Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item.

(2) Schedule 1, page 3 (lines 1 to 22), omit the Schedule.

This amendment will remove schedule 1 from the bill. Schedule 1 is a schedule that the Greens vigorously oppose. If enacted, schedule 1 will see 100,000 sole-parent families lose up to $60 a week when their youngest child turns eight. Instead of $324 under parenting payment single, these parents will be put on the lower paying Newstart allowance of $265 per week—$38 a day for a parent and their child to live on. This is not the kind of country that I want to live in. Any payment reduction will only push these people deeper into poverty. It will not help them secure a paid job.

The evidence is crystal clear, and story after story is told by single parents and their representatives and by welfare groups, that putting people further into poverty in fact becomes a barrier to work. They spend more time just trying to survive. There is less income available to get ready for a job interview, whether for buying new clothes or getting assistance preparing for the job itself. There is less income for the kind of training or activities that would be needed to enhance their work prospects. And, of course, the proposed cuts in schedule 1 will disproportionately impact on women, who make up the majority of single parent payment recipients.

As Minister Shorten has noted in his summing up speech, there is a growing chorus of people from across the political spectrum making the point that Newstart is simply too low. The Greens have succeeded in establishing an inquiry, and that is long overdue. That will, of course, as has been indicated, shine a light on the extraordinarily difficult situation that people on Newstart find themselves in, but we know already that it is too low. We cannot simply say that the inquiry may, at the end, come up with some recommendations. We know that it is too low now, and this is the rate that we will be pushing these single parents onto.

I commend the Australian Council of Social Service and the wide range of groups that have campaigned against these measures, and I am pleased that the Human Rights Committee has held a hearing into whether schedule 1 breaches Australia's human rights obligations, given the serious concerns expressed by ACOSS and a wide range of groups. However, I am disappointed that the committee needed to hold such a hearing at all.

Single parents, through this bill, are being asked to bear an unfair burden in the push to return to a surplus according to an arbitrary time line. We know that there are many other places that the government could look to find savings to meet a surplus. We live in a country where, if one of these single parents goes to the petrol station to fill up their car to get to a job interview, they are paying 38c a litre in tax. If a wealthy mining company goes to get some fuel, they pay zero because they get a rebate. We are giving somewhere between $9 billion and $15 billion a year in the form of subsidies or handouts to extraordinarily wealthy companies who are doing very well by themselves. For the sake of a few hundred million dollars, we could shave it off them and ask them to take a haircut. Instead, we are asking some of the most vulnerable people in the community to bear a burden that they cannot expect, pushing them down to $38 a day to care for themselves and their child when often they are finding themselves as single parents because they have experienced difficult circumstances in their lives already.

I am pleased that, following the introduction of this bill, there have been a number of people in this place who have raised concerns about it. That shows that they are in touch with the realities that single parents face, and they understand that, as a question of priorities, there are other places that we could find this money from.

I hope that, when these amendments are voted on, all of those who have spoken out in the media and elsewhere will come and sit with us to remove this schedule from the bill.

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have already spoken on this so I will not delay the House any longer than I need to, but I do need to say that I support the amendments that have been moved by the member for Melbourne and thank him for his work in bring those amendments to this bill.

I have listened to some of the contributions this morning, and I know there is considerable sympathy and concern for parents being moved from a parenting support payment to Newstart allowance. We all know that Newstart allowance is inadequate. There is a strong call out in the community for an increase in Newstart allowance but, even so, to move sole parents onto Newstart allowance was never originally intended; it was originally the dole, for short-term assistance to people who were unemployed, many of whom were young people living at home. But to shift a parent who has the responsibility for raising a child by themselves onto Newstart allowance—with a minimum loss, I think, of $60 a week—is a tragedy.

I have listened to the contributions of many of my colleagues, and I agree entirely with them that one of the big issues for our country to face up to is the need to lift our productivity, and that means getting every man and woman into the workforce where that is possible. What upsets me about the bill that the government has brought here is that there is nothing in it that acts as an incentive to single parents to actually get into the workforce. In fact, there are disincentives in the way that they are taxed on the small amount of money they may earn to supplement their pension and to perhaps eventually move off the pension. There is also a disincentive because the government is removing $50 million a year from the job agency services which might help these people to actually access work.

