Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to oppose these bills that are before us. I really want to understand why the Abbott government has declared war on the Australian community. It is hitting young people through its harsh unemployment measures and by hiking up university debts. It is imposing a new GP tax on the whole community and is launching a wholesale attack on pensioners. Why is it doing these things? There is no budget emergency, as the government first cried. Credible economists tell us we have a revenue problem. This week we have had a report by United Voice and the Tax Justice Network, which states that nearly one third of companies have an average effective tax rate of 10 per cent or less. The report also states that 57 per cent of the ASX-listed top 200 companies disclosed subsidiaries in secrecy jurisdictions—in other words, in tax havens. Sixty per cent of companies reported debt-to-equity levels above 75 per cent, which may artificially reduce taxable profits.

And what is the Abbott government is doing on tax—on increasing our revenue base, as credible economists urge them to do? It has made a vague promise of a white paper in 18 months. That is the totality of its commitment to looking at Australia's revenue base. It seems to me, and to Labor, that the Abbott government is more interested in reducing the quality of life of Australians—through its harsh budget measures—than in tackling tax and ensuring that those who should pay, do so; and that those who can afford to pay, do so. The two bills we are debating today showcase the harsh, cruel nature of the Abbott government's budget. I want to focus on the impact of the budget on young job seekers. I will do that because they are the future leaders and the future workers in the Australian community.

These bills contain a number of measures which will have a very serious impact on young job seekers but, before I focus on that issue, I also want to stress that it is not about taking from one group of Australians and giving to another. It is not about disadvantaging one group of Australians to advantage another. It is about creating a fair society—a fair society which offers hope and opportunity for all Australians, no matter what their postcodes and no matter what their circumstances. Foreign aid is another important measure—and we have seen cuts to our foreign aid budget—now more than ever, particularly given the emergence of new extremist groups. Providing for all in our community, whether it is for nursing homes in Western Sydney or for roads in Victoria, is why we as a community pay our taxes. We want to see a responsible government putting together a fair and just budget—not a budget which punishes so many ordinary Australians, and does nothing to look at the sorts of loopholes that United Voice and the Tax Justice Network have highlighted this week.

It seems to me that everyone except the government agrees that these proposed changes to unemployment benefits are some of the harshest welfare measures introduced in our country's history. These are the harshest cuts in our history. I have listened to the debate in the Senate, and it is obvious from the comments made by government senators that they believe that our young unemployed people need to be punished; that they need to be forced to take a job—any job; and that that will only happen, in the government's terms, if those young people are hung out to dry by starving them into submission. The comment made by a government member that, 'oh well, they will not be able to eat their Cheezels and play on their Xboxes', just illustrates the insult and the ignorance shown towards young Australians by the government. Seriously, how can someone who purports to be a respectable member of our community and a responsible member of the parliament believe such a thing, let alone say such a thing? These comments and others show the complete disrespect that this government has for our future leaders and for our future workforce.

Of the harsh measures which the Abbott government is trying to impose on young job seekers, the most serious include a new requirement that job seekers wait six months before receiving any income support. How is that going to work? How will young people punished in this way get to their required number of interviews? What will they live on? How will they buy food? How will they pay the rent, or indeed their mortgages? How will they pay their electricity bills? How will they put petrol in their cars? How will they be able to use public transport? Just how would they get by? We have not seen anything from the Abbott government about those questions—because they are into punishing our young people.

To make matters worse, the definition of 'youth' will be extended to 30. Thirty years old is hardly what most Australians imagine to be youth; it is certainly not the view of average Australians. For those people receiving Newstart—a benefit which gives young people less money to live on—the age range for eligibility has been extended, so that instead of cutting out at 22 it will cut out at 24 years of age. Apparently, the Abbott government rationale for that change is 'to line up benefits and fix differing age ranges'. But Labor believes it is just to further punish young job seekers—and for the government to make savings off the backs of young unemployed people. Labor senators, in their dissenting report on the Senate inquiry into this bill, were equally concerned when they said:

The Labor Senators on this Committee are extremely concerned about the Government’s attempts to withdraw the safety net for young jobseekers. Never before in this country has such a measure been proposed.

This measure has received widespread condemnation—

and indeed alarm—

from welfare agencies and other stakeholders. As the National Welfare Rights Network stated, '[t]his measure is a fundamental attack on the basic right to social security and the principle of adequate income support based on need.'

ACOSS, the premier umbrella organisation for social security organisations in this country, agreed that this measure ran counter to Australia's proud history of providing a safety net to anyone in need. That is certainly under attack here. The Abbott government no longer believes in a safety net. Even past Liberal governments have seen the need for Australia to have a safety net. Indeed, one of the distinctive differences between Australia and the US is that we have this safety net, we have a fair go, and we do not allow Australians, through whatever circumstances they find themselves in, to fall through the cracks. The Abbott government intends to rip that safety net away and to push its ideology—its view that somehow everyone should be able to take care of themselves—to the greatest advantage. We see that played out in these bills before us today. ACOSS said:

The removal of any income support for a group of people not in paid work fundamentally changes the Australian income support safety net. Traditionally, Australia has a safety net for all who need it, and requires participation in return. The budget turns this around by excluding an entire group of people from basic assistance … In this way, the measure would effect a radical structural change to the social security system.

