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

Next week, from 16 October to 22 October, is Anti-Poverty Week. The main aims of Anti-Poverty Week are to strengthen public understanding of the causes and consequences of poverty and hardship around the world and in Australia and to encourage research, discussion and action to address these problems, including action by individuals, communities, organisations and governments. In other words, it is a week when we should be focusing on poverty and its causes.

There are far too many people living in poverty in Australia: 2,548,496 Australians are living below the poverty line, including 602,000 children. Of those on income support, 40.1 per cent are living below the poverty line, including 55.1 per cent of people receiving Newstart allowance. This is an incredibly saddening figure, and it is incredibly saddening to know that the number of people falling into poverty is increasing, as is inequality, and that those most likely to find themselves living below the poverty line are already facing the most disadvantage. We are a wealthy country and have the resources available to us to significantly reduce the existing rate of poverty if only there were the will to do so.

Poverty is a daily challenge for many Australians, undermining their ability to have meaningful and productive lives. We need visionary policy to overcome the underlying drivers of poverty, such as access to housing, education and employment. We need to create a social security system that properly supports people and meets the challenges we face in the 21st century. Instead, we are stuck with a government and a Minister for Social Services who is now stuck on the new buzzword 'revolution', which he has used to describe the changes to Australia's income support system and services that are supposedly modelled on the New Zealand approach to delivering income support—the so-called social investment model. Despite this so-called 'revolution' so keenly spruiked by the minister, the government is keeping programs like income management and the cashless welfare card. Both are harsh, top-down measures that control the income of people on income support, restricting their access to cash. The government pushes on with these measures, despite the fact that income management used in the Northern Territory intervention has failed.

To promise a revolutionary change you would think you would see significant change. To promise a revolution that will be based on evidence and then to pursue ideological measures like the cashless welfare card is, quite frankly, absurd. It is also the first sign that the government is not being sincere about changing how it delivers income support in this country for the better. Instead of a revolution, the government has taken parts of the New Zealand approach and added it to their existing punitive approach to those on income support. We have the same old, same old demonising and harsh measures. No sooner were the words of the government's so-called revolution out of the minister's mouth than we started hearing him demonising those on income support once again.

You cannot address entrenched disadvantage and inequality without addressing the underlying causes. This means changing social policies—for example, having a national poverty plan. In National Poverty Week, it would be great to hear the minister and the government announce a plan for addressing poverty. Increasing payments such as Newstart, as well as other social services, is essential. But the minister thinks calling for an increase in payments such as Newstart lacks imagination. I'm sorry. I have an imagination, and I do not find it too hard to imagine what people on Newstart could do with extra money. They will spend it on essentials. They will not be saving it, because they are so far behind the minimum wage and below the poverty line that they will spend it. Guess what? That will actually drive the economy.

New Zealand has taken an actuarial approach, which is what the government has done here. It is one part that the government has picked up. They drilled down on data to better understand the barriers faced by some groups who were on income support longer than most and then worked out who they wanted to target for a more targeted approach. This process in New Zealand has been developed over a number of years. Our government is taking a much more rushed approach and, most importantly, is missing key elements that occur in New Zealand. New Zealand has harsh sanctions which have dropped a lot of people off payments, pushing them further into poverty. Evidence provided by the Australian Council of Social Services showed that 40 percent of people who were considered 'job ready' and who had come off income support ended up back on payments. There is no doubt that significant parts of the New Zealand approach must stay firmly in New Zealand.

There are some important parts in the New Zealand approach, and if our government were taking a revolutionary approach and implementing this model they would pick those parts up. For instance, New Zealand take a strong approach to evaluation. In fact, they have set up an almost independent group to evaluate the programs and make the data public. They also require government agencies to work together to deliver on key performance indicators. Our government have not done that; they do not have KPIs that require agencies to work together. In the New Zealand model, those KPIs have been carefully worked out. New Zealand have gone for a system-wide approach where the government is expected to reform and deliver. They are not just setting up a fund for NGOs to bid for in the 'try, test and learn' approach. They are actually doing some genuine reform and encouraging communities to work together to deliver programs. They are consulting the community. Our government have not adequately consulted on these programs. They are going to consult now that they have a so-called fund in place. To deliver the sorts of changes that are needed, to address the big issues like social policy, we need the government to reform their policies too.

When Minister Porter announced these changes recently, he joked that our current social security net was like a 'snake eating its own tail'. The same can be said about a government which is implementing what looks like and is in fact a half-baked version of the New Zealand approach, without genuinely addressing key social policies such as poverty and a national poverty plan. It constantly astounds me that successive governments think that, despite a weight of evidence to the contrary, restricting people's decision-making and taking control over people's lives, such as controlling the way they spend money, will lead to change. In fact, the evidence shows that it does not. It will not change. It will not lead to that significant social change, and it will not lift people out of poverty. Paternalism has been the approach by a successive number of governments—and it does not work.

Add to this, there is the minister's flat refusal to increase the woefully low Newstart, despite successive calls from major social service organisations and business leaders. When asked about a potential increase, Minister Porter, who recently refused to live on Newstart for a week, argued that only a small percentage of people live on Newstart alone, and, when they do, it is only for a short time. He said that many others get a second payment. What the minister failed to mention was that you can be accessing more than one payment and still be living below the poverty line. For example, if you are a single parent, with a child under 12, and accessing Newstart and rent assistance, you will still be living below the poverty line.

During this Anti-Poverty Week, I urge the government to use their imagination—in particular, the minister who is responsible for our social security system—and consider what it would be like to depend on these low payments. I urge them to try to understand the barriers and the multiple disadvantages that people are facing every day—consider their lived experience. I call on the government to end its constant attack on low-income families and people who depend on our income support system. They deserve better. They deserve the supports that they need to get out of poverty. So, this poverty week, let's consider those who are struggling to survive on payments that are below the poverty line and far below the minimum wage.