Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Better Targeting Student Payments) Bill 2017 and to strongly support the amendments moved by the member for Jagajaga. I thank the member for Lalor for her contribution to this debate. Like the member for Lalor, I absolutely condemn the Abbott-Turnbull government for their persistent attacks on vulnerable Australians. It is disgraceful and, dare I say it, un-Australian.

By way of background, let's look at the real people this government has in its firing line. The payments the Turnbull government is proposing to cut are predominantly received by people with a disability; by carers—I mention that in National Carers Week; by single parents or jobseekers; and by people who have taken up study or training to ensure they have the skills they need to secure long-term employment in a very competitive workplace. You often hear the government hyperventilating at the dispatch box about breaking the cycle of welfare dependency. I agree that that is a good thing—Labor always agrees that a job is the best thing to give to somebody. I mention the member for Lilley, who has been talking about this for a long time in both books and his policies as Treasurer and Deputy Prime Minister. We saw that in Prime Ministers Gillard, Rudd, Keating and Hawke—they always focused on giving jobs to the greatest number of Australians while recognising the reality of the Australian workplace. So I can tell the government something for free: slashing the payments of Australians undertaking study or training to achieve workplace readiness is not how you break the cycle of welfare dependency; in fact, it only entrenches the dependency. These changes will do exactly the opposite of what the Turnbull government purports to achieve. Your credit card should never determine your ability to get a better education. Labor knows this and will always stand up for you. Labor will always stand up for fairness.

One of the payments this bill seeks to change is the education entry payment, the EEP. This is an annual payment of $208 to assist certain social security recipients with their education costs so they can eventually re-enter the workforce. Recipients of Newstart, parenting payment single, the disability support pension and the carer payment are currently eligible to receive the EEP if they are studying an approved course. In the 2016-17 financial year, 11,662 people received the education entry payment. Of those, 4,805 were recipients of parenting payment single, 2,986 were recipients of the disability support pension, 2,762 were recipients of Newstart and 826 were recipients of the carer payment. The bill introduces the definition of a normal amount of full-time study but completely ignores that recipients of this payment are less likely than other students to be able to undertake studies full time, as they often have health barriers or caring responsibilities that prevent them from so doing. The overwhelming majority of recipients are single parents or recipients of the carer payment or DSP. Disproportionately, the carer payment and parenting payment single are paid to women. This bill will disproportionately disadvantage women, as 94 per cent of parenting payment single recipients and 69 per cent of carer payment recipients are women. I cannot support this.

This bill also seeks to change the pensioner education supplement, which is a fortnightly payment to assist with the ongoing costs of study. Currently the pensioner education supplement is paid at $62.40 per fortnight for a full-time student or $31.20 per fortnight for a part-time student.

It's clear that Prime Minister Turnbull doesn't understand real cost-of-living pressures. I would suggest, sadly, that he never has and never will. He tells the old battler millionaire story about the childhood in which, we're supposed to believe, he came up as some sort of battler, forgetting the fact that he had a privileged upbringing and nothing but a positive experience in childhood and was given every opportunity.

This bill caps the PES during non-study periods. This will result in a cut for every recipient of the supplement, as it will no longer be paid in every fortnight of the year. PES recipients, like recipients of the EEP, are less likely than other students to be able to maintain a full-time study load, due to health barriers or caring responsibilities. Where a person receives both the pensioner education supplement and the education entry payment, they face a cut to both. In the 2016-17 financial year, 37,717 people received the pensioner education supplement. Of these, 16,276 were recipients of parenting payment single, 15,430 were recipients of the disability support pension, 3,336 were recipients of the carer payment, and 2,619 were recipients of Newstart. ACOSS, the Australian Council of Social Service, estimates 75 per cent of recipients of the pensioner education supplement are—you guessed it—women.

The final payment this bill seeks to change is the relocation scholarship payment. This was a payment designed by Labor in 2010 to address the barriers faced by students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, particularly Indigenous students and those coming from regional and remote Australia. I wonder where the National Party are when it comes to standing up for kids from the bush? Yet again, the National Party has gone missing—missing in regional and remote Australia.

This government cannot unite their own party on policy but they can unite one specific group in the community, the experts. Nearly every piece of policy they bring into this House is against the united advice of experts. I have heard them recently talk about expert advice. I wish they would listen to experts when it comes to social policy. This piece of legislation, yet again, is no different—they're ignoring the experts. ACOSS has opposed the bill. In relation to the relocation scholarship payment, they say:

… social security payments should be paid on the basis of financial need and not guided by arbitrary conditions. This cut does not stand up to that test.

The National Social Security Rights Network is opposed to each of the measures in the bill. In relation to the relocation scholarship eligibility changes, they say:

Relocation Scholarships should be available to all low-income students who move away from home to study regardless of the location of the family home or where the student chooses to study. This is consistent with the original intention of the payment and provides support on an equitable basis. The scholarship should respond to the need of support to the costs of moving away from home without additional restrictions.

There are other groups in the community who would be impacted by these cuts—groups that already live with hardship on a day-to-day basis. These cuts may make it so difficult for them that they can no longer study, although study is always going to be the way to move off welfare. One of these groups comprises the unsung heroes of our community, our carers. Some carers take on study whilst caring for someone in their life. That allows them to return to the workforce when they are no longer needed in a caring role. Carers Australia opposes the changes to the PES and EEP. They say:

Reducing the amount of EEP and PES payments based on small changes in course loads, and suspending payments during semester breaks and holiday periods, as proposed in the Bill, will adversely affect the capacity of carers to continue their studies.

Another group who will be substantially affected by these cuts, sadly, are people with disability. People with Disability Australia, also an expert group, are opposed to the changes to the PES and the EEP. They say:

If the Bill is passed those on the lowest incomes, including people with disability, will be further pushed into poverty and financial hardship. It will make it harder for people with disability to start or to continue undertaking education. Plans to cut these payments are counter to the Government's focus on increasing employment opportunities through education. Whilst expectations for pensioners to undertake education increase, the very means of supporting access to education for pensioners are being cut.

As the deputy chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights—I see the chair of the committee is here in the chamber—I have scrutinised this bill from a human rights perspective. The committee raised concerns about the cuts to the relocation scholarship. The committee report stated:

… ‘simplifying’ and ‘streamlining’ do not constitute legitimate objectives for the purposes of international human rights law and do not acknowledge the extent of the payment reduction. Rather, a legitimate objective must address a pressing or substantial concern, and not simply seek an outcome regarded as desirable or convenient.

This out-of-touch Turnbull government consistently puts before this House policy which disproportionately and adversely affects the most vulnerable in our society, at the same time as it's rolling out a tax cut for the top end of town. The harbourside mansion focus of this government is disgusting. This legislation falls again within those parameters. What is most disappointing and difficult to reconcile with good policy is that these cuts will stop young Australians, Australians who are carers and Australians who suffer a disability from further educating themselves. It will stop them from being able to enter or return to the workforce. This is bad policy. It is policy without a soul. I do not support this bill. I do not support this legislation. No intelligent, caring politician could.

See this speech in context