Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I rise to speak on the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023, my thoughts are sitting squarely with the people of Indi who are doing it really tough and relying on government support. Here in this place and in the media, we are increasingly hearing about 'the cost-of-living crisis'. It's a phrase so overused it risks becoming just another political football used in this place to score points against the other side. But I know what the actual cost-of-living crisis is in my electorate of Indi and what it looks like. It looks like people increasingly calling on food shares and other charities to help put food on the table. It looks like people considering whether the cost of fuel is too high for their child to take on weekend sport and to drive them from town to town. It's looking for second jobs on top of existing jobs because making ends meet is getting more tricky each week. For those who rely on government payments such as JobSeeker, the disability support pension, student payments and the age pension, the decisions they must take and make as costs go up are so much harder.

In my office we are experiencing an increase of people seeking help as they interact with Services Australia. As Australians we can be proud that we have such a safety net, but too often I hear from those who rely on Services Australia that the service they receive is not always adequate and the level of support offered through the payments provided is not enough to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table. To be clear: the rate of JobSeeker is simply not enough. There have been times in our not-too-distant political history where it's been incredibly controversial for a member of this place to even acknowledge that payments such as JobSeeker are not adequate and that we must do more to support those who are looking for work. Too often the debate descended into unhelpful and demeaning slurs like 'dole bludger', 'leaners versus lifters' or 'welfare cheats'.

This is where this bill and the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee has the potential to provide powerful cut-through and allow decisions on the rate of payments such as JobSeeker to be made based on evidence, not on political games. This committee was set up following an agreement between my Independent colleague Senator David Pocock and the government last year as part of negotiations on the industrial relations 'secure jobs, better pay' bill. The agreement to form this committee played a major role in my eventual decision to support that bill. The committee reported to the government before the last budget, but this bill formalises it in legislation. It will be known as the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. It will provide advice to the government ahead of each budget on economic inclusion and boosting participation, and on the adequacy and sustainability of income support payments. In preparing its reports, the committee must have regard to the government's economic and fiscal outlook and fiscal strategy. Its advice to the government is non-binding and it will consist of 14 part-time members, with appointments lasting three years. Members are to include economists, academics, union and business representatives and community advocates who will be appointed by the Minister for Social Services, in consultation with the Treasurer. There is much to commend in this bill, and I intend to vote in support of it. I welcome efforts to improve the evidence base for policy, particularly for some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

Earlier in this speech I spoke of the potential this idea has. While I welcome this bill, I am concerned that in many ways the government's proposal does not realise the true potential of this committee. This bill can be improved. The proposed membership of the committee has a major blind spot: among the economists, the academics, the union officials and business representatives, whose voice is missing? The voice of those who are actually experiencing poverty or who have experienced poverty. The voice of those who rely on government support payments and who face the often-uphill battle of interacting with Services Australia and making ends meet with those payments. The voice of single mothers, people living with disability and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. Their experiences need to be heard alongside the expertise of economists and academics.

As an independent MP I am not guided by party ideology when making decisions on bills or forming policy decisions. I listen to those in my community who are most affected to truly understand how legislation would affect them and how it could be improved.

Listening to people shouldn't be so revolutionary. It should be standard practice. This bill is a golden chance to seize that opportunity, but the government seems to be fumbling it. The Senate inquiry into this bill was undertaken in just over a month, with submissions from organisations such as the Australian Council of Social Services, Economic Justice Australia, UnitingCare Australia and others, making sensible suggestions on how this committee and its practice could be improved to get maximum impact. Suggestions have been made in good faith, and I note the Senate committee's report recommended four amendments to the bill. These include ensuring the committee's report is published at least two weeks before the budget is handed down and requiring the government to formally respond to the report. I also note and support the additional comments of Senator David Pocock regarding improving transparency and the independence of the committee, increasing the committee's scope to include developing national measures of poverty and also measures to end homelessness and increase diversity of membership of the committee.

I understand the member for North Sydney intends to move a series of amendments to the bill which would pick up the recommendations by the Australian Council of Social Services, and these amendments would address my concerns, including by requiring the government to include people with direct experience of poverty and for committee members to be remunerated for their work. I support these amendments. They are sensible amendments. They would improve this bill. They would improve the functioning of the committee and the quality of the advice given to the government.

The government should take on recommendations made in good faith in the many submissions to the Senate inquiry. They would make this committee's function transparent, independent, inclusive and as robust as possible. If we're going to have a committee to advise government, let's make the best it can be. They would ensure that the voices of those who have experienced poverty are heard. It's so important; people who have lived experience have sensible solutions because they have a true understanding of the problems that a committee like this is trying to solve.

