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

I too rise to speak on the so inappropriately titled Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Promoting Sustainable Welfare) Bill 2018. What a load of myths we just heard from Senator Cameron! Either he can't count, is deliberately misleading this chamber or has not bothered to talk to the crossbench. Make no mistake: we had the numbers to knock this off. So when he says he's made things better for migrants, don't believe it. They have made things worse. We could have knocked off this bill. We had the numbers. For him to mislead this chamber, mislead people who are paying attention to this debate, and mislead our fellow Australians, particularly migrants, by saying that Labor has improved the situation for them—well, they have not, because the situation was that this bill would have not gone through this chamber. It is a complete crock for him to sanctimoniously stand up there and say: 'We've made it better. If it hadn't been for us'—The only way this bill or the previous bills would have got through is if Labor voted with the government. It is absolute nonsense.

I do think he protests too much. He is trying to stick it to us when his own side has done a dirty deal with the government, which will make things worse, because these measures would not have got through unless some or all of the opposition decided they were going to vote with the government. It is complete nonsense. In fact, I would suggest that, if we had not been here, the opposition would have just followed suit and fallen straight in line with the government. As for FECCA endorsing this position, perhaps they could have made some phone calls to other members of the parliament and not believed Labor when they said, 'This is going to get through.' Maybe FECCA could have made some phone calls to double-check before they backed in a deal that sells migrants up the river. They're saying, 'It's okay, we've made the waiting period a bit better on some of the payments.' The point is that this bill introduces waiting periods for some people who didn't have them, so how has that made it better? They're saying, 'It was going to be this bad, and now we've made it this bad, but, if we'd stuck to our guns and opposed this bill, it would have been status quo.' What they're looking at is the $1.3 billion that they think they can help the government save, so that, if they get into government, they've got that $1.3 billion that they can then spend. That's what it's about. It saves them having to do things that impact vulnerable Australians and migrants. That's what this is about. They did not have to do this. Yesterday, Chris Bowen made the comment, 'If we didn't do it, One Nation would have.' Obviously, he can't count either or he didn't talk to this side of the chamber, because we've got the numbers to knock it off, if they vote no as well.

This bill is, in effect, an omnibus bill. You can't just change the name of the previous self-sufficiency bill and think that people don't notice that other bits from other bills have been shoved in there. The coalition is trying to push through a whole lot of sneaky, punitive measures, with as little scrutiny as possible. This bill was introduced and debated in the House of Reps yesterday, with no significant change from the original bill. The supplementary EM came in as they were going for the vote, so people didn't have any explanation of the amendments. They weren't able to debate those amendments sufficiently, because they hadn't had any time. Less than 24 hours after the government put out a media release that this was some dirty deal stitched up with the opposition, it was in the chamber. That's why this is sneaky. This is just more of that punitive approach taken by the old parties in here, who think this is the way that you treat Australians and, in particular, migrants. It's appalling. Labor has backed in that approach.

This bill incorporates measures from the former Social Services Legislation Amendment (Encouraging Self-sufficiency for Newly Arrived Migrants) Bill 2018. Its very name explains what they are trying to do; it's to make it harder for migrants. In fact, it goes to two other bills: the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Maintaining Income Thresholds) Bill 2018 and the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2017. It also deals with the announcement in the latest budget where the government signalled that they were moving their proposal to extend the waiting period from three years to four years. It also incorporates that. This bill was rushed through the House of Representatives yesterday, following very substantive amendment by the government, and with the support of the Labor Party. The first amendment turned the bill into the promoting the sustainable welfare bill of 2018.