This comes off the back of a government which promised no changes and no cuts; we have all been duped. To remove the safety net for some of the most vulnerable in our community is not fair, and Australian voters know that.

St Vincent de Paul is an organisation that all of us, I suspect, think does an amazing job in our community. All of us respect St Vincent de Paul, with many of us making contributions, whether through donations of clothes or money. Everywhere in Australia, when people are in need, Vinnies, the Salvos and a number of other agencies are there to help. St Vincent de Paul said of the government's harsh and cruel budget measure:

We find very concerning the idea that the government would intentionally remove any semblance of a social safety net for a particular group of people (job-seekers aged up to 30, for a period of 6 months). Unlike other cases in which someone may not be entitled to social security, because they earn too much, they are not a citizen, or they are deemed to have failed to comply with Centrelink requirements, this is a wholesale denial of any right to government support to a group of people for reasons completely outside their control, and who are highly vulnerable, being both young and unemployed.

When organisations like St Vincent de Paul, who work with the most vulnerable in our community, question the government and urge it not to implement its harsh, cruel measures, the government would be wise to listen.

Dr Ian Hamilton Holland from UnitingCare also gave evidence to the Senate inquiry into these bills. He said, 'This raises a very real risk of breaching these individuals' rights.' He went on to say:

… we do not believe that there should be any payment at any point that has rules attached to it that will penalize someone who is diligently seeking work, because, at the end of the day, there are people who are trained, who are qualified and who are being diligent in the labour market but who will not be successful at a given time in attaining a job—and they should not be penalized for that.

The Brotherhood of St Laurence echo these concerns. They highlight that, for those who do have family support, this measure risks pushing not just the individual but also their family into more challenging financial circumstances.

I do not know what the thinking behind these bills was. It seems apparent to me and to the Australian community that there was no thinking behind them. Does the Abbott government really think that every single job seeker it penalises and punishes by disallowing a benefit for six months has a family support network behind them? Of course they do not. To extend the age range up to 30 penalises these young people even more. For young job seekers who do have family support behind them, what are the circumstances of those families? Are they able to adequately feed another mouth in the household and provide financial support to enable that young person to continue to meet their obligations? What are the impacts? The Abbott government has not demonstrated to Australian voters or to the opposition in this place that it has done any research around the real impact of taking a benefit away for six months or more from young people who find themselves unemployed. We know from the questions we have been able to put to the government in the Senate inquiry, and in other places, that there are additional punitive measures, so six months is just the start. It is just the minimum. Some people will see themselves cycling in and out of six months periods without any benefit. They will have an opportunity to pick up benefits again but will be slung back on the scrap heap with no money, once again, being paid by the Abbott government. That is the truth of these bills.

We have had all of the major non-government organisations in this country condemn this and other moves by the Abbott government, but the Abbott government seemingly continues not to listen. The government ignores these agencies. They work with job seekers every day. They have the expertise and they have the first-hand experience, yet the government simply ignores them and instead favours its savings measures at the expense of some of the most vulnerable groups in our community. It is not as if these agencies are sitting on their hands and not providing solutions. ACOSS has provided substantial solutions to look at how welfare measures can be brought down, and how the cost can be brought down, but the government is not interested in it. ACOSS puts in budget submissions to governments of all political persuasions. They are the experts and they have a lot to contribute, yet the government does not seem to want to listen or want to talk to groups such as ACOSS, Vinnies, the Brotherhood of St Laurence, UnitingCare and so on.

This punitive measure to cut job seekers off benefits for at least six months will result in a new generation of young people trapped in a vicious cycle of unemployment and poverty. These bills are motivated by a government that is out of touch with Australians, a government blindly determined to claw back savings. It will not, as the government suggests, ensure a more sustainable welfare system. They might not spend as much money, but a sustainable welfare system involves a lot more than simply saving a few dollars off the back of Australia's young people. It is an attack on our welfare system, it is an attack on our way of life and it is an attack on a fair go for all. There is no other way to describe these harsh measures. We will no longer be the fair country. We will be the country that discards and punishes its youth, those who through no fault of their own find themselves unemployed or unable to find suitable work.

And what is the government's response to condemning young people into poverty? It has set aside $230 million to provide grants to community organisations to provide emergency relief. Never before have we seen such a harsh measure, where the government knows it is harsh and it has to up the emergency relief budget to provide for the six months when young people have absolutely nothing to fall back on. What kind of a punitive measure is that? And what evidence does the Abbott government have to say that 30-year-olds and those under 30 deserve such a punitive measure.

We have had unemployment benefits since 1944. Labor will not be supporting the harsh measures in these bills. It is time the Abbott government started to listen to the community and act in a much more responsible way and not punish the lifters of the future.