Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

It's spelt the same way. We know that middle-age and older Australians who have recently been made redundant from industries they have spent their whole lives working in require just a bit more time to retrain to upskill. They may even need to spend more time, as I said, on further education.

As I mentioned, the number of Australians over the age of 55 on Newstart has skyrocketed, and the number of people over the age of 55 are now the largest cohort, over a quarter, of Newstart recipients. A waiting period that is too long or a liquid assets threshold that is too high is actually counterproductive. It doesn't help people get back on their feet; it pushes people towards desperation. For people who lose their jobs or are made redundant, having a financial buffer is incredibly important. It means being able to support yourself while retraining, being able to keep the car on the road so that you can look for work and being able to keep paying the rent or mortgage. If a person's circumstances spiral because they run out of savings, if they lose their home or their car, if their whitegoods or fridge break down or if a family member gets sick, this just makes it harder to get back into employment.

Australians are already doing it tough as it is. The economy is weak and getting weaker. And this government has no plan to turn things around. Many Australians can't remember the last time they received a pay rise. Wages are stagnant, yet the cost of living is leaving Australians with less. It is more difficult to find a secure job with decent pay and adequate hours. Over 1.1 million Australians remain underemployed. Over 130,000 Newstart recipients, or more than one in five, actually have a job; they just don't earn enough or receive enough hours to escape the payment. The Anglicare Jobs availability snapshot 2019 shows that there are not enough jobs for the number of jobseekers, with employers receiving an average of 19 applications per vacancy advertised. We are reminded that three million, or one in eight, Australians live in poverty. One in six, or three-quarters of a million, children live in poverty. These are people in the electorates that we all represent. They are not just statistics; they are real people.

At a time when Australians are doing it really tough, when the economy is weak and getting weaker, these cuts to the pension and cuts to Newstart are not only cruel and vindictive but also reckless. Not only does the Prime Minister not have a plan for the economy, for jobs, to lift vulnerable Australians out of poverty; he is cutting support to Australians who need it the most. These cuts to the pension and to Newstart will not only be felt by older Australians and Australians doing it tough but mean they have less to spend on the basics and the essentials and less to spend at local businesses, which means local businesses will have less to spend on pay rises or on hiring more staff. Those on Newstart and the pension, but especially those on Newstart, are more likely to spend their payment. The government should be growing the economy and lifting people out of poverty, not taking money out of the pockets of pensioners and workers who have been made redundant through no fault of their own.

Under this third-term government, Australia has the slowest growth in a decade, stagnant wages, productivity in decline, record household debt, high underemployment and declining living standards. The government needs a plan to turn the economy around, not more empty political tactics. There is nothing in this bill that will create jobs or grow the economy. It is vindictive and reckless. All it will do is rip money from the pockets of pensioners and those looking for work. As I have said, just look at the litany of very good dissenting reports from when Australian Labor Party senators looked at the 2017 version of this bill. We already said:

The committee heard evidence from a wide variety of community organisations that the changes in the Bill are unfair, and would result in groups of Australians facing significant financial pressures.

Catholic Social Services Australia said that this Bill places 'the burden of budget repair on those who can least afford it, while providing tax cuts to the wealthy and businesses, [which] is wrong morally and economically.'

The Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia said:

… the extension of the residency requirements for qualification for DSP and age pension and the removal of the pension supplement after six weeks of travel overseas disproportionately impact culturally and linguistically diverse communities and are therefore discriminatory in nature—

making a very salient point—

… older migrant Australians will become more reliant upon their families to support them ... but as with any family, young people now in Australia … have to move often in order to secure employment, and they're not often in a position to take care of their older relatives, either practically or financially.

The National Social Security Rights Network said:

The Australian system is based on residence and need. It has a very strong emphasis on residence already. Most of the older migrants who have the misfortune to need to access our system within the first 10 years in Australia are covered by an assurance from their families. So there is no cost to the taxpayer because the money is recovered from the family. So it's hard to see the case for strengthening the requirements. It's particularly hard to see the need or benefit that comes from introducing income support history into the test. It's a departure from a very fundamental principle.

In relation to the assets waiting period, the Australian Council of Social Services told the committee that:

... the latest HILDA data shows that a full 25 per cent of people who are unemployed are already being deprived of two or more essential items. In addition, the evidence shows that about 12 per cent of people at the moment could not raise $500 in the event of an emergency.

Catholic Social Services of Australia also made the point—the very important point—that:

Even with savings of $36,000 ... for a person with dependants it would not take long to expend these savings. For example, using the Household Expenditure Measure, a person with two dependants in the ACT, renting and having a basic lifestyle, would need a minimum of $21,792 over a six-month period. This assumes there are no contingencies such as medical bills—

and the sorts of things Labor is very much concerned about. They went on to say:

This leaves this household financially vulnerably with a small buffer to manage contingencies whilst on income support.

I'll finish up my contribution by once again reiterating that Labor moves the amendments circulated in my name that go to declining to give the bill a second reading; notes that this is a recurring theme from the government; notes that cuts to Newstart in this bill will hurt redundant workers and push them towards poverty; and, finally, criticises the government for its cruel cuts to pensions and social security. As I said, Labor opposes this bill.

See this speech in context