Ross Hart (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

():

I move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) poverty is an ongoing and serious problem in Australia;

(b) recent figures by ACOSS found that 13.3 per cent of the population is living below the poverty line of 50 per cent of median household income;

(c) Tasmania has the highest proportion of Australians living in poverty;

(d) poverty among Australians is on the rise and is a consequence of structural inequality;

(e) despite Australia's extensive and well-targeted social safety net, over 2.5 million Australians continue to face serious financial hardship, impacting their quality of life;

(f) the gap between rich and poor in Australia has been steadily rising—since 1975, earnings have risen three times as fast for the top tenth of wage earners as for the bottom tenth;

(g) poverty is associated with worse health and education outcomes and a higher risk of exposure to both violence and prison; and

(h) the government's cuts to welfare payments and inaction on housing affordability and equitable tax reform are likely to increase Australia's poverty and inequality levels; and

(2) calls on the Government to explain to the House how it intends to reduce inequality and poverty in Australia.

In moving this motion, I express my increasing concern with the ongoing problem of poverty in Australia. Inequality in this country is at a 75-year high. Despite Australia's extensive and well-targeted social safety net, over 2.5 million Australians continue to face serious financial hardship, impacting their quality of life. The Australian Council of Social Service released a report late last year that found that 13.3 per cent of our population is living below the poverty line of 50 per cent of median household income. In real terms, that is almost three million Australians living on less than $426 per week. More and more, the gap between rich and poor is growing: 20 per cent of Australians cannot afford a week's holiday away from home each year; 13 per cent cannot afford dental treatment if they need it; yet, at the same time, Australia's private jet fleet has tripled and the number of helicopters has doubled in the last decade.

Tasmania has the highest proportion of individuals living in poverty. In my electorate of Bass, this translates to a poverty rate as high as 20.81 per cent in some of the more regional areas. Some 10,000 Bass residents are either in receipt of Newstart or the Disability Support Pension, with a large percentage of these households dependent upon income support payments as their main source of income. Unemployment is around 7.4 per cent, with many people in Bass underemployed and some are working up to three casual jobs just to get by in what can only be described as 'insecure work'.

The decision last week by the Fair Work Commission to cut penalty rates for hospitality, retail and fast food workers will only add to this problem. This cut to wages is one that low-income workers cannot afford and do not deserve. It would likely produce a decrease in economic activity in regional Australia as the disposable income of workers is reduced even further. The McKell Institute estimates that disposable income for spending in regional areas will reduce by anywhere between $174.6 million and $748.3 million.

We know that people on a low income, whether employed or in receipt of income support, are less likely to find stable housing, more likely to be unwell and unable to find medical treatment and experience difficulty maintaining the social networks necessary for physical and emotional wellbeing. Indeed, the richest fifth of the population can expect to live, on average, six years longer than those in the poorest fifth.

Poverty is also associated with a high risk of exposure to both violence and prison. Further, poverty is associated with poor educational outcomes. By the time children reach year 9, the attainment gap between those children with parents in high-status occupations and those whose parents are jobless is equal to 4½ years of study in reading and three years in numeracy. The attainment gap for students with higher education parents versus lower education parents is also three to four years. Children from a disadvantaged background are less likely to finish high school and may encounter greater barriers to further education.

Labor knows that education is key to creating higher living standards and reducing inequality. Lateral Economics estimates that the cost of inequality to national wellbeing is the equivalent of $54 billion, making it a bigger problem than mental illness, obesity or long-term unemployment. I would like the government to explain to this House how it intendeds to reduce inequality and poverty in Australia. It seems to me that they have only one answer to this problem: a handout to big business. Malcolm Turnbull wants to give a $50 billion tax cut to the biggest companies in Australia. At the same time, he cuts Medicare, schools and hospitals—not to mention that in July this year Turnbull will cut the top tax rate, paid by those earning $180,000 or more. Ninety-four per cent of the benefits of this tax will go to the top one per cent of Australian adults and, as a consequence of what occurred last week, we will have our lowest paid workers taking home less in their pay packet come 1 July.

The government's cut to welfare payments and inaction on housing affordability and equitable tax reform are likely to increase Australian poverty and inequality levels. This government has no plan for the future of Australia—certainly not dealing with poverty and inequality.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate the member for Bass's concerns about poverty in this nation—something every single one of us in this parliament is concerned about. Firstly, we in this nation should be very proud of the strong social safety net that we have. Our welfare bill is currently around $160 billion a year—quite a substantial sum. In fact, one-third of all government revenue goes into that welfare section. Unfortunately, when it comes to poverty, although the Labor Party like to talk about it, the policy prescriptions that they push will actually cause greater poverty. We saw that from the member for Bass's speech.

