Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Disability and Carers (House)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 is an extraordinary one. It contains some 17 different measures that will hurt many vulnerable Australians, people who are unemployed, single parents, and women and children escaping violence. As Ross Gittins said in an article, just today:

You've never seen such a list of pettifogging nastiness, yielding tiny savings to the budget.

From the title of the bill—'welfare reform'—you might get the false impression that this was part of some big once-in-a-generation change to our social security system. But it isn't. It's a grab bag of nasty and mean cuts that will hurt vulnerable Australians. I'm sure everyone here will remember that when this bill was introduced, in September last year, it had some even nastier measures. It initially had the government's plan to trial drug testing of social security recipients. That measure doesn't have any support of medical, health or community organisations. The government cannot find one expert, person or group that supports the drug-testing trial. All the experts say that it won't work and completely runs counter to the evidence of what does work. The government couldn't convince the Senate crossbench of the merits of its controversial drug-testing trial, so they've taken it out of this bill. Unfortunately, they haven't got the message: they've decided to put it in a separate bill that is on for debate later this week.

I want to go to another schedule of the bill that is also very nasty, particularly for a group of people who find it very difficult to find work in the current labour market. Schedule 9 relates to activity tests for people aged 55 to 59. Schedule 9 was intended to remove the ability of Newstart and some special benefit recipients, aged between 55 and 59, to fulfil the activity test by volunteering 30 hours a fortnight. People would need to fulfil 30 hours a fortnight of activity with voluntary work and suitable paid work. Fifteen of the 30 hours must be of paid work or approved job-search activities. As a result of this measure, the government would have seen many community groups having to cut the amount of time people can volunteer and still receive jobseeker payments. As I say, we already know how hard it is for people in this age group to find work.

The government ignored the views of volunteer organisations, who believe that this change will decimate the number of people and volunteer hours available to community organisations that help neighbourhoods right across Australia. Volunteering Australia has said that this would 'have a profound impact on the volunteering sector'. I remind all the Liberal and National party members opposite that they all voted for this change that Volunteering Australia said will have a profound impact on the sector. Volunteering Australia went on to say that this proposal 'will do little to improve the job prospects of older Australians, an already disadvantaged group in the job market'. The government hasn't provided any additional support to help Australians aged 55 to 59 to overcome the significant barriers they face in the labour market. There's overwhelming evidence, put to the Senate inquiry on this bill, that mature job seekers face significant age discrimination in the labour market and find it very hard to get back into the workforce after they've lost their jobs.

As a result of the amended schedule we've got before us, there will now be 12 months full jobseeker participation, and then people will be able to go back to the old arrangements. It shows the complete chaos of this government. They put a bill in. They've now got a 12-month arrangement. It really is not the way to do good policy.

I say to the government that this is one part of this legislation and these amendments—they might have found a short-term fix but the long-term problem still remains. I'm highlighting one of the schedules today, and I will go on to another in a moment. There are so many parts of this bill that will hurt many, many vulnerable Australians.

We will support the amendments, because they soften the blow, but I absolutely and clearly say to the House that we will continue to oppose the bill overall. The government may have made some concessions of a short-term nature, but this is a straight-up attack on vulnerable people. There might be some short-term, small backdowns in these amendments but there are certainly nowhere near enough to get us to support the bill.

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I reiterate the sentiments expressed by the member for Jagajaga about how nasty, unnecessary and discriminatory the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 201 7is. This bill is indicative of the mindset of the government. It is out of touch, and it does not give very much consideration for those people who rely on governments for support, and for those people who rely on governments for support at the most difficult times of their lives.

In truth, this bill may have been returned amended, but it remains just as reprehensible. As the member for Jagajaga said, this bill reflects the disdain and contempt which the government holds for vulnerable Australians who rely on income support. In short, it is trying to save money—not very much money—and it doesn't seem to give a damn about people who rely on governments to speak up for them. It is a cynical exercise in politics, and I think the minister understands that.

According to the Australian Council of Social Services, this will negatively impact on at least 80,000 Australians who are out of work; single parents; and women and children, who are fleeing domestic violence. This bill completely ignores common sense and dismisses extenuating circumstances. It is simply designed to make it more difficult for Australians who find themselves in difficult and uncertain times in their lives to claim income support. The government is more concerned, as we saw this week, with a big tax cut to multimillionaires and multinationals than with our government's responsibility: protecting the most vulnerable people in the community.

I'm particularly concerned with how this bill will impact on the Human Services portfolio. In schedule 10 the bill will change the payment start date and backdating for Newstart and youth allowance. In schedule 11 the bill will cut intent-to-claim provisions which consider a person's extenuating circumstances. This is so concerning. One would think, with the debates raging about this, that the government would have a rethink. In schedule 17 the bill will also allow information obtained by DHS from claimants to be used against them in investigations and prosecutions, as the member for Jagajaga indicated. I'm very concerned about the government's axing of the bereavement allowance.

