time expired)

Marielle Smith (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Acting Deputy President Smith, thank you for taking the chair early so I could make my contribution—I'm not sure, but you might be regretting it now! But it is appreciated by me.

I also rise to speak on Senator Rice's Ending Poverty in Australia (Antipoverty Commission) Bill 2023. At the outset, I will make it clear, as Senator Ayres has done before me, that the government does not intend to support this bill. But that should in no way be taken as an indication of a lack of recognition of the problem that exists for us. We know that poverty is pervasive in Australia and we know that it is devastating. I'm sure that there isn't a single person who sits in this chamber who doesn't think poverty is an issue and who doesn't want to see things done to address it. It's hurting families in my state of South Australia, and it affects families in our remote and regional areas significantly more than those in our metro areas. It's affecting Indigenous Australians, it affects the most vulnerable groups and it can be pervasive, intergenerational, multifaceted and complex. It is impacting children and families, and leaving kids in my state starting school developmentally behind the mark.

What doesn't help these challenges or help the picture of poverty in Australia is the idea that the challenges before us can be fixed with quick fixes or simple ideas, committees and commissions. We need complex policy responses to meet complex challenges. Tackling poverty is never going to be a simple fix; it's never going to be solved by motions or debates in this chamber. And, unfortunately, despite what I recognise as the good intent behind this bill, it won't be solved by the proposals it puts forward—proposals which duplicate existing and established government practices and the work underway in the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. That's why we're not supporting it.

I don't think it's reasonable to come to this debate with the assumption that we're not supporting it because, for some reason, people on this side of the chamber—or, indeed, my colleagues on the other side of the chamber—don't care about the issues before us. You show you care and you show your respect for dealing with these issues by acknowledging the multifaceted nature of them and by acknowledging the complexity. It's very easy to think that a single word or a three-word slogan can fix the challenges before us, but that doesn't help anyone. It doesn't help anyone if we ignore the complexity. It doesn't help anyone if we ignore the intergenerational nature of some of these challenges. And it certainly doesn't help anyone if we pretend that the federal government can fix everything here. The challenges before us don't affect just one layer of government. They affect every layer of government—local government, state government and federal government.

Equally important is that the challenges are about community and the responsibility of communities to address the challenges before us. You don't fix intergenerational challenges—family upon family, year after year—easily. That requires sustained effort. These are issues which go not just to one area, not just to one lever of federal government policy, but to our health system, our education system and law and order and justice. They go to local government. They go to community engagement. They go to church groups. This is how we solve these problems. Pretending they're simple, pretending they're easy or pretending there is one policy measure you can do which will eradicate these challenges is actually not fair to the people living with them, because the challenges are complex.

The bill before us seeks to establish a new commission. We know that it duplicates the work already underway of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. This bill was introduced after the announcement of the committee, which exists alongside the committee that I am deputy chair of, the Senate Community Affairs References Committee—I acknowledge the Senator Rice's work on it—which is looking into the extent and nature of poverty in Australia. That inquiry was referred to our committee a year ago. To date we've held eight public hearings across the country, and we are set to have more. We have received over 250 submissions, and over this year we have taken evidence from experts, from advocates and from people with lived experience of poverty from the length and breadth of Australia. Witnesses have shared their expertise and their lived experience to inform our work and our recommendations to date, including on income support payments. I note that we saw an increase in income support come through the budget. It was not what everyone would like to have seen, sure, but we saw that come through.

Our work as a committee continues. I will take the opportunity to thank everyone who has contributed to the process, who has provided evidence so far, particularly those who have taken the time to share their personal stories with us. It can take a lot out of you to come and present in a public way your private challenges. To present and share your story in a public way to senators behind a table, with broadcasting and Hansard and all of that, is a very difficult thing to do. I thank those people who have shared their stories and informed our work.

What has been absolutely clear from our inquiry to date is that poverty is multifaceted. Its causes are multifaceted. It is complex, and the solutions that are needed to address it must acknowledge this complexity. They must be multifaceted too, because you don't fix poverty with one policy. You don't fix poverty from one layer of government. You don't fix poverty without buy-in from a community who says this isn't acceptable in my neighbourhood, in my church, at my school. You don't fix it without the community rising up to that, supported by federal government, state government and local government flexing their levers to make a difference as well.

Pretending that you can fix poverty in one way, overnight, and then it's gone helps no-one. It doesn't help children in my state. It doesn't help the more than a quarter of children in my state get who school developmentally behind. What helps them is a change to our early education system. What helps them is access to a good vaccination program. What helps them is the assistance provided to their parents to do the simple things in early learning, such as counting fingers and toes and singing songs. What helps them when they've got parents for whom English is a struggle is programs like HIPPY, which support those parents to engage with their children and with their homework. Those are the sorts of things which affect the developmental delays we see far overrepresented in families in poverty. You can't fix this problem without solutions which look at the complexity, which look at the things that are underpinning issues like intergenerational disadvantage and actually take the effort to fix them.

Poverty is complex. Our committee will continue its work, continue to hear from submitters and witnesses. We will hear, as we have so far, that the cause of poverty is not the same in every family, not the same in every city and not the same for every group. Indeed, it is not only people on income support payments who are living in poverty. We will hear, I am sure, about the terrible cost-of-living pressures that are amplifying these problems for families. That is why our government, in looking at cost-of-living relief in our budget, have tried to do things which don't add to that inflationary pressure. That is a genuine concern we, as the Labor Party, hold. We are absolutely committed to addressing disadvantage. It is the thing which drives so many of us and has driven so many of us in the work in our lives. We are committed to doing that.