He spoke about penalty rates. I am glad this penalty rate decision was made, because it exposes some of the misleading statements that have been perpetuated by members of the Labor Party. Firstly, the penalty rate decision does not apply to emergency services workers. It does not apply to public servants. It does not apply to our nurses. They are the groups that for the last couple of years the Labor Party have been scaring, telling them that their penalty rates were under threat when they never, ever were.

When it comes to the hospitality industry, it does not affect any workers from Woolworths or workers from Coles, as the Labor Party found out when they rustled up some poor young chap and had him in there, making a fool of himself, embarrassing the Leader of the Opposition and claiming that his penalty rates were going to be cut when that was utterly false because he was an employee of Coles and the employees of the big supermarket and other retail chains are not touched.

When it comes to penalty rates, we should also remember it was a decision made by the Fair Work Commission. And who set up the Fair Work Commission? The Labor Party. And who selected the commissioner? The Labor Party. And what was the commissioner's background? That of a trade union official. He looked at all the evidence and it was his decision that there would be more jobs created, more opportunities and more chance for people to lift themselves out of poverty—by having a job—if that change was made.

Secondly, when it comes to penalty rates, it is simply incorrect for the Labor Party to run around saying that people's wages are going to be cut. There is no compulsion on small businesses to cut the penalty rate—

Honourable Member:

An honourable member interjecting—

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yet yesterday—for the member's education, over there—several companies stated that they will not reduce the wages they pay to their staff. And why would they? If they are running a profitable business on the weekend, if they have good staff, there is no requirement to reduce those salaries, and that is what they have said. The real concern about poverty in this country has to be the cost of electricity. Let us look at a couple of examples.

In New South Wales the electricity price—

An honourable member interjecting—

We are happy to talk about electricity prices every single day until the next election. Every single day we will be talking about them, and the public will wake up and realise that your absurd 50 per cent renewable energy target will push up the price of electricity and increase poverty in this nation. Let us have a look at where we are already.

New South Wales average electricity prices for 2015-16 were 20.93c. Unfortunately, in South Australia—where they think it is really clever to have a 50 per cent renewable energy target—electricity prices are 50 per cent higher for residences, around 30c. What effect does that have? You only have to look at the comparison between electricity disconnections in New South Wales and South Australia.

Look at hardship programs. For every head of population there is double the number of people in South Australia on hardship programs because they cannot afford their electricity. When it comes to electricity disconnections—I cannot think of anything worse than somebody having their electricity disconnected—in South Australia, because of their high electricity prices, it is 60 per cent higher per head of population.

So I call on the members of the Labor Party, if they are concerned about poverty, to drop their 50 per cent renewable energy target. (Time expired)

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do thank the member for Bass for this very important motion because inequality is on the rise internationally and—sadly—also in Australia. It is true that Australia has done a far better job than many other developed economies, over the last 20 or 30 years, of avoiding entrenched inequality and higher levels of poverty, but nobody can contest that the rise in inequality in Australia and the attack on low-income earners—driven by this government—is going to result in higher wealth and income inequality. There are a whole raft of policies tearing away at the social fabric, policies that attack conciliation and arbitration, the minimum wage, decent wages for people who work on Sundays, penalty rates and family payments. This government is mounting a full-scale assault on the social safety net and low- and middle-income earners. That will drive up poverty and take us down the American road, which has seen a hollowed-out middle-class and an even bigger army of working poor.

This government is driven, in its policies and tenor, by some of the wealthiest people in this country and they represent some of the wealthiest electorates in this country. The current Prime Minister has the highest average income of any electorate in the House of Representatives: No. 1 of the 150. The Deputy Prime Minister has No. 2 of the 150. The former Prime Minister has No. 3 of the 150. The former Treasurer had No. 4. And the list goes on.

This country's policy settings are being driven by a group of people who live in very wealthy communities, and they simply suffer from the blindness of affluence. They do not walk in the same shopping aisles as average Australians. If they did, they would not be prosecuting a case that is going to force young jobseekers to wait five weeks for Newstart. What is that going to do to inequality and poverty in our community? They would not cut support for young people aged between 22 and 24 who will be pushed from Newstart to youth allowance, losing around $48 a week. What impact will that have on poverty? What impact will that have on the life chances of those young people?

So we are seeing a full-scale assault on the social safety net and particularly on the industrial relations system that has underpinned, in this country, a commitment to growth with equity, the central mission of the Labor Party. It is why we were formed way back in the 1890s: if we create prosperity, its purpose is to spread opportunity. It is laughable to listen to those opposite try to defend their absurd position on penalty rates by arguing that we created the Fair Work Act. Bloody oath we did—to defend working people, improve their conditions, make sure they get a fair sure of the productivity which grows our country, and make sure that wages rise in line with productivity growth. We did all of those things, and we continue to do them, because they stand there to protect working people from the likes of the people that run this government.