While I am looking at sustainable welfare—it's actually our social security system; our income support system—I am being lectured by the likes of Senator Cameron on how good Labor is! Who are the people who backed in income management? Who are the people who backed in the cashless welfare card? Who are the people who swung grandfathered single parents onto Newstart? We all know how that ended up, don't we? It ended up appallingly, with more single parents going into poverty and their lives being made much worse. So don't lecture me about how good you are. Who are the ones who steal all our ideas? ICAC: how long have we been in this place talking about ICAC? All of a sudden, they think it's a great idea. The banking royal commission: how long did it take you to come to that realisation? How long has it taken you to come to the realisation that perhaps income management and cashless welfare is not a good idea? You didn't come to those by yourselves.

The only warning anyone got about these proposed changes was a press release issued in the afternoon of the day before this bill was rushed through the House of Representatives. On Tuesday, there was a press release naming a new bill, which we didn't even know existed. It also talked about how the government had secured support through a dirty deal with the opposition. It listed measures from various bills, so the only conclusion that could be drawn from that was that the government had done a dirty deal with the opposition. Yesterday, we saw evidence of that in the House of Representatives. The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Encouraging Self-sufficiency for Newly Arrived Migrants) Bill 2018 was introduced in February. On 29 March it was referred to a committee. The reporting day was initially 4 May. Remember that date: 4 May. The report was tabled yesterday, on 28 November. The reporting date was changed 10 times, from 4 May to 28 November, yesterday, when it was tabled.

In its original form, the bill would have increased the newly arrived residents waiting period from two years to three years for income support payments—including Newstart, youth allowance, Austudy, carer payment, sickness allowance and special benefits, among others—as well as the Low Income Health Care Card and the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card. It would also have extended how long migrants would have to wait for parenting payment, bereavement payment and widow allowance, by applying the three-year newly arrived residents waiting period to these payments. Currently they have a two-year qualifying residency period. It also would have introduced a newly arrived residents waiting period of three years for carer allowance, family tax benefit, parental leave pay and dad and partner pay, all of which are currently free of waiting period or qualifying residential period.

The Australian Greens were opposed to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Encouraging Self-sufficiency for Newly Arrived Migrants) Bill, and we submitted a dissenting report to the committee's inquiry on this bill, which, as I said, was tabled only yesterday, after the amended bill had already been rammed through the House of Representatives. It was rammed through in the morning. These reports weren't even tabled till the afternoon. The bill discriminated against migrants and was likely to create an underclass of migrants who would have been unable to access Australia's social safety net when they needed it. The bill did not take into account the specific circumstances and vulnerabilities of those it would have impacted most. In its submission to the bill inquiry, the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre said:

The bill would impose unnecessary hardship on individuals and families, and may impact the ability of people to be self-sufficient if they are not adequately supported in the early years of their arrival in Australia.

Further it said:

The changes will impact the demand on the social services sector in Australia. As waiting periods to access to the welfare payment system are extended (and in some cases introduced)—

thanks to the ALP—

people may face destitution and homelessness and will turn to the social services sector, placing greater demand on an already stretched sector.

In its submission, FECCA said:

FECCA believes the proposed Bill would impose considerable hardship, and create an underclass of migrants who find themselves facing dire financial circumstances as they try to settle into Australia.

It went on to say:

FECCA strongly believes that providing support for people in the early stages of their journey is critical to ensuring that they are able to fully establish their lives in Australia.

As a result of the amendments made in the House of Representatives yesterday, with basically no notice, some new migrants granted certain permanent visas will be worse off. This is because the amendments have increased the newly arrived residents waiting period from three years to four years for working-age income support payments such as Newstart and concession cards such as the Low Income Health Care Card. The amendments also increase the waiting period from three years to four years for bereavement allowance and parenting payment. As a consequence, new migrants granted certain permanent visas who find themselves without a job, who can't find work, will be condemned to poverty. What will they live on? They will need to rely on charities for support. This is an outrageous attack on our multicultural community.

The ALP are claiming their amendments as a win and saying they had to do a deal. This simply isn't true. It's not true. We would have knocked off this bill, so don't go claiming, sanctimoniously, that you've saved so many people. You've condemned so many people to poverty. If you hadn't done this deal, it would have been voted down. Your deal doesn't stack up. There are amendments added as schedule 5 to the bill. This is where various other measures taken from other bills the Greens opposed have been snuck in. The ALP is hoping no-one will see, because this is being rushed through, but we have.

