Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Hansard source

In speaking to the chamber about the amendments that we have put forward and in seeking also to ask the government some further questions, I want to highlight to the chamber what our amendments do. We are proposing to oppose the cessation of the wife pension in schedule 3, oppose the cessation of the bereavement allowance in schedule 4, and oppose changes to the activity test for 55- to 59-year-olds in schedule 9 as well as changes to the start date for some participation payments in schedule 10 and removal of the intention to claim in schedule 11.

The government's removed the drug-testing trial. We also are seeking the removal of exemptions due to drug or alcohol dependency in schedule 13 and changes to reasonable excuse and information management in schedule 14. As I started discussing earlier in the evening, we are looking to amend schedule 15 so that there is further discretion to the targeted compliance work in schedule 15. Why are we moving necessary amendments? Well, as I have highlighted, we are particularly concerned about the cessation of bereavement allowance in schedule 4. We believe it's a cruel and unnecessary cut for people who are facing perhaps the most difficult and worst circumstances in their lives. We know that the allowance is a short-term payment for a person whose partner has died. It's paid for a maximum of 14 weeks at the rate of the age pension. So putting a person on a jobseeker payment is a very cruel thing to do, and I do not understand the logic of the government.

I understand and, indeed, we haven't opposed the idea that payments could be streamlined, combined and put together. But the idea that people in bereavement are jobseekers is a complete nonsense. You could, for example, be a casual employee who actively works all of the time but doesn't have access to any kind of leave payments. You're quite able to go back to work after your period of bereavement, but you still actually require income support for that time of bereavement, so it is a nonsense to put someone on a jobseeker payment. They should be entitled to a proper bereavement payment in lieu of income that they would otherwise have had.

It's extraordinary to me that the government would seek to do this, for example, to a pregnant woman who had a working spouse who died. She, too, is put on a jobseeker payment when there really is no expectation that she will be able to find work during the course of her pregnancy. It seems extraordinary to me that this is what the government is seeking to do. It is unbelievable that someone would be put in this situation, so I want to ask the government what its rationale is for cutting short-term income support to people who have lost their partners. I can see this only as a cash grab to reduce people's entitlements and people's payments. I understand you want to streamline jobseeker payments, and we're not averse to that, but the idea that people in bereavement should be categorised as jobseekers when essentially they are not—it is a period of bereavement that they're seeking payment for—is extraordinary.

I also want to highlight the start day for participation payments in schedule 10. Again, we're opposed to this schedule. We know that, at the moment, a person can receive payment from the date they make their claim or from the first day after the end of any waiting period that they have to serve. But what the government is seeking to do here is to punish people further by pushing the start date back to when the person first has their interview with their job service provider. Now, again, I can see this only as a cash grab by government at the expense of low-income Australians who may have lost employment and need to work through issues in their life so that they can, indeed, go to their jobactive job service provider.

But what you're seeking to do here is cut $198 million over the forward estimates. It means that people will need to wait longer for income support at a time when they're trying to find employment. Now, I know the government has said it wants to get people connected as soon as possible so that they can find a job. Well, the simple fact is that leaving people without income support does great detriment to their capacity to find work. Your appointment with your job service provider is but a very small piece of that puzzle. A primary and very important part of the puzzle is, frankly, being able to afford the bus fare to get to your job service provider. That is impossible if the start date for a person's participation payments is being pushed. So, again, we've got questions here about how long people will have to wait on average to receive income support as a result of this measure. What is the estimated upper limit and average wait time?

We also want to discuss with the government tonight the removal of schedule 13, which includes the exemptions for drug and alcohol dependence. This measure has been very firmly criticised by a range of providers who work with drug and alcohol dependent people. We're concerned about the way in which the schedule would prevent temporary exemptions being granted where the person's situation is wholly or predominantly attributable to drug or alcohol dependency or misuse. This includes any sickness, injury or special circumstances, such as eviction, associated with this misuse. We understand the significance of the concerns raised by health and welfare groups saying that the changes fail to recognise the incredibly complex nature of substance abuse as essentially a health condition.

The changes negate a doctor's medical opinion in advising that a jobseeker cannot meet their requirements for a temporary period. We're concerned that this relates not just to acute episodes of substance misuse but also to the secondary health problems associated with that use. For example, someone receiving treatment in hospital for cirrhosis of the liver associated with alcohol use will no longer be able to access a medically recommended temporary exemption, as far as we can tell from these measures. Someone injured while intoxicated would no longer be able to access a temporary exemption. Recipients would be expected to satisfy mutual obligation requirements. A jobseeker's obligation or plan would take into account the jobseeker engaging in drug or alcohol treatment. So what the government are effectively asking people to do here is engage in drug and alcohol treatment so their obligations can reflect those circumstances because, if they don't, they cannot use that as an excuse to meet the normal obligations of a jobseeker. We are concerned about the way in which this is going to push vulnerable people into crisis, homelessness and crime.

I also want to highlight in schedule 13 the special categories of exemptions that may arise because we're opposed to these changes and are moving amendments to remove them. Income support recipients can receive an exemption from mutual obligation requirements if they're unable to meet them, but the current legislation's exemptions from the mutual obligation requirements can only be granted for a special period of up to 13 weeks. We have here the special categories of exemptions that may arise, including major disruption to the jobseeker's home or a major personal crisis, including homelessness. We're seeing changes that are proposed by the government in this bill that mean that, when jobseekers are unable to meet their obligations due to drug or alcohol dependency or due to crisis circumstances that are related to that dependency, they will no longer be able to receive an exemption. This is an extraordinary thing to do to people, whether it's because of substance abuse or because someone receives a significant injury as a result of alcohol misuse on a Saturday night that means they can't go to work and need to take six months off. These aren't necessarily people who are significantly drug and alcohol dependent. We know that this can be quite common behaviour on a Saturday night.

I also want to highlight to the chamber this evening our concerns around schedule 14, which is included in the same group of our amendments. Jobseekers can be penalised for a range of participation failures currently—this we understand—including not turning up for an appointment with Centrelink. These penalties are not applied where the person has a reasonable excuse. Schedule 14 provides that a jobseeker who uses drug or alcohol dependence as an excuse for participation failure will be offered treatment. If they take up treatment, it will count towards their participation requirements, and, if they refuse it, their substance use disorder can cause them not to comply with jobseeker requirements a second time—and, indeed, you are putting forward that their payments will be suspended.

We are very concerned, as experts are, that this does not in any way help people overcome addiction but instead will push them into crisis, poverty and homelessness. We see that the implementation of this schedule is expected to cost money over the forward estimates, but we are very concerned, frankly, about the money that will come out of the pockets of vulnerable people. As experts have warned, it is of no help to people overcoming addiction to remove their payments. Does the government believe this measure will increase homelessness or crime for people who have substance use issues? Why has the government ignored the advice of health experts?

As I've highlighted, I've got a range of questions for government on all of these different schedules, so I might just step back to schedule 10, where I raised our concerns about the start date for participant payments, and ask the government what their expectations are around how many people will have to wait longer to receive income support as a result of this measure and how long they will have to wait. What is the estimated upper limit and average wait time?