Some of the wealthiest people in this country are implementing policies which are ripping away at the heart of opportunity in our community. At the core of what we on this side of the House argue is social mobility: wherever you come from, whatever your gender, whatever your race and whatever your economic circumstances, you should be able to rise up in this country and achieve for yourself and your family. The underpinnings of that are a decent minimum wage and the ability to bargain collectively, which are under assault in an obscene way by the wealthy people opposite. Health and education, the fundamentals of peace of mind for families but also fundamental to the economic progress of a country, are under assault from those on the other side.

So, wherever we look, we have a government driven by the 'survival of the fittest' mentality. You see it now. Their signature policy is a $50 billion tax cut for some of the wealthiest companies in the world—simply voodoo economics. The claim that that will drive growth and drive higher income for workers is simply absurd. It is laughable, and it is not backed up by the modelling that comes from the Treasury department, which has exposed what it is: simply an attempt to further concentrate wealth in our community. But it does not drive growth, because this government will not make the investments in critical economic infrastructure and in education and training, the investments which will really drive the income of the country and the incomes of hardworking Australians who get up in the morning, go to work, come home, do it again and expect a fair go in our system. They are not getting it from the Liberals.

Meryl Swanson (Paterson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the issue of poverty, which is a serious and ongoing problem in Australia. As we have heard, poverty is on the rise, the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing, and the government's ongoing cuts to welfare payments are only making matters worse. Far from having a plan to reduce inequality and poverty in Australia, this government is intent on pushing more people below the poverty line.

This government's Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017, being debated in the House on this very day, continues to slash and burn the welfare safety net that has been so important to so many for so many years. Here is the list of cuts that this government would ram through: cuts to family tax benefits, which would leave a typical family on $60,000 a year around $750 a year worse off; cuts to paid parental leave, which will make 70,000 new mums worse off; scrapping the energy supplement, a billion-dollar cut to pensioners, people with disability, carers and Newstart recipients; and a five-week Newstart wait, forcing young people to live off nothing for five weeks. I doubt that any of us here in this place could do that, let alone people who are some of the most vulnerable in the community. They will have to wait five weeks before they can access any kind of income support

There are cuts to payments to young people between the ages of 22 and 24 by pushing them onto the lower youth allowance—a cut of around $48 a week, or almost 2½ thousand dollars a year. That is an enormous amount of money when you are between the ages of 22 and 24, and trying to get on with your life. They are scrapping the Pensioner Education Supplement and the Education Entry Payment, and cutting the pension to migrant pensioners who spend more than six weeks overseas, often keeping their family connections close—it is so wrong. And if all that were not bad enough, the Turnbull government is holding the National Disability Insurance Scheme hostage over its $5.6 billion in cuts to families, new mums, pensioners, people with disability, carers and young job seekers—truly, trading off one group against another.

I have spoken in this place previously about the Turnbull government's attack on pensioners. Its changes to the assets test that came in this year have the pensioners in my seat of Paterson truly reeling. Its refusal to review the deeming rates, which are just ridiculous; its mean and miserly plan to keep older Australians working to the age of 70; and giving $50 billion of tax cuts to big business just do not add up.

There are attacks on Medicare, attacks on school funding and attacks on so-called Centrelink debtors. It goes on and on. This government does not care that poverty is getting worse in Australia or that inequality is getting worse in Australia, because if it did it would stop the slash and burn of our welfare safety net. It would recognise that poverty is associated with worse health and worse education outcomes, and with a higher risk of exposure to violence and to prison. These are not the foundations of a terrific society, the society that we have in Australia that we want to try to boost. It would recognise that poverty affects Indigenous Australians more than any others, and that we are in fact now nowhere near closing the gap in life expectancy or in any measure of health and wellbeing between our first peoples and non-Indigenous Australians.

And then we have the gleeful response by those on the coalition to the Fair Work Commission's cut to penalty rates last week. The workers affected by this callous decision are some of the lowest-paid in our community. In fact, nearly 700,000 Australians will be $77 a week worse off under this decision. Seventy-seven dollars is a lot of money when you are working on a Sunday to try to make ends meet.

And who is speaking up for them? Not the Turnbull government. They have been incredibly quiet. It is only Labor that is going to speak up every day, going into bat for these workers. And we will shout it from the rooftops, from this day to election day, reminding people who their friends are when it comes to trying to make ends meet. That is Labor—it is certainly not the Turnbull Liberal government.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate is expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The Federation Chamber is suspended until 4 pm.

Sitting suspended from 13 : 28 to 16 : 00