In addition, there is the loss of the education supplement that was originally negotiated with the Howard government to help these people to retrain, to train or to get better education. It is very difficult for people to get work if they have no education. As I said in my speech earlier, about 57 per cent of women—mothers in particular—who are receiving the sole-parent payment have very little education. It will be extremely difficult for them to find work. So it is not right that we should move this group onto the Newstart allowance where it may be not just weeks or months but sometimes years before they are prepared to access the workforce.

I strongly recommend the amendments brought by the member for Melbourne to this bill. I hope that those who have raised concerns today will support the legislation because, in the end, this is about the proper care of our nation's children. It is about not consigning them. This group already lives below the poverty line. Unless this bill is amended, we will drive these groups of people further into poverty—further into the homeless ranks. Currently, there are 12½ thousand families in Australia who are homeless, accounting for 12 per cent of homeless people. Those 12½ thousand families include children. All this bill will do, unless it is amended, is drive more families into homelessness. It is very difficult for them to afford to pay the skyrocketing rents that we are seeing in every capital city in this country, let alone the other cost pressures that we are witnessing today. I commend to the House the amendments brought by the member for Melbourne.

Bill Shorten (Maribyrnong, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am speaking against the amendments, but not because I think some of the points made by the member for Melbourne or the member for Pearce are not sincerely held or indeed that some of their concerns have no validity. This measure has been around since 2006. Also, in the 2011-12 budget the government grandfathered children to age 12. The real debate here is not about encouraging sole parents or people on parenting payments to try to find work but about the adequacy of Newstart. I refer those proposing the amendments to what I said and what has happened in the Senate on those questions.

But I also want to speak briefly on the amendments. I do not accept the proposition advanced by the member for Pearce that the government are doing nothing to provide incentives for people to get to work. I do not accept that because, in fact, in our carbon package we are raising the tax-free threshold to $18,200. The government have spent extra money—and it is a matter of record, not a matter of conjecture—on skills and training. So we are in fact doing more for our people in the category which the member for Pearce has expressed concern about than any of our predecessors have ever done.

More can be done. That is why we are working on, amongst other measures, a National Disability Insurance Scheme, to help people who need support to have, for whatever reasons, incentives to go to work. I recognise the concerns about this proposition that we are advancing today. I think, on balance, that the propositions that we are advancing are correct, but I also recognise the government has been acting to assist people to find work and we will continue to do so. We continue to welcome the contributions of those making the amendments in this case.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Childcare and Early Childhood Learning) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking briefly to the amendments moved by the member for Melbourne and seconded by the member for Pearce, I acknowledge my colleague and friend the member for Pearce. I commend her on speaking her mind and her heart on this issue. I also recognise her care and compassion. But can I say that that care and compassion is no less present in other members of the coalition who will support the government's bill. In many respects we do so with a heavy heart. We accept that this is a group of parents who are being dumped onto an unfriendly job market with insufficient support from a government that does not appear to care about their future. However, we must also recognise that this bill effectively ungrandfathers a group of parents who have a different set of arrangements applying to them from those applying to an existing group of parents who might have gone on parenting payment after 1 July 2006. One reason for supporting the bill is to recognise the principle of equity between these groups. Another reason, as I said in my remarks in the second reading stage, is the coalition's strong commitment to mutual obligation and Welfare to Work. We definitely recognise that these are tough times for anyone seeking a job in today's environment. I remind the House of the genuine and substantial supports that the coalition put in place around the original group of parents who were removed to an income support payment via the Welfare to Work measures. In conclusion, we do not support the amendments moved by the member for Melbourne, but we do recognise the proud liberal tradition of members of our party speaking their minds and acting accordingly.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

As there are fewer than five members on the side for the ayes, I declare the question resolved in the negative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question negatived, Mr Bandt, Mrs Moylan and Mr Wilkie voting aye.

The question now is that the bill be agreed to.

A division having been called and the bells having been rung—

As there are fewer than five members on the side for the noes, I declare the question resolved in the affirmative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of those members who are in the minority will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

Question agreed to, Mr Bandt and Mr Wilkie voting no. Bill agreed to.