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

They clearly want to work. They do not need to be dropped into poverty for four weeks—to try to survive and go into debt—which is what the government is suggesting, to motivate them to find work. Through this measure, young people are going to be held off income support for four weeks. But it is actually really five weeks, because the ordinary period will still be there. So they will be held off income support for five weeks. They will end up in debt, and we know that debt is yet another barrier to finding employment. The evidence shows that debt is another barrier and one of the biggest obstacles to gaining employment.

This bill includes some of the cruellest measures from the budget. It takes a billion dollars out of our social security system at the expense of those on low incomes and our most vulnerable. We will not support this bill, no matter how many times the government bowls up these cruel measures which will force people off income support or not allow them onto income support. The evidence shows that that it is not the way to get people into work. It is not a punitive approach that is needed here; what is needed is a supportive process that works with people to find employment.

Some of these measures are straight from the original bills that either were voted down or the government very sensibly took off the agenda. The government saw that there was not a snowflake's chance in hell of getting the six-month on and off income support measure through the Senate. But they just cannot let go of the waiting period. They cannot let go of the punitive approach. They have to be there punishing people and being seen to be tough on people on income support. Is part of it so they can say, 'There are fewer people on income support'? Is that part of it? Clearly Australians said no to the government. They said, 'No; we don't support these cruel measures that attack our most vulnerable.' So the government think they can come back in here and keep young people off income support for five weeks. I suppose that is so they can feel that they are still doing something to punish Australians.

We have held two inquiries into these measures and both times the community organisations and submissions have overwhelmingly said, 'These measures are cruel and they will not work. Extending the ordinary waiting period for more vulnerable members of our community will cause them greater hardship. Tightening up the financial hardship provisions will cause greater hardship.' And the government says, 'Oh, don't worry; there are exemptions and there are provisions for domestic violence.' But, as was very sensibly pointed out to the committee, some women do not report straightaway; it takes quite a period of time sometimes for women to manage to be able to take action.

But, of course, the most important measure here is the four-week waiting period. The government says that it is based on New Zealand. Well, it is not. They do not enforce the 20-day waiting period. Even if they did, they actually give back pay. They have a much more sophisticated approach to the way they are supporting people to engage with employment. And they are putting in place a social investment framework that matches the work they are doing on social security reform. That is a critical bit. Our government are not doing that; they are just saying, 'New Zealand does it and it works.' In fact, the committee heard very clearly from the department that there is no evidence that this sort of measure works anywhere. I asked, and the department had to admit that the evidence is not there to show that keeping young people, in particular, off income support works. Nowhere could they point to the evidence. All we have is the minister saying that New Zealand does it. Maybe he needs to go to New Zealand and actually look at what they are doing in New Zealand—because they are not forcing young people to wait for five weeks before they get income support.

The government also says, 'It's okay; we've got exemptions,' and—get this—'It is only between 75,000 and 80,000 young people that we are forcing off through this measure.' So apparently it is okay to push 75,000 to 80,000 into poverty—because that is what this measure means. Overwhelmingly, the committee was given evidence that this would not work. It was also explained to the committee that many young people do not disclose when they first go into Centrelink and so in fact may not be picked up. Some are interviewed over the phone before they are categorised. There are so many flaws in the current system that this will inevitably cause damage to young people. Instead of the outcome the government wants, for people to find work, dropping them into debt, setting them back and providing another barrier to work could have the reverse outcome, where people are stuck on income support even longer—because, through this measure, they have caused damage and people have been forced into poverty.

Debate interrupted.