I hope that this committee and its work will become a long-lasting, respected and trusted part of our parliamentary budget process. The potential is there. This bill should embed evidence in decision-making processes and therefore should make a substantive difference in the lives of people who rely on government support payments. I really encourage the government to think about these amendments and to take them on. I really am happy that this committee is being formed. It could be better. It can be better. We still have time to make it better. Ultimately, though, the principle of this is sound, and I commend this bill to the House.

Carina Garland (Chisholm, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In November last year the Prime Minister announced the establishment of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. The committee was tasked with providing advice to government, ahead of every federal budget, on ways to boost economic inclusion and tackle disadvantage. As the Minister for Social Services has already advised the House, an interim committee comprised of a diverse range of experts has already commenced this important work, and this interim committee has delivered its first report, including advice on policy settings, systems and structures; and the adequacy, effectiveness, and sustainability of income support payments. This, importantly, really helps to inform the government's considerations out of the 2023-24 budget. I'm really pleased to be part of a government that is working every day to deliver on our positive agenda to boost economic inclusion and broaden opportunity for all Australians. The establishment now of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee as a statutory body is an important step.

The Albanese government will always work to support the most vulnerable in our society, tackle disadvantage and provide more opportunities to boost economic participation. We recognise the value of ensuring a broad range of views is considered in the design and development of policy. That's why this bill reflects the Albanese government's commitment to hear from experts, stakeholders and, significantly, the community. We on this side of the House know that disadvantage is a complex and systemic problem.

That's why in our last budget we announced an overhaul of the way we as a government will seek to remove entrenched disadvantage. We are doing this by investing almost $200 million to deliver a comprehensive agenda to target investment in those communities doing it the toughest. The targeting entrenched disadvantage package, as the Minister for Social Services has previously stated, will better enable government to partner, to listen and to empower. We are partnering with philanthropy as well as listening to and empowering local leaders. I had the great pleasure of inviting the Treasurer to meet with local leaders who have championed targeted investment in their communities in Ashwood and Chadstone. The targeting entrenched disadvantage package will also allow us to work in a really direct way on the ground with communities to enable our services to be delivered in a way that meets their specific needs in a shared decision-making framework. We are listening to communities and making sure that we are empowering people within communities.

The Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill establishes this committee as an independent statutory body. It will become a transparent mechanism for the future to provide expert advice to our government and to future governments on economic inclusion and tackling disadvantage in relation to policy settings, systems and structures. It will also look at the adequacy, effectiveness and sustainability of income support payments ahead of every federal budget. Announcing this committee is part of our agenda to boost economic inclusion and tackle disadvantage. This legislation seeks to fulfil our commitment to permanently legislate the committee and builds on arrangements that have been in place for the interim committee. Again, this reflects our commitment to really listen to experts, evidence, stakeholders and community views in all of the communities represented here in the parliament across the country to inform the decisions in each federal budget. This will ensure that we are receiving the very best advice on how to support Australians who need it most and how to minimise disadvantage across communities and tackle the entrenched disadvantage that we know exists in communities.

This is allowing us to build upon the important work we as a government are already doing with the support that we have already provided to Australians to help with cost-of-living pressures. Our previous budget, the 2023-24 budget, announced a range of measures to support those on low incomes, including increasing the rates of working age and student payments. That's really targeted relief. We have also made an increase to Commonwealth rent assistance and expanded access to the single parenting payment.

We know that boosting economic inclusion and tackling disadvantage simply cannot be resolved in a single budget process or in a single portfolio. Doing this work requires sustained commitment over time and across government, something that this government is up for. This bill will ensure that there is a permanent mechanism to benefit from the independent expert advice that government receives on the ways it can better support Australians. Ultimately the mechanism will help facilitate and broaden opportunity as well as help reduce disadvantage in our communities.

At a practical level, the committee will consist of a chair and up to 13 members, comprising of economists, academics, union business representatives and community advocates. These members will be appointed by the Minister for Social Services, in consultation with the Treasurer. Members will hold office on a part-time basis for a period of three years and will be eligible for reappointment once their term ends. The committee will provide annual advice in a report to government on a range of matters, with a focus on economic inclusion and lifting participation, the adequacy and sustainability of income support payments and reducing barriers to economic participation.