Schedule 10's proposed changes to backdating for Newstart and youth allowance are punitive and arbitrary. By moving the payment start day from initial contact to initial appointment, claimants potentially lose out on much-needed income support at very uncertain and vulnerable times in their lives. What is particularly concerning about this schedule is the impact it is going to have on rural and remote communities. They may have limited access to job providers or consideration to travel arrangements for applicants living in rural and remote communities. We know that is going to particularly affect young people in these communities. This is nothing more than a cash grab from people who are in between jobs. These changes will mean applicants need to wait longer to access income support on top of the existing one-week waiting period that applies. The implications are not just for the young people that this will apply to; there are implications for the families and for the communities that these young people reside in.

The government's removal of intent to claim is yet another cash grab. Intent to claim allows the department to deem a claimant entitled to a payment from the day of initial contact in the following circumstances: if a person lodges a claim for the payment or concession card within 14 days of initially contacting the department; if a person has a medical condition or is caring for a partner or someone suffering from a medical condition which impacted on the person's ability to lodge a claim earlier; or if the claimant was otherwise unable to lodge a claim by reason of special circumstances. These circumstances are homelessness, separation, hospitalisation, health issues or difficulty accessing technology. I understand the government introduced amendments to retain these intent-to-claim provisions for vulnerable individuals in extenuating circumstances. The truth is that there is absolutely no reason to amend the intent-to-claim provisions. Labor remains opposed to schedule 11.

As the member for Jagajaga says, we will support the amendments, but overall the bill will be opposed.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll start with a big call at the outset: if there were a competition to choose the government's nastiest, meanest bill—it is a long list to choose from—the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 would have to be near the top, if not at the top. That's coming alongside the bill to let people say more racist things—that was a good one!—the bill to give the minister for immigration the power to deport people based on the class of race and religion, the cuts to the pensioner energy supplement and so on and so forth. Another day, another attack on the most vulnerable from this government, the Prime Minister and the Liberals.

This is not the first time that we've debated this bill or these measures. It was six months ago that I and many Labor members spoke in this House when it was coupled up with some of the more outrageous proposals around the drug testing of people on welfare, which could be better named the 'drive up crime bill', as the former Australian Federal Police commissioner called it. All that bill would do is drive up crime. The government banged it through the House and took it to the Senate, and it was defeated. Those measures were quite rightly rejected by senators. Yet the government, like goldfish swimming around in a bowl, has no vision for the country and no real policy agenda, so we're back here six months on, debating the same nasty, mean little cuts. It is a nasty, mean bill. It will make life even harder for the most vulnerable Australians. The cut to 80,000 people on income support is bad enough. Social services groups have called these cuts out as worsening homelessness, which we saw in the latest census figures reach record levels across the country. We've come to expect this stuff, unfortunately, from the Liberals, but I had hoped the Senate crossbench would stick to their original position and defeat these kinds of measures.

I draw attention to and make some remarks on one particular clause in the bill, amended as a result of the Senate's work. The bill kills—pardon the pun—the bereavement allowance. It should not die without a fight. What is the bereavement allowance? It's a short-term payment to people whose partner has died. It's paid for a maximum of 14 weeks at the rate of the age pension with the same income and assets tests, so it's a well-targeted, tightly targeted payment. If you are a pregnant woman, you can stay on this payment until your pregnancy ends, until you give birth. How decent! This is not a forever payment. This is not a payment where people live their lives on welfare, as we keep hearing; this is a short-term, targeted payment. How many people does it go to? All this fuss is about cutting a payment that goes to 900 Australians every year. The government tried, by axing this payment, to push people whose partners had just died onto Newstart. Every one of those 900 people would have had $1,300 taken off them while they were grieving.

I say unashamedly that I'm proud to live in Australia, a country where we can do things like treating people decently when their partner has just died. We don't force pregnant women to go onto Newstart and go to job interviews. The government wants to chop it and pay it at a lower rate, as I said. It's absolutely pathetic. It's a mean, nasty, small little cut. It's not about fiscal repair at all. We moved amendments to this bill in the Senate to make it a bit less awful, to protect the bereavement allowance. Senator Hanson voted with the government to kill it. It is important that this point is understood because, after she did so, there was an enormous backlash on social media, so she posted stuff trying to pretend she didn't vote with the government to kill the bereavement allowance. The voting record shows she voted with the Liberal Party to kill the bereavement allowance. The 'battler's friend' is a Liberal stooge. Time after time she talks a big game in the community, whether it's on penalty rates, cuts for pensioners or whatever, but then she lines up and votes with the Liberal Party. Let there be no mistake about it.

