Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to make a contribution to this matter of public importance that discusses whether the budget locks in unfairness. Yes, it definitely does. We have the cuts the previous budget made that are continued, here with this budget, and those that have already started.

You have the cuts that were made to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples through the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, which took $534 million out of spending in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. That is already being felt on the ground in those communities and is extremely unfair. You have the cuts to the Department of Social Services, which are $270 million taken out of supports and services for the most vulnerable in our community—and those are hitting the ground. The cuts to emergency relief are hitting the ground not only across metropolitan areas throughout this country but also in rural and regional areas. You have cuts to health that are already hitting the ground. There is the loss of youthconnect. The list goes on.

Those were the cuts from last year, which have been entrenched in this budget and the measures that have not been passed and those that are still on the books. There are the cuts to family tax benefits and, in particular, those that would hit very hard on single parents. And there is the government's total refusal to look at key revenue measures, including looking at super to the big end of town. They will not look at it. They have made no commitments at all.

They are shying away from and refusing to address issues around retirement income—in the broader context—and looking at a review. Seniors groups are calling for this and have been repeating their calls for that broader review of retirement incomes, to make sure that retirement income is fair and equitable and that the government is not just looking after the wealthy through the very generous tax concessions, for super, for the wealthy. Those are grossly unfair. The government knows about it. They are shutting their eyes and do not want to deal with it—because it might affect their mates.

The Treasurer, Mr Hockey, said the budget enables every Australian to 'have a go'. I have news for him: no, it does not. The cuts they are locking in through this budget, that they brought through the last budget, undermine the ability of vulnerable Australians to have a go. What do you think happens to a young person when they are on no income, whatsoever? The government said it has heard the message. They said: 'Do you think it unfair that young people are dumped off income support, of any form of income, for six months?' 'Oh, we have heard that. We'll just make it seem a bit fairer by reducing it to one month.' No. It is not fairer. It is cruel. It is harsh. How do you expect young people under the age of 25 to eat, have accommodation and gain employment when they are living in poverty—on nothing for a month?

They are also extending the age for Youth Allowance to 25. They are on even lower money, living below the poverty line. Did they address the gross unfairness of Newstart and its payments? They have not been rising to meet the cost of living. People are living below the poverty line and will drop further below the poverty line because the indexation of Newstart does not keep up with the true cost of living. They are not increasing Newstart and people are still existing on $260 a week below the poverty line. If the government were really about addressing fairness and a good quality of life for people and helping people gain employment, they would be investing in helping people much more than they are. They would not be locking in unfairness by not committing to increased payments, like Newstart and Youth Allowance, so people can live above the poverty line. We know that poverty makes it even harder for people to gain employment.

Another unfair component of this budget is the fact that we knew we had to upgrade the IT system for Human Services—but what did they do? They said this is all about collecting revenue from those people who are not compliant and are fraudulently claiming benefits. That is not the approach we should be taking. The IT system should be helping people gain employment. (Time expired)