Transparency is really important for our government. The findings of the committee will be published on the Department of Social Services website. The minister and Treasurer will jointly direct the committee to consider specific issues within its set remit, which will ensure that the government can seek advice on areas of priority. When the committee is considering matters, it must also have regard to the government's economic fiscal outlook and business strategy. Additionally, it will also have regard to existing policies and the long-term sustainability of the social security system.

The committee will provide a report to government ahead of each federal budget, as I've previously mentioned, which the government may consider as part of the budget process.

Within five years from the commencement of the bill, the operation of the committee will be subject to independent review. That's to ensure that the committee is meeting its goals and objectives as set out in its legislated functions. The person or persons undertaking the review will provide a written report to the Minister for Social Services and the Treasurer within six months of the commencement of the review.

It's important here to note that the establishment of the committee as a statutory body is another signal that our government is absolutely committed to providing support to Australians who need it most. This commitment to really listen to experts, stakeholders and community views, to inform decisions in the budget that affect the lives of everybody in this country while we're still acting in a fiscally responsible manner, is really meaningful.

This bill allows for the minister and the Treasurer to jointly direct the committee to look at issues that are priorities and engage with communities in a really deep way. I'm really pleased to be part of a government that is making this commitment. We are funding this properly, so secretariat and research support will be provided.

The advice that government receives will be non-binding. Our government will continue to make the decisions necessary to improve the lives of our citizens, because that's what we've been elected to this place to do. Our responsibility, which we take seriously, is to listen to the community and make the best decisions that the time demands. I'm pleased to support this bill.

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

Despite Australia being one of the richest countries in the world, over 3.3 million Australians are living in poverty. We pride ourselves on being a country of opportunity, fairness and equality, yet millions of people are struggling every day to put food on the table, to secure safe and affordable housing, to pay for medication and medical expenses, and to enjoy their life without constant financial stress. The eradication of poverty should be a national priority, yet successive governments have refused and failed to adequately measure, research and understand poverty and economic disadvantage in Australia. This has led to decades of inadequate income support payments and policies that served only to punish people in poverty and further entrench disadvantage.

The permanent Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee presents a real opportunity to address these issues and eradicate poverty in Australia. For the first time ever, we could have an independent body providing clear advice to the government on poverty reduction. This committee could mark the beginning of a government that actually works collaboratively with people living in poverty on issues that impact them. It could oversee the development of poverty measures and investigate specific issues that intersect and contribute to disadvantage, like lack of affordable housing and discrimination.

The Greens see the enormous potential of the permanent Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, and we're excited to see the bill for the committee's establishment introduced to the parliament. But this bill, the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023, falls utterly short and is a complete slap in the face for advocates of the unemployed, for social service organisations and for every Australian living below the poverty line. Again and again, Labor has refused to listen and engage with people living in poverty on the policies that impact them, and this bill is no different. Nowhere in this bill is there mention of poverty.

There is no requirement for someone with direct experience of poverty to be a part of the committee. For too long, governments have implemented policies that have failed to take into account the experiences and knowledge of people living in poverty. This has contributed to the development of harmful and destructive programs like robodebt, ParentsNext, and compulsory income management. If the government actually cared about economic inclusion and tackling disadvantage, this bill would include a requirement for somebody with direct experience of poverty to be a member of this committee. They would also have listened to the long list of academics, social services organisations and advocates for the unemployed who have calling for the development of a national poverty measure. Government after government have used the lack of a nationally accepted measure of poverty to dodge responsibility for the inadequacy of income support payments.

The permanent Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee could play an integral role in developing a national definition of poverty, one that takes into account a diversity of needs and contexts and one that the government could be held accountable to.

However, unsurprisingly, this bill fails to include any requirement for the committee to develop or use such a measure.

In their submission to the Senate inquiry into this bill, the Australian Council of Social Service also raised concerns about the lack of transparency and independence of the committee. A key piece of work undertaken by the committee will be producing a report providing recommendations to the government. However, in its current form, the bill has no requirement for the government to respond to this report, and, further, it is unclear if and when the committee will publicly publish its full report. Additionally, the bill contains a provision that allows the government to direct the committee to investigate only certain topics and issues. This clearly infringes on the committee's independence and hampers its ability to fully investigate poverty and disadvantage. Concerns about the independence and transparency of the committee were also echoed by the Antipoverty Centre, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the Salvation Army and many other submitters to the bill's inquiry. This bill clearly fails to meet the expectations of key advocacy organisations and will fail to deliver an independent and robust body to advise the government on economic inclusion.

