Stephen Bates (Brisbane, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just have some questions to the minister about this bill. Minister, in your second reading speech, you mentioned that the bill includes compassionate and evidence based measures that strengthen Australia's safety net. Minister was the evidence presented in the economic inclusion advisory committee's interim report part of the evidence basis for this bill?

Milton Dick (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before the minister addresses this question, I will give some licence and latitude, particularly to new members. This stage, consideration in detail, really is specifically about clauses of the bill. It is not the time to start a new debate or do open broad questions. I will allow the minister to address the question, but for this part of the debate going forward, if members could read Practice 375 where it states, 'Discussion must relate to clauses of the bill, and it is not in order to make a general second reading speech.' So if you are moving forward with questions, please make sure that they are relevant as clauses of the bill.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for the question. I would like to thank the members of the economic advisory committee. They did significant work in preparing a lot of information. One of the key elements was to make an argument to lift the base rate of working-age payments, particularly those on JobSeeker and other payments. In addition, the women's economic advisory committee did their work and made it very clear about the importance of extending the eligibility for the single parent payment. Of course, the women's economic security equality task force, as well as the Productivity Commission, as the economic inclusion committee all spoke about the importance of the potential increase to rent assistance. We drew on a lot of information, a lot of evidence. We had a lot of budgetary measures to consider, along with our energy policy and other measures in other portfolios that went into the budget process. Of course, we considered all of those, as we always said we would when it came to income support payments, particularly JobSeeker, through the budget process. We relied on a significant amount of varied information to make those budgetary decisions.

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to ask a question of the minister. On the commencement date that is in schedule 1 in the legislation for changing eligibility for single parent payment, the government has recognised the struggle for single parents, mostly women, facing the rising cost of living. However, the current start date is still 19 weeks away, and 8,145 families will have their payments reduced by $100 a week during this period. Will the minister bring forward the start date or make interim arrangements to ensure that no single parent is left worse off?

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I mentioned in my summing up speech, we certainly have considered a whole range of elements to see how fast we can implement these measures. After consideration of the legislative arrangements, along with the implementation date, 20 September is the fastest that we are able to be confident that we can implement these measures. That's certainly my advice from Services Australia. Of course, as a result of this parliament, increases to social security do require legislative changes. We have looked into this and we are confident that this is the best course going forward to ensure that the build of Services Australia, along with the legislation, can implement what is a number of complex measures. It is not just an increase to the base rate but a change to eligibility. It will allow the build of automatic transfer for those parents. We've looked at the simplest, fastest way to enact all of these on 20 September, so we're not able to bring that back.

Kylea Tink (North Sydney, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to ask the minister whether or not she's aware that this morning in estimates Services Australia actually said that the changes could be done in weeks, not months and that, indeed, they are already working on the package. Given that circumstance, will the minister undertake to review bringing this implementation date forward?

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our advice from Services Australia was that, to implement all of this package, the date was 20 September. There is a lot of complexity. There are the IT changes, as well as a list of changes that I've mentioned. We are looking to implement this through both the legislative changes and the implementation of this package on 20 September.

Stephen Bates (Brisbane, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank you, Speaker, for your advice as well. My next question refers to section 1068-B1 and the section of the act that contains the rate of JobSeeker. I asked earlier about the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. They recommended a substantial increase to the rate of JobSeeker. My question for the minister is: does $2.85 a day constitute a substantial increase to that rate?

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the government was looking at the cost-of-living package that we have put forward, we looked at a range of measures. We have increased the rate of working-age and student payments by $40 for JobSeeker, youth allowance, parenting payment and a range of other measures. We have extended the eligibility for parenting payment to having a youngest child under 14 years of age. We've increased Commonwealth rent assistance and also, of course, have increased the eligibility for the higher rate of JobSeeker to those who are 55—down from 60.

This package is a substantive package. It's a package that is targeted. It has been thought through and does complement our other measures in the budget, which include a bulk-billing incentive, tripling the bulk-billing incentive payments, cheaper medicines and, of course, energy relief. Together, these measures, we believe, provide targeted, important cost-of-living relief to those who are most vulnerable, and that is what we're putting forward in this budget.

If there are more questions, I might let people ask them and then I'll respond at the end.

Bill agreed to.