Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Hansard source

I will only talk briefly on this report. I think it is important we do so, because in terms of this particular report this is an ongoing discussion on issues that were raised over many years in the past. I think the reason it has formulated discussion in our Senate is some focus that has been put on the issue by a meeting that was held earlier this year by a group called Australia 21, which called upon the Australian community to look at the issues of income distribution in our nation. Part of the whole reason we had this inquiry was to ask: are these issues important? We know there is a wide range of view and philosophical opinion on this, and I have to admit that through the process of this inquiry I have been confronted by more economic discussion and graphs than I care to enjoy.

It is a duelling system of economic position on the area, but the one thing I think came out of it more than anything else was the fact that people care. People care about this issue. It has been given a good push along, and now Christine Lagarde has made comment on the issue and put it into the agenda to say that economies where there are clear distribution issues and income inequality are not as strong or effective as others. That has thrown a challenge to the economies of the world. What we have now is clear analysis of the status of income inequality across the OECD nations. This has led to an outpouring of graphs which show ratings as to where the Australian economy fits across other nations. Depending on which graph you look at, there are different processes of where we fit. Indeed, the core argument that came out and which I think will continue to be discussed in this place was that which Senator Seselja pointed out.

It is called the boats analogy. If the tide rises, it means that all the boats go up. The issue is that we are all better off than we were in the past. There is no argument about that. No matter which graph you look at, you see that people across Australian society have more wealth than they had in the past. But there are arguments against that, and I have to admit one that attracts me, though I am always fascinated by Senator Seselja's obsession with the left and right in this argument—I do not identify; it is not as clear as that—is that, yes, all the boats go up, but there are some boats that go up to a much higher level and leave other boats behind.

The issue that has attracted me in this discussion is the issue of mobility. If people are entrenched in an element of poverty, what are their opportunities and options for the future? We have heard other speakers talk very strongly about issues around education, health and disadvantage. The argument that we heard consistently through our inquiry was that, if you are entrenched in the lower percentiles—which comes into the argument all the time—you will have less opportunity. Your health, your education and your career and work opportunities will all be impacted.

In fact, we have seen that in a range of literature over the past years. I remember the Catholic social justice organisation put out documentation, which they are now updating, that looked at the postcode raffle in Australia. There are certain communities in Australia, because of the elements of disadvantage, who are concentrated in the lower level whose health and wellbeing are consistently going backwards. So all the boats might be rising but people in the lower groups, who are at the far end of the income scale, are seriously disadvantaged.

Several chapters of this report put forward the argument that, even though we have a stronger economy, one of the most well targeted welfare systems in the world—and every argument points to that reality—and an effective tax system that redistributes wealth and all the actions that economies are taking to make their wealth more equitable, the people entrenched in poverty, those people who are reliant on social welfare, are still severely disadvantaged. That is a direct result of aspects of income inequality in our community.

I will not talk any longer today. I can feel some tension in the air that people want to move on. We will have more opportunities to speak on this issue—I will be moving to continue my remarks later.

What we can do as a nation was part of the challenge of this committee. It was a challenge to us to keep the discussion going, to listen to the community. I think this is a step. We have a number of recommendations. Part of our recommendations is that we continue to analyse what is happening in our community, identify the issues, listen to the arguments and maintain a watch on this space. We think our government has the responsibility to keep a watch on the issue of income inequality in our community. We think that should be part of the standard operation of government. When we are putting forward budgets—and a lot of this committee looked at the impact of the last budget—we need to ensure that income inequality is one of the lenses that are put over what changes we are proposing to make. That should be part of the information that is shared freely. We think that should happen on a regular basis. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.