I do want to acknowledge and commend, though, the work of the interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. The interim committee's report, which was published in April, built upon the work of unemployment advocates, social service organisations and academics and contained important evidence about economic disadvantage in Australia. The report found that, apart from the temporary boost during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, the JobSeeker payment has been declining relative to median incomes and other Centrelink payments for decades. It articulated what the Greens, people on income support and many others already knew: that the rate of JobSeeker is completely inadequate. The committee put forward a suite of important recommendations for the government to reduce economic inequality in Australia, but it made clear that the most pressing action was to raise the rate of JobSeeker and related working-age payments. In the report, the interim committee suggested that increasing the rate of payments to 90 per cent of the aged pension would improve their adequacy and reduce disadvantage.

Despite this, in the last budget the government decided to raise the rate of JobSeeker by only $4 a day. Four dollars a day is not a substantial increase such as the interim committee recommended. Four dollars a day can't even buy you a coffee, let alone pay someone's ever-increasing rent, grocery bills and medical expenses. Poverty is a political choice, and the Labor government is choosing to keep millions of Australians on income support well below the poverty line. They are also choosing to put forward a completely inadequate framework for the permanent Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee.

As I said, there is enormous potential in this committee. The idea of an independent body to provide clear advice to parliament on this issue is something that the Greens have long advocated for. Earlier in the year, my colleague the Australian Greens spokesperson for social services, Senator Janet Rice, introduced the Greens' antipoverty commission bill into the Senate. This bill sought to establish an antipoverty commission to provide parliament with independent and transparent advice on the causes of poverty in Australia, on how to reduce it and on the minimum levels for social security payments. Unlike this lacklustre bill, our antipoverty commission would have had a number of distinct features we know are critical to establishing an effective independent body to tackle poverty and inequality in Australia. These included an explicit focus on addressing poverty in its name and framework, a clear requirement for the development of a national poverty line, a requirement for the government to publicly respond to recommendations made by the independent commission, a clear requirement for legislative reviews of income support payments and of the poverty line, an independent parliamentary committee that can scrutinise appointments to the independent body, and a focus on people experiencing poverty that enables people with direct experiences of disadvantage to be commissioners. This antipoverty commission would have responded to the work and the calls of unemployment advocates, academics and social security organisations about what is really needed to meaningfully address poverty in Australia.

While the Greens welcome the establishment of the permanent Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, we know that this bill is not up to scratch. That is why I can foreshadow that my colleagues will be seeking to amend the bill in the Senate. We will be using our antipoverty commission framework in our deliberations, and we encourage others in parliament to do so. As the cost of living continues to soar, we must do everything in our power to ensure communities are kept out of poverty and out of financial distress. The permanent Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee presents a real opportunity for change, and the Greens will fight to ensure that this opportunity is not squandered and that we have the best chance at truly eradicating poverty in Australia.

Elizabeth Watson-Brown (Ryan, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tonight, across Australia, there will be half-a-million households who won't be able to put enough food on their table. Over the past year, 1.2 million Australian kids have gone hungry. Right now, 3.3 million people are struggling to pay their bills, living below the poverty line in Australia. More and more Australians are just one big medical problem, a couple of missed shifts or another interest rate rise away from complete disaster, yet the big banks brag about record profits, Coles and Woolies have profiteered to the tune of billions, and coal and gas companies pay nothing in tax. There have been 13 consecutive interest rate hikes since I became an MP in this House in May 2022. Rents have spiked and spiked again.

I've chatted to so many locals in Ryan going through absolute hell to try to just get through each day in these tough times. Parents are having to make the completely cruel choice between sending their kids to Saturday soccer and the mortgage payment. People are skipping meals to pay the rent or are simply unable to pay for much needed medication or health care, because Medicare has been gutted too. And where's the safety net? Where's the support when times are tough?

What's this government's response? Raise JobSeeker to above the poverty line, raise the pension, built hundreds of thousands of public homes, crackdown on price gouging? No! It's a new committee! Labor's bill doesn't even include a national definition of poverty, effectively allowing the government to keep its head firmly buried in the sand about the scale of the problem.

The Australian Council of Social Services has also raised concerns around the lack of transparency and independence of the permanent committee. Can it be truly independent if, as this bill allows, the government has ultimate control over what the committee investigates and what the committee reports on? And now, get this, because frankly it's laughable: nowhere in the bill is there a requirement for the committee to have representation from everyday people, people with direct experience of poverty. It's an inclusionary committee without inclusion—but there is room for the chair of the Business Council of Australia! And, if the committee dares to say something that might actually address the problem? Again, I think my constituents back in Ryan are probably a little sceptical that it will actually be listened to, and with good reason.