The people who suffer most from a high-inflation environment are those with little to spend—those living in poverty. You can't contribute to an inflationary environment and think you're helping people either. These are complex things which need to be carefully balanced. They exist alongside policy work which is happening across portfolios—in the Health space and in the Education space, including in early education. It is work like reducing the cost of medicines in a way which is not inflationary because you're addressing the cost at the pharmacist where you get your medicines. It is work on the cost of early learning, because we know that, particularly for children in disadvantage, the opportunity to access an early learning service and be exposed to a highly qualified, skilled educator, who will show love and care and go through the developmental milestones, is the sort of thing that breaks the cycle of disadvantage.

Early learning provides the opportunity for children to be exposed to the experts and to the support they need when they're in a family which has experienced intergenerational trauma. I spend a lot of time in a community in South Australia called Murray Bridge. It's an absolutely beautiful town with an incredibly strong community, but it's got some really big challenges, too, when it comes to intergenerational disadvantage and intergenerational trauma. In that town the solutions needed require buy-in and engagement from all levels of government and they certainly require the engagement of the community, because you cannot break these cycles with simple measures. You cannot break these cycles with single commissions or reports and you cannot break these cycles with slogans either. You only break these cycles by breaking down the complexity.

We see this right across Australia, in particular in remote communities, where that remoteness can be a source of or a contributor to poverty. The solutions needed in those communities to address this issue are also different. Where poverty is compounded by a lack of access to technology or access to the NBN, those communities will need different things to the families and individuals in our metro and urban areas who are experiencing poverty. The simplification of this issue does not help. It does not assist.

Through our committee's work we will continue to look at that complexity, we will continue to look at the multifaceted nature of poverty and, indeed, we'll continue to look at things like measuring poverty. Again, we need to take into account complexity, because if you oversimplify your definition of a problem then you limit yourself to a simplified solution, and that will not always work. It might help some people but it will leave a lot of people behind.

This work will continue, and it will exist in conjunction with the government's work establishing the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. I look forward to the contribution that the committee continues to make to the policy debate and engagement in this country. It's good to have more voices in this space, it's good to have more work done in this space and it's good to bring in expertise, just as it's good to bring in lived experience. It's also good to bring in a breadth of practitioners working across a range of policy portfolio areas, across layers of government, across our community and across academia. We're not going to solve the problems before us, intergenerational poverty in particular, unless we bring those voices in.

I don't at all discount Senator Rice's intent and genuine concern for people doing it tough. I know that because I sit on a committee with Senator Rice and I know it is genuine. But our commitment to this issue should not be discounted, either. I think that is very unfair and very unreasonable. And I think it is unreasonable to do it to the vast majority of people in this chamber, who I do think care about these issues. We may differ in our view on how we address them. We may differ in our view of the complexity versus the simplicity of the problems and the solutions. I believe the proposals put forward in this bill duplicate a process already under way by government. They duplicate resources, and I don't think that's helpful to any of the people that this is trying to help. What is helpful is stepping past—

Senator Rice, I can take interjections, but I think I have been pretty reasonable in how I have come to this debate. What helps here is looking at the complexity of the issues put before us, looking at the way we can address those complexities in a sincere and meaningful way, looking at the way we can work together and coordinate and cooperate not just within this building but also within other layers of government. Across Australia, there is genuine concern and commitment to ending poverty, to breaking intergenerational cycles of disadvantage, and to making sure that when our children start school they don't experience those developmental delays but that they start school on an even playing field, regardless of the postcode they are growing up in, what their parents do, the language skills of their parents or the work profile of their parents. These are the sorts of things we need to do. It starts in the early years, it continues through the work you do with families and it continues in our communities. It continues, of course, at different levels of government, but pretending this is about one level of government and one policy, and you fix intergenerational poverty and developmental delays and make it perfect is a falsehood which fails the very people I genuinely believe you're trying to help.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I start dealing with the Ending Poverty in Australia (Antipoverty Commission) Bill 2023 before us, I acknowledge the work done over a long period by my colleague Senate Siewert and followed on by Senator Rice in relation to poverty in this country. I acknowledge that they have set the agenda in this space and continue to push governments of all persuasions to deal with an issue that really shouldn't be happening in a country as well-off as ours.

I heard earlier this morning in some of the other contributions that poverty is complex, and I certainly don't discount that there are aspects of poverty that do require really complex solutions. But we also know that some things are really simple. We had the world's real-time experiment during the COVID pandemic. We doubled the rate of JobSeeker overnight and we heard story after story of how that transformed people's lives. People who couldn't afford to put food on the table suddenly could. We heard stories of people who could afford fresh fruit and vegetables for the first time in a long time instead of subsisting on two-minute noodles. We heard tell us that they could buy new uniforms and shoes for their kids at school when they previously couldn't. They went and got their teeth fixed because previously they couldn't afford to go to the dentist. You can't tell me that you can push that all aside and say, 'This problem is really complex and hard and we can't do the things that we already know will work to transform people's lives quickly.'

I also heard in previous contributions that this bill can't be supported because it duplicates things that already exist. I listened to the contribution of my colleague, and I heard Senator Rice say that this is about putting forward concrete ideas for how what is being proposed can be significantly improved. That's not taking the simple approach. That's acknowledging that some parts of this are complex and we need a body that can deal with that in a manner which it deserves.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for the debate has expired. The Senate will now move to the consideration of government business.