David Pocock (ACT, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 2040:

(1) Schedule 2, item 1, page 4 (line 6) to page 6 (immediately before line 1), omit the item, substitute:

1 Point 1066A-B1 (table B)

Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute:

(2) Schedule 2, Divisions 2 to 5, page 8 (line 1) to page 13 (immediately before line 1), omit the Divisions, substitute:

Division 2 — Youth allowance

Social Security Act 1991

3 Point 1067G-B2 (table BA)

Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute:

4 Point 1067G-B3 (table BB)

Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute:

5 Point 1067G-B4 (table BC)

Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute:

Division 3 — Austudy payment

Social Security Act 1991

6 Subpoint 1067L-B2(1) (table BA)

Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute:

7 Point 1067L-B3 (table BB)

Repeal the table, substitute:

Division 4 — Jobseeker payment

Social Security Act 1991

8 Point 1068-B1 (table B)

Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute:

Division 4A — Parenting payment (single)

Social Security Act 1991

8A Point 1068A-B1

Omit "$21,470.80 per year ($825.80 per fortnight)", substitute "$24,897.60 per year ($957.60 per fortnight)".

Division 5 — Parenting payment (partnered)

Social Security Act 1991

9 Point 1068B-C2 (table C)

Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute:

(3) Schedule 2, item 10, page 13 (line 6), omit "jobseeker payment" substitute "jobseeker payment, pension PP (single)".

(4) Schedule 3, items 7 and 8, page 16 (line 18) to page 19 (immediately before line 1), omit the items, substitute:

7 Clause 38D of Schedule 1 (table)

Repeal the table, substitute:

8 Clause 38E of Schedule 1 (table)

Repeal the table, substitute:

(5) Schedule 3, items 9 to 14, page 19 (line 2) to page 30 (immediately before line 1), omit the items, substitute:

9 Subsection 1070L(2) (table)

Repeal the table, substitute:

10 Subsection 1070M(2) (table)

Repeal the table, substitute:

11 Subsection 1070N(2) (table)

Repeal the table, substitute:

12 Subsection 1070P(2) (table)

Repeal the table, substitute:

13 Subsection 1070Q(2) (table)

Repeal the table, substitute:

14 Subsection 1070R(2) (table)

Repeal the table, substitute:

(6) Schedule 3, item 18, page 31 (line 5) to page 32 (immediately before line 1), omit the item, substitute:

18 Subpoint SCH6-C8(1) of Schedule 6 (table C-2)

Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute:

These amendments would raise the rates of the working-age payments to 90 per cent of the age pension and also increase Commonwealth rent assistance by 40 per cent. These changes were recommended by the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, and I have great respect for the work undertaken by EIAC. It's made up of eminent experts in their field, including a former social services minister. As committee member Ben Phillips said at about the time of the report's release, increasing payments to 90 per cent of the age pension would represent just a four per cent increase in welfare payments or less than one per cent of the budget. Personally I think one per cent is a small price to pay to remove barriers to work and ensure people in our communities across the country can afford to eat and to buy their medications or just to buy toiletries. It's worth reflecting on why 90 of the age pension was chosen.

Currently, we have no one approach to measuring the adequacy of payments. This is sometimes called a poverty line—the amount a person needs to secure their basic needs like food. We don't have one. A hundred other countries do, and it may help to explain why Australia's social security system lags behind so many OECD countries. EIAC tested the current rates against a range of methods, such as the Henderson Poverty Line, relativities to national minimum wage, comparisons with other countries and many more, and the age pension was chosen, not just because there used to be a relativity between them but because the age pension benefited from the most recent comprehensive review of the payment's adequacy, the Harmer review. The Harmer review analysed the purchasing power of pensions, their value relative to earnings, international comparisons, wellbeing outcomes and a host of other measures. The review even argued that supplementary assistance was needed for senior Australians on a pension with higher housing costs in the private rental system.

We've not yet had a Harmer review for working-age payments but it has provided a robust jumping-off point to look at the adequacy of current working-age payments to allow people to afford the necessities of life. A review of the magnitude of Harmer was recommended by EIAC. Given the expertise on that committee, it is something I'm confident they could produce if they were given the opportunity.

Minister, I'd like to ask a few questions about the economic inclusion advisory committee. When will legislation be introduced to formally establish this committee? And could you provide an update on the permanent secretariat for EIAC? How many positions have been allocated and have they been filled?