Credit where it's due, ahead of the federal budget earlier this year the interim committee released a report which had some very good recommendations, and most important is this one:

The Government commit to a substantial increase in the base rates of JobSeeker Payment and related working age payments as a first priority.

It's sensible stuff, but what was Labor's response? To raise JobSeeker by $4 a day! Is that a substantial increase? For those who end up listening to this speech on YouTube, drop me a comment about whether you think this counts as a substantial increase. Four dollars—it's actually insulting to people who have fallen on hard times, absolutely insulting. It's a genuine kick in the guts from this government that many hoped when they were elected would actually do something. Four dollars—that's not even a coffee in many places now. That's not even a loaf of bread from Brumbies these days. It's so offensive. Labor's not going to raise the rate of JobSeeker so people have something to fall back on, so they can find their feet.

What about mutual obligations? Anyone who has dealt with Services Australia knows what a rort it is with the hoops people have to jump through just to stay in the system. It's an incredible grift for private service providers and genuine stress, anxiety and misery for people who just need a little bit of help.

Last financial year, almost two million payments were suspended. Over half were because people could not meet their mutual obligations. We've met so many people in Ryan who've been through this horrendous and punitive process. Often people are kicked off payments because of a technical error, and we hear time and time again, in the electorate office, just how frustrating it is taking the time off work to wait in hours-long queues to fix a mistake they didn't even make. It is a hostile system. It's a punitive system.

As I said, it's absolutely designed to be frustrating and demeaning, and Labor apparently won't touch it.

Where's the Commonwealth Employment Service we used to have in this country? Where's the vision for finding appropriate work for people, not just punishing them? Take away the safety net of an income support payment, and workers are scared. Workers are scared of losing their jobs, they're scared of losing their houses, and it seems the Labor government is very happy for them to feel scared.

A few months back, property mogul Tim Gurner was, rightly, absolutely ridiculed for his comments on the economy. He said he wanted to see 'pain in the economy' and an increase in unemployment. Unemployment is at almost four per cent, and that's only the official figure. We know it could actually be much higher. There is so much pain already. Australians are struggling. At the time of those comments, most people were justifiably outraged, but Gurner was pretty much just stating what the entire corporate and political farce, the corporate and political gang, actually thinks.

The RBA governor, Michele Bullock, said in a recent speech that the Reserve Bank wants to soften labour market conditions. That's technocrat code for increasing unemployment—kicking people out of work so that they'll accept lower wages and harsher work conditions. This is Reserve Bank and Labor government policy while they refuse to intervene. They will happily ignore the price-gouging corporations and blame inflation on workers and wages. They'll hide behind their interest rate hikes and their failing committees, but, at the end of the day, they want workers scared of unemployment. Scared workers are compliant, and compliant workers are easy to exploit. Come on; is this the Australia we want?

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

Despite being one of the richest countries in the world, over 3.3 million people in this country are living in poverty. In a wealthy country like ours, no-one should be living in poverty and everyone should have an affordable roof over their head. Instead we are gripped by an inequality crisis that is driving the cost-of-living crisis in this country and that is seeing corporations make record profits while people have to sleep in tents because of Labor's rental crisis, where they're backing unlimited rent rises.

Now, none of that is addressed in this bill, the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023. I'll come back to talk about the bill in a moment. But one thing is crystal clear about economic inclusion that the government just refuses to accept: there's a crisis in this country. Everything is going up except wages. No-one has any confidence that the politicians will do anything to look after people. Labor and Liberal aren't just complicit; they're responsible. They're in charge. They have caused this. Thanks to their housing policies, more people are now living in tents. Thanks to their lack of regulation of the big supermarkets, people are going hungry. Thanks to their failure to stop price gouging in the energy markets, people can't afford to keep the lights on. People can't afford to fill up their car with fuel. We're being smashed with higher prices while Labor and Liberal take millions in corporate donations each year.

Everyone knows why we have a cost-of-living crisis: big corporations making massive profits. They have too much power and they get to write the rules. The politicians from Labor and the Liberals can't even name the cause of the crisis. In the last quarter, the Commonwealth bank made $2.5 billion. That must be nice. In the last year, NAB, the bank, made $7.7 billion, and ANZ made $7.4 billion. That must be very nice. They made this off the back of higher interest rates and higher rents, and they're backed by politicians from Liberal and Labor. Shell made $4 billion off higher fuel prices. Qantas made $2.4 billion after the government gave them millions of dollars of your money.