Of most interest is the measure taken from the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2017, which will apply a 30 per cent taper rate to income above the family tax benefit part A higher income free area. I checked the Community Affairs Legislation Committee website last night, and the ALP submitted a dissenting report to the committee inquiry on the payment integrity bill, as did we. They have a whole section on this measure where they said:

The committee heard that the families impacted by this measure have already faced several cuts, which 'when they add up together it's actually a significant hit on family budgets.'

They concluded their dissenting report with:

The committee received evidence from a variety of sources which suggested that the changes contained in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2017 were unfair and would push vulnerable Australians into poverty.

And they're right but they appear to have changed their minds. Now they suddenly support one of the measures in the bill. They must've forgotten it was unfair and would push vulnerable Australians into poverty.

Then there are the measures taken from the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Maintaining Income Thresholds) Bill 2018, which was introduced in May. On 21 June it was referred to inquiry. The reporting date was initially 14 August, and guess what? The reporting date was subsequently extended four times before it finally reported. It was to give effect to the measures announced in the 2017-18 MYEFO. All of its measures have been replicated in this bill via the amendment supported by the ALP in the House yesterday, except the measure to pause the indexation of the end-of-year supplements for 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. It extends the indexation pause of the family tax benefit part A higher income free area, the family tax benefit part B primary earner income limit, and the parental leave pay and dad and partner pay income limits until 1 July 2021. But these are one-offs, so overall this will have a negative impact on families.

There were five submissions to the committee inquiry on its provisions. Only one of the submissions—the government's—supported it. In other words, nobody else supported it. The government should be ashamed that it's trying to save money through our income support system, off the backs of migrants. And what did we get today? An announcement that the government may want to bring forward tax cuts off the backs of our income support system, off the backs of migrants in this country, making their lives more difficult. Shame on you, and shame on the opposition for supporting them and backing them in, because they want to use that $1.3 billion if they get into government. That's what that's about. They want to try and have a bet each way.

Have they talked or even looked at some of the evidence we got to the jobactive inquiry, where the Settlement Council gave very strong evidence about how jobactive isn't working for migrants? The government has set it up so you have to choose between attending your jobactive appointments and getting access to your English classes. No, I bet the opposition haven't paid any attention to that. Go and have a look at the evidence. It'll show you really strongly how migrants are not getting adequately supported through our systems in this country.

This is a dirty deal. There was no reason for them to do it—no reason. Did you come and talk to any of the crossbench? No, you didn't. You can't expect anything better from the government. We knew from these bills they were trying to do over our income support system and do over migrants with all the measures that were contained in it. They were not satisfied with making them wait three years. They've put it up to four years. That's what the Labor Party has backed in: a four-year waiting period for those on particular payments—particularly Newstart. We all know that Newstart is too low and needs to be increased, but at least it's better than nothing. That's what they're going to have: nothing. They'll have to rely on family support. We heard from the evidence given during the inquiry about the way that that sometimes falls apart. We heard that. We heard how families are going into debt, because they have to repay the special benefit. That comes out of the guarantee. We heard how families sometimes have to go into debt in order for people to be supported.

This is atrocious legislation. It's a bad day for our multicultural community in this country, a community which both those parties pretend to pride themselves on. And yet they're the very people they are doing over on this day. They are trying to sneak this through before we all go home for Christmas, hoping people will forget it when it comes time to vote next year, whenever it is that we actually go to the election. That's what they're hoping. So let's ram it through now—there's no time for a Senate inquiry, even though this bill is substantially different from those other bills! And the waiting period has gone from three years to four years; we were talking about three years when we had the inquiry. This is bad legislation. It didn't have to be this way, and it's the result of the Labor Party's efforts, doing dirty deals with the government.