After that ridiculous display, once she realised, 'I might have a bit of a political problem here; that's a bit much,' she introduced a series of amendments in a panicked way to pretend she had not just killed the bereavement allowance. All this legislative mess, as I said, is about saving $1,300 over 14 weeks for 900 people. Senator Hanson's amendments, which make the whole thing more complex—she could have just left the bereavement allowance there; it's well understood, well administered and well targeted—instead make things a little bit less awful for most of those 900 people but still leave an indeterminate number, maybe only 30, worse off. Why are we doing this? Why are these our priorities?

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Disability and Carers (House)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask the minister at the table to clarify some of the issues the member for Bruce just raised. As the member for Bruce indicated, there was an absolute farce in the Senate last week, where the government went all out to kill the bereavement allowance. The Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation voted for the abolition of the bereavement allowance, Labor voted to keep the allowance, there was a tied vote, and then all the things the member for Bruce outlined followed. But what we're still not clear about—and I would ask the minister to explain it to the House before we vote on this amendment—is what the impact of the government and One Nation's change will be. How many people will actually be worse off as a result of this change? I mean worse off compared to the existing arrangements, not worse off compared to the bill that the government previously put into the House. We currently have a bereavement allowance that's paid, as the member for Bruce said, at the rate of the age pension for 14 weeks. A very limited number of people are entitled to it right now. How many people will be worse off as a result of the amendments that are before us compared to the current arrangements, and by how much? Really, the House needs to know.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Under the changes put forward by One Nation, everyone who qualifies for bereavement allowance under the jobseeker payment will be no worse off, and some people will be better off, than under current arrangements.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Disability and Carers (House)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That answer is how many won't be, not how many will be. How many will be worse off?

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I've said, under the changes put forward by One Nation everyone who qualifies for bereavement allowance under the jobseeker payment will be no worse off, and some people will be better off, than under the current arrangements.

Payments are targeted to those who need them. Bereavement allowance is paid to people in lieu of work, and that is why it is exempt from normal mutual obligation tests and waiting periods. Income and assets tests only apply during the period of bereavement and are designed to assist those people who have no access to leave or other income. To be found ineligible based on the assets test, a single person needs to have assets of more than $253,750, not including the family home, if they're a homeowner, and $456,750 if they are not a homeowner. Bereavement allowance is available for people earning up to $1,053.34 per fortnight during the bereavement period. In regard to casual workers or people who have no access to leave arrangements, these people will qualify provided they do not earn over the income threshold during their bereavement period or hold assets higher than the limit. That is because these people would be with little or no income during this period due to a lack of work.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Disability and Carers (House)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately, Minister, you've just repeated the income and assets test rules, which we all know are the rules for the bereavement allowance, but you still haven't said how many people who would currently be entitled to the bereavement allowance will no longer be entitled as a result of this change. Please don't just repeat what you have already said twice, because that's not answering my question.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just wanted to make sure that we're very clear on the context of the changes that have been made. Anyone who qualifies will be no worse off, and those—

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Disability and Carers (House)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What about the people who don't qualify? That's the point.

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Jagajaga will get her turn.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we're talking about are the people who won't qualify. Of course, as the shadow minister would know, getting exact figures on those people who would or wouldn't qualify is not easy, but on our assessment, given the income and assets tests, approximately 30 people might not qualify.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I spent Saturday at five street stalls, in Springvale, Noble Park, Dandenong, Dandenong North and Mulgrave. I spent an hour or more in each place talking to people. I must say, as someone who actually participates in this institution, respects it and holds it in high regard—I always have—it saddens me how little people think of us. And you wonder why so many people in Australia say they hate politicians. Well, you can't get a straight answer to a question. You duck and you weave, and you read out key messages and eventually you come out with a number of, 'Well maybe 30.' You could have just said that at the start, if these changes are going to hurt 30 people. So now what we're doing is debating an amendment to take $1300 off 30 people and pretending that is in some way welfare reform. That's your government's priority? That's welfare reform? I would have thought reform was about making something better—improving something—but instead reform now under this government has boiled down to using the House's time to take $1,300 off Australian people whose partners have just died—30 of them. That's what we're now doing.