In the middle of an energy crisis, Origin made $1.1 billion. Every single one of these corporations donated to the Liberal and Labor parties. All of them have regular meetings with the politicians.

It is time to put people first, not the corporations. The big corporations are doing just fine. It is time to end the special treatment, cap prices and make these corporations pay their fair share of profits. All of that is what will drive economic inclusion in this country. If we want to have a fairer society, in a time when corporations are making massive profits and everyone else is doing it tough, and the government has to form a committee to go and get advice to say, 'Can you tell us what the problem is?'—well, people know what is going on: big corporations are robbing everyone blind. You can see it in your power bills. You can see it when you go to the supermarkets. What they expect politicians to do is rein in the big corporations, make them pay their fair share of tax, stop them gouging prices and use that money to make people's lives better and do things like get dental into Medicare.

The Reserve Bank governor had the gall to say that it is everyday people getting haircuts and going to the dentist that's driving inflation. Well, here's a tip: if going to the dentist is too expensive, why don't we make the big corporations pay more tax and use that money to get dental into Medicare and give everyone a bit of everyday relief? But, no, Labor won't do that. They'll set up a committee, ask for advice and then just completely ignore it like they did last time. The committee came back to them and said: 'There's a lot of people in this country doing it tough, and we need to lift people out of poverty. And you know what? We could afford it. Make the big corporations pay their fair share of tax, and you could afford it.' Did Labor listen to that? No. Labor left people in poverty. Meanwhile, the corporations make record profit after record profit, and the price of everything goes up and up and up.

We know that the housing crisis has never been worse. We have rents going up several times faster than wages. What did Labor do? They came together and got all the premiers and the Prime Minister together, and they said that Labor's position is to back unlimited rent rises. So Labor just signed off on saying that a landlord can put up the rent as much as they like, even if it means you can't afford it, and they're not going to do anything about it. That's Labor's position. Then they set up a committee and said, 'Can you advise us on what the problem is?' We know what the problem is: rents are out of control, supermarket prices are out of control, electricity bills are out of control and the corporations are making record profits.

Stop the profiteering. Stop the price gouging. Use your power as a government to freeze rents, freeze mortgage rates and stop everyday people being asked to suffer and be cannon fodder in the war on inflation. There's a different way to tackle the war on inflation, and that is to make the big corporations pay their fair share of tax, stop them price gouging and use that money to fund services like getting dental into Medicare or wiping student debt or making public school genuinely free. That's how you deliver cost of living and tackle inflation. But, no, Labor is leaving all the heavy lifting up to the RBA. As a result, the RBA say, 'Oh, the problem is that you're going to get a haircut and you're going to the dentist,' and they put up rates even more.

It is pushing people to the brink. People have had enough. People can't afford more mortgage rises and more rent rises and higher costs at the supermarket, but Labor says that that's fine. It is no wonder that at the last election Labor's vote went backwards. It's no wonder we have a situation where less than a third of the country votes for the government, a bit more than a third of the country votes for the opposition and a third is now voting for someone else, because it is only people like the Greens in parliament who are going to take on the big corporations that are driving this cost-of-living crisis, make them pay their fair share of tax, stop the price gouging, freeze mortgage rates, freeze rents and tackle the cost-of-living crisis and the inflation crisis that way. It's no wonder there is a growing disconnect and that people are getting turned off politics. They voted for a change of government in the hope that the government would do something to tackle the situation people found themselves in, but they look at the politicians in power just saying, 'Yes, keep hiking the rents, keep hiking the mortgage rates, put up supermarket prices as much as you want,' and doing absolutely nothing about it.

It is no wonder that people are getting disconnected, because they see that, if you give them power, the politicians don't do anything about it; they just keep taking donations from them all.

Government Members:

Government members interjecting—

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

Labor interjects and says they love that, and it's great, and they ask what the plan is. Well, the plan is: make the big corporations pay their fair share of tax; stop the price gouging; freeze rents; make them pay their fair share of tax; put dental into Medicare; wipe student debt; and make public school genuinely free. You could do it all if you had the guts to stand up to the big corporations instead of taking their donations. That's the plan, Labor. That's the plan. And the fact that you're not doing it—you scratch your head and you wonder why people are abandoning the big parties at a rate of knots—well, that's why. It's because you are just doing what the big corporations say and you're leaving people out to dry.

