Anne Aly (Cowan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Streamlined Participation Requirements and Other Measures) Bill 2021, but before I get into the bill, I just want to congratulate my elderly mother, who yesterday managed to FaceTime me for my birthday. It's a huge achievement for her, but it speaks very much to what the member for Canberra was just a saying in relation to the closure of face-to-face Centrelink offices as well as other Commonwealth offices and the ability of people like my mother, who is a pensioner, to access services through digital pathways. My mother has just learned, as I mentioned, to use FaceTime. But it is highly unlikely that she would use online platforms or gateways to access government services. She, like many other pensioners, relies on that face-to-face service.

That brings me to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Streamlined Participation Requirements and Other Measures) Bill 2021. This bill introduces changes to mutual obligation arrangements as part of a move to a new model that incorporates digital services. Those who have spoken before me have noted that there is a particular schedule within this bill that is particularly affronting, and that is the inclusion of schedule 8. To my mind, schedule 8—and the inclusion of schedule 8 in this bill in the very first place—speaks volumes about this government and its agenda. Schedule 8 could be described as a budget saving measure that saves money by targeting the most vulnerable. We're concerned that schedule 8 of the bill would mean that, in a given year, around 144,000 new jobseekers could lose between $300 and $450 in payments because, within schedule 8, there are changes to the start date for receiving payments. The reduction in payments is linked to when a jobseeker is able to enter into an employment plan, which means that new jobseekers who use online services will be disadvantaged compared to those who choose to use face-to-face services even though there are fewer Centrelink offices—fewer options—for face-to-face service delivery. As the member for Canberra mentioned, with petrol prices being what it is, the cost of transport or driving to a face-to-face appointment for many people on a fixed or low income can be quite prohibitive. They could wait up to 10 days before getting their first payment.

I've been in that position. I've had to walk into a Centrelink office after fleeing a violent marriage. I remember walking into that office with my two babies. I remember the humiliation; I remember how depressing it was. I remember sitting in front of a bureaucrat, like many of the other bureaucrats that were there, doing the best they could with the resources they had. I remember being told that it would take five weeks before I could get a payment. I remember breaking down in tears and saying to this man, 'How am I going to feed my children for five weeks?' Imagine, through no circumstances under your own control, if you had to wait 10 days to get any kind of payment from a government that should be there to look after you when you are at your most vulnerable, in your greatest time of need. It's just cruel; that's what it is. It's cruel to deliberately write into legislation something that makes people have to wait 10 days to get a payment. It's cruel because it makes them wonder, as I did at that point in time, how they're going to feed their children, pay their rent, put petrol in their car and live. Ten days may not seem a long time, but, let me tell you, when you go to your bank account and your balance is minus $6, 10 days is an eternity.

Peak bodies have also raised their concerns about schedule 8 of the bill. Indeed, the National Employment Services Association have said that they're supportive of the bill should schedule 8 be removed. Although we have some indication that there is some willingness or preparation to remove schedule 8 from the bill, we're yet to see a reversal of the inclusion of this policy within the bill.

As with many members here, I imagine, a great bulk of the workload in my office is devoted to people who come in who have had issues dealing with Centrelink and job service providers. Some of the most heartbreaking stories that have been shared with me, which I have had the privilege of hearing, come from people who have had some fairly heart-wrenching experiences with Centrelink, with the system and with job providers, particularly where they have a disability that prevents them from meeting their obligation to report on a fortnightly basis. In fact, I believe it was just a couple of weeks ago, when I was out doorknocking, that I met a woman with a daughter who was on JobSeeker and who suffered from some fairly severe health conditions—multiple health conditions, as a matter of fact. Although this young woman should be living her best life, a full and vibrant life, as all of us deserve, even her doctor said that this young woman had so many health ailments that it really was impossible for her to hold down employment, yet she was required to report every two weeks in order to continue to receive JobKeeper. The mother, who is her main carer, was just beside herself about how the system had treated her daughter and about her own frustrations in dealing with the system on behalf of her daughter.

I came here, as I imagine many of us did, because I wanted to make sure that the people I represent, and indeed the broader community of Australians, don't go through these kinds of things—that they have a government they can turn to and trust in their time of need. I know that all of us, from both sides, are dedicated to this mission of ensuring that we look after everyone and that nobody is left behind. It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you sit on in this place. From my personal interactions with people on all sides, I believe in my heart that every single one of us is here because, fundamentally, we care about the people we represent. If we care about the people we represent, then we should ensure that the policies and the legislation that we pass do not disadvantage them in any way. Unfortunately, this bill, particularly schedule 8, does that. It creates a disadvantage where a disadvantage does not need to exist. That's the main point here. It doesn't have to create this disadvantage. This disadvantage doesn't need to be there. This bill actually creates it. It creates a gap where there doesn't need to be a gap.

In closing, I'm going to reiterate what my colleagues on this side of the House have said about this bill and our position, which echoes the position of experts, the position of ACOSS and the position of peak bodies. We will support this bill if we have an assurance about schedule 8, which in its application is quite cruel, which in its application creates disadvantage and which in its application creates more hardship for the people we are supposed to be here for. If schedule 8 is removed then we will support this bill. I urge those on the other side to stand up. Stand up and remember those you represent, and think about the impact that this bill would have on them.

See this speech in context