So we keep getting told the other reason that we have to have these kinds of bills, apparently, is because we have got a structural deficit—a debt and deficit disaster. Well, let's just read into the Hansard a few facts—the context that this bill sits in. This year's deficit has blown out by eight times. The 2017-18 deficit was $2.8 billion in the Liberal's 2014-15 budget and it's now $23.6 billion in the mid-year financial update. Net debt since this government has been elected more than doubled: net debt was $175 billion in September 2013 and was $335 billion in January 2018. Gross debt is more than half a trillion dollars, it has never been higher and it is growing with no end in sight. Both types of debt are growing faster under the Liberals than Labor. That is the context that this nasty, mean, sneaky little measure that we're standing here debating sits in. It's not too late, Minister Tehan. You could just stop this. You have the delegation; you could say: 'We'll put this debate aside. I'll go back to the government and say, "Maybe we've got this wrong. Maybe we don't need to try to pretend we're going to fix the budget in Australia by picking on 30 vulnerable people."' How much of a contribution do you think that's going to make to closing the debt and deficit gap? Do you think this makes any contribution in any meaningful way to budget repair or to addressing the structural deficit? Words fail me.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The reason for this Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 is that we want to simplify the complexity around Newstart and other payments, and that's what we do by creating the jobseeker payment. We are bringing seven payments into one. This was what the McClure report recommended. That is what the government are doing. We want to make sure that we have a simple welfare system that is easy for people to navigate.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Disability and Carers (House)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think anybody in the House would argue against simplification. But to use simplification as the reason to get rid of the bereavement allowance that is currently paid—for 14 weeks or for the duration of her pregnancy, whichever is longer—to a pregnant woman who has lost her partner, as the member for Bruce says, just defies belief. It just defies belief that every member of the Liberal and National parties and One Nation voted to get rid of this bereavement allowance for these pregnant women. Anyway, we have now dragged out of the Minister for Social Services that this affects around 30 people; they don't actually know exactly how many. Can the minister confirm that these 30 people will lose the full $1,300? Is that how much worse off they'll be?

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have explained to the shadow minister, whether people qualify or not will be dependent on their assets and their income. I will explain again: to be found ineligible based on the assets test, a single person needs to have assets of more than $253,750 not including the family home, if they are a homeowner, and $456,750 if they are not a homeowner.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Disability and Carers (House)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So does this mean the Minister for Social Services doesn't know how many worse off they'll be? Is that the truth? I understand the rules. I know the income and asset test rules. There's no point just repeating those. The question is: how much worse off will they be? Is it $1,300 or some other figure?

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the shadow minister knows the rules so well, she will know the answer to her question.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Disability and Carers (House)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's your amendment. Tell the House the amount.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What does the word 'ineligible' mean? To be ineligible, they won't qualify.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Disability and Carers (House)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to confirm, they will be worse off by $1,300. That must be the implication of the minister's answer. It's the minister's amendment that we're debating. The minister should tell the House what the impact will be. We have dragged out of him that it's 30 people. Is it a fact that those 30 people will no longer get $1,300 that they were previously entitled to?

Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I call the minister, I remind the honourable members that we each have ample time in five minutes to raise issues; therefore, cease the interjections.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the shadow minister clearly knows, if you are ineligible, you can't qualify for the payment.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Disability and Carers (House)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As they currently would be $1,300 worse off compared to the existing arrangements, we'll have to assume given the minister won't actually say the words in the House. I don't know if he doesn't know, which is possible, or he doesn't want it on the record, which is a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace that this government and this minister will come into the House, move amendments and not be prepared to say how many people they will hurt or how much worse off they'll be, but that just sums up this government.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just did some maths on 30 people times $1,300—and $1,300 is actually a conservative estimate, because let's say there's a pregnant woman or two amongst those people, and it's entirely possible that pregnancy will last longer than 14 weeks under the current rules. But let's say it's $1,300. Now we're using the House's time to debate hurting people by taking $39,000. That's the annual saving to the Commonwealth budget we're now talking about. You mob have run up a deficit of $23.6 billion a year, and your answer to that is to take $39,000 a year off the most vulnerable Australians. I tried to work out what percentage that is on the iPad there. I divided $39,000 by $23.6 billion and it just says 'error'. It's too small even for the iPad to calculate.

You'd think that, if you're going to address structural deficit, you'd look at the big systemic things and cast 10 years out, wouldn't you? There are things like negative gearing, which goes overwhelmingly to the top 10 or 20 per cent of income earners and enables someone to buy their 13th investment property with a big free kick from the taxman while first home buyers are struggling to get in the market. You'd think you'd look at that. Or look at capital gains tax discounts, which overwhelmingly go to the wealthiest people in the country.

But that, I suppose, is me projecting our values onto you, because what this bill shows is that taking $39,000 from the most vulnerable Australians is your answer to the Commonwealth budget crisis. What this bill shows clearly, in stark relief, if there was any doubt, is your values. Your party exists to protect those who have wealth. Your party exists to protect those who already hold capital. If there's ever a reminder for anyone listening about what our role is as a Labor Party sticking up for the most vulnerable people in society then this bill is it. Shame on you.

Question agreed to.