One of the other critical matters when it comes to economic inclusion is that you see the consequences of economic inclusion, you see how far the system is under stress, when it comes to the people who are the most vulnerable and you see how they are being treated. Where a lot of these things intersect—the failure to have rates of income support to lift people out of poverty, the failure to build enough public housing and the failure to regulate rents so that everyone can afford to live in those houses—is where the economic impacts of that play out, particularly when it comes to people, particularly women, who are fleeing family and domestic violence. Six women have been murdered in just one week, five of them by men they knew. Men's violence is an epidemic, and it's time the government policies reflected this urgency to tackle violence against women and their children. First Nations women, women from culturally diverse backgrounds, women in regional areas, older women, LGBTIQ+ people, and women with a disability are even more likely to experience violence.

Saturday 25 November was the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. Every year on this day we recommit to ending sexual and physical violence against women around the world. But frontline services are still underfunded, and women and children are being turned away as a result. Enough with the empty promises. Enough with ignoring the impact of financial insecurity and housing stress on women's capacity to leave. Enough with underfunding the services that women reach out to in a crisis. The government has said that it wants to end violence against women within a generation, and that is a very welcome goal. But it's not stumping up the funds to deliver that. The total federal funding commitment over the next five years is $2.23 billion—less than half of the $5 billion the sector needs to ensure that no-one is turned away.

The government have spoken often about the difficult choices in the lead-up to the budget, but right now they're choosing to spend $313 billion on tax cuts for politicians and billionaires while baulking at $1 billion a year for women who are escaping violence. The housing crisis is felt even more acutely by women and children who are experiencing family and domestic violence. Often women are forced to choose between abuse and homelessness, because there's nowhere else to go. Women who are on low wages or income support are especially vulnerable without the resources to escape violent situations. Yet this government persists with the cruelty of keeping income support payments like JobSeeker below the poverty line and has the audacity to cry poor while dishing out hundreds of billions in tax cuts and investment property perks for the rich.

Today and every day for the next 16 days the Greens are calling for full funding of frontline DV services. The women's safety sector has repeatedly called for $1 billion a year of investment to meet demand. Labor's last budget provided less than half of that amount for frontline services. Women deserve better than that, and $1 billion each year is a very small price to pay to help end the ongoing epidemic of violence against women and children.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, it's another interesting day for us here in the House of Representatives, where we're debating a bill for an act to legislate a committee that already exists—and the committee that already exists is also already not being listened to by the government that's now legislating it.

The Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee was formed in November 2022, and it provided some advice to the government as part of the budget process earlier this year. The central recommendation was that JobSeeker and other support payments be paid at a rate linked to the pension—the key recommendation of this committee was about 90 per cent of the pension payment. Of course, the government didn't accept that recommendation, haven't implemented it and have not indicated in any way that they intend to implement it. I don't call for them to implement that recommendation. I think it's insulting to say to pensioners that there's a link between you and unemployment benefits. Pension payments are completely separate and unrelated to the social safety net of the unemployment benefit system.

What we know about this committee that we're talking about legislating right now is that the one thing they've ever done the government agree with. We're in a farcical situation—another episode of Yes, Ministerwhere a committee that the government isn't listening to as it stands is going to be permanently enshrined in legislation so the government can keep not listening to them year after year into the future permanently if the bill passes. We don't support this bill on the side of the chamber, and I couldn't really ascertain from the Greens leader what their position is on the bill. He certainly hammered the principle of having the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, so I suppose they're not supporting it and therefore it's never going to happen, because, if they're voting against it, it won't pass the Senate. But maybe they are voting for it despite that contribution that was just made. We'll find out when we vote on this bill in this place and in the Senate.

At the end of the day, we don't support this completely unnecessary additional quango-type bureaucracy being enshrined in legislation. We know we've got Jenny Macklin, the former member for Jagajaga, as the chair of this Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, union officials on it et cetera, because apparently, according to this government, those are the people we need to listen to about economic inclusion. Why do we need to listen to a former member of this parliament when we could listen to current members of this parliament? What is the point of this parliament? If we're not the House of Representatives, what are we? Here's a novel idea: if you want to know about economic inclusion, why don't you divide the country up into 150 sections; call them, maybe, electorates; hold a democratic process to elect representatives from each of those parts of the country; and have them all come together on a regular basis and talk about challenges that the country is facing and solutions to those challenges based on those 151 people, knowing the electorates they represent, bringing those perspectives together and passing legislation to make this country a better place? That sounds a whole lot like the House of Representatives that I'm standing in right now. It sounds like we've already got the expertise and the capability to bring community representation perspectives together, have debates and talk about how we can address all the varied challenges that are facing this country. Instead, this government wants to outsource that to a former member of this chamber, some other handpicked union officials—well remunerated, no doubt, and good luck to them. They're very good, these union officials, at being well remunerated from appointments to Labor government boards.

We've got this situation because of a deal that was done in the Senate with Senator Pocock: the bad idea that the government didn't even listen to when they had the chance earlier in the year, when it reported its one big idea, which was a 90 per cent link to the pension for JobSeeker payments. The government formed this committee, heard what they had to say, said, 'We're not interested in that advice,' and now we've got them saying, 'And we want to continue to not listen to and not implement that advice we're not interested in, in perpetuity, through a legislated protection of that function.' We've now got a situation where the government is implementing not only their own bad ideas but also other people's bad ideas. We've got Senator Pocock's bad idea being implemented by this government as part of some deal that was done in the Senate to get his support for something else. It's completely ridiculous.

If this government doesn't understand through its own experience, through representing its own communities, about economic inclusion in our economy, then it should move aside. Step out of the way. You're not fit to be in government if you need to outsource that fundamental connection with community to someone else. And with the people you've chosen, you don't even like what they've got to say because you're not listening to the suggestions they're making for you.

We don't support this bill. It's not even the government's own policy or idea; it's part of a deal they've done in the Senate. We've just heard the Greens smash and slam the whole concept, so we're assuming they are going to honour the word of their leader just now on how pointless this is and vote against this—so it therefore won't pass the Senate. We are spending one of the precious few days we've got left before the government goes off to the Christmas break early—and we're only going to be sitting 17 weeks next year—debating a bill to permanently legislate a committee that it's currently not listening to, so it can not listen to them into the future.

At the end of the day there are a lot of things this parliament could be doing that would improve the lives of Australians. Passing this bill is not one of them, and I urge the House not to support the second reading.

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

I'd like to thank all members who have participated in what has been a wide-ranging debate on the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023. The bill reflects the Albanese Labor government's commitment to support the most vulnerable in our society, tackle disadvantage and provide more opportunities to boost economic participation.

In our first two budgets we have laid the groundwork for supporting vulnerable people in our society and our community, and that work continues. We want to hear from experts, stakeholders and community as we recognise the value of ensuring that a broad range of views are considered in the design and development of policy. We know that disadvantage is complex and is a systematic problem. We can't resolve this in a single budget process or indeed in a single portfolio; it requires sustained commitment over time and across government. This bill ensures there is an enduring mechanism for the government to benefit from independent expert advice on ways to support Australians in need, broaden opportunity and reduce disadvantage in our communities.

The bill outlines the functions of the permanent committee, including the scope of its advice and reporting arrangements. It also outlines matters of membership, including appointments, and provides for an independent review of the committee and the act to be undertaken every five years. In the meantime, the interim committee has already provided its first report, including advice on policy setting systems, structures and adequacy effectiveness and sustainability of income support payments, which helped inform the government's consideration ahead of the 2023-24 budget. I acknowledge that the member for North Sydney and the member for Clark have circulated detailed amendments calling for changes to the bill, and we will deal with those amendments in consideration in detail.

This bill is about putting mechanisms in place for independent advice. I understand the opposition will be opposing this. It's not surprising that they don't want to hear independent advice. It wasn't what they were known for best when they were last in government—taking advice from experts or carefully considered policy. Many of the decisions of the former government could be only characterised as keeping themselves in power. Well, our government does things very differently. We make sure that we are listening, that we bring people in to get that independent advice. We are not afraid, like those opposite might be, to seek advice from experts, to have contested ideas and different perspectives brought together. This is what good decision-making looks like.

I am very keen for this bill to be passed. It is an important contribution to the many significant mechanisms our government has in place to ensure that different perspectives are brought to the table.

Of course, addressing disadvantage and boosting economic participation has been a significant focus for the government, whether it is through the establishment of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, through our white paper, through the numerous pieces of legislation that we have put in place, through our boosts to rent assistance and income support, or through our extension of the single-mother parenting payment and paid parental leave—and the list goes on and on and on. Our government is very proud of boosting economic inclusion and economic participation. I commend the bill to the House.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that this bill be read a second time. Is a division required? In accordance with standing order 133, the division is deferred until the first opportunity on the next sitting day.

Debate adjourned.