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

I flag that I will be moving Greens amendment (3) on sheet 7271, because the other amendments that I have are dependent upon the way the vote goes on that amendment. I would like to speak to this issue before I move amendment (3). I am going to play a little guessing game. Guess who said this in 2005 during the debate on the welfare to work bills of 2005:

… because Australia needs real welfare reform. After nine long years of talking about welfare reform, all we have here today is the Howard government legislating to import the worst of the American social security system. All the Howard government is doing today is creating a new army of working poor, vulnerable Australians who have no choices and very few chances to share in our nation’s wealth. This is the Americanisation of our social security system. It is not welfare reform. It is a fraud on the most vulnerable in our society.

The speech goes on to say:

All this bill will do is dump people from one welfare payment to a lower welfare payment. This is not the Australian way. Australians look out for each other when they are down on their luck. We give people a hand so that they can get back on their feet. That will not happen any more in Australia, as a result of these changes.

The speech went on to talk about breaching and penalty provisions, saying:

… amongst other things, an eight-week non-payment period for failing the activity test or the activity agreement three times in 12 months,

…   …   …

… the Howard government just repeating a mantra. It is the Howard government in a public policy rain dance. It cannot just say that it is moving people from welfare to work. It cannot just repeat its mantra over and over again. It cannot just do a rain dance and expect employment opportunities to shower down on people. It certainly cannot expect people’s job opportunities to improve when it is doing only one thing—and that is cutting people’s income support. Australia cannot have a government plagiarising America’s social failures. Australia needs real welfare reform.

…   …   …

Labor does believe that people who can work should work, but for those who cannot work we should provide care and respect. That certainly is not what is demonstrated in this legislation.

What Labor wants is real welfare reform that tackles the reasons why people are not working and delivers practical solutions. We support welfare reform that goes far beyond moving people from one welfare queue to another—the dole. That is what this bill will do. It will move people from one welfare queue to the dole. Real welfare reform would give people the chance to get the skills an employer needs and then get a job. Real welfare reform would make sure people get a fair reward for effort. When someone gets paid for working, their pay should not be eaten up by tax and the loss of welfare payments.

…   …   …

Real welfare reform understands that being a parent is an important job in itself and that work makes families more secure. Real welfare reform helps parents find the balance between supporting their family and raising their kids … But instead of real welfare reform, these welfare changes will just shuffle people from one Centrelink database to another. These changes will cut income support for the most vulnerable Australians and reduce the rewards from work. That is the real result of the legislation we are debating today. This legislation will cut income support to vulnerable Australians and reduce the rewards from work.

The government consistently ignores the impact of putting people on lower welfare payments. There is the immediate loss of money, but it also has a disastrous effect on people’s ability to work their way out of poverty.

And then the speech goes on to say how much will be cut from weekly payments, which is in 2005 figures. The speech goes on:

This means in plain and ordinary language that when this government dumps these people on the dole, they will get to keep less of every dollar they earn. What sort of welfare reform is it that says to people, ‘We’ll cut your payment and, when you get a job, you will keep less of what you are earning than you can keep now’?

The speech goes on for quite a bit talking about the Howard government's Welfare to Work legislation.

That speech was made by the now Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Minister Macklin. You probably thought that was me giving a speech in 2005. It wasn't; it was one of the ministers overseeing the further implementation of Welfare to Work. What a difference seven years makes. So did she not mean the words that she said then or does she not believe in what this government is doing now? Because exactly the same things apply seven years later—in fact, the figures are bigger. The impact on single parents has now grown. They are closer to living in poverty and are living in poverty even more than they were. This is talking about that cohort of people that further in the speech they talk about at least having been grandfathered. Now they are applying the same thing to these grandfathered people.

The Greens continue to oppose these measures, just as we did in 2005. It is a shame Minister Macklin no longer believes what she said in this speech, because everything she said here is still true—sending people into poverty is another barrier to employment. It is not fair for people to lose money when they are working and trying to balance supporting their family and their children. Those very same things apply, the same as they will apply next year and in 10 years time. We are talking about parents that are caring for future generations. We hear a lot about ending the cycle of poverty and breaking the poverty cycle. What this does is entrench it. That is why we will be opposing this schedule.

The amendment that I am about to move opposes the whole of schedule 1, which implements these parenting payment transition arrangements. What the government has done with this particular bill is a cute little trick: they have put in cutting parenting payments to single parents and to parenting payment partnered, but along with that have put the positive in there, which is, obviously, changing the liquid assets test, which is something that we all support. In other words, they are making it much more difficult and complicated for people to understand that you cannot just oppose this bill outright. We do not want to, obviously, oppose the changes to the liquid assets test. But the government will turn around and say, 'They don't even want to support the liquid assets test,' when it is something that we got them to put in the GFC package. We advocated for it. I stood up in this very chamber, asked questions about it and spoke about the need to maintain the new levels for the liquid assets test. We are moving to oppose this particular schedule so that the chamber can vote on this and express its opinion and then it can vote on the changes to the liquid assets test and express its opinion.

This is not good legislation. It is not the way to support and care for the most vulnerable in our community. I am sure that many of you in this chamber and a lot of people listening would have seen the Four Corners report a couple of weeks ago about the impact of poverty and about children growing up in poverty. I am sure many people actually shed a tear watching that. This bill is condemning children to further poverty and restricting their options for the future, because children growing up in poverty and parents trying to struggle to support their children in poverty helps entrench intergenerational poverty. It will not encourage parents into work because it will be another barrier. In fact, it acts as a disincentive because the income-free area decreases. You make it harder to cope when you are struggling to raise children on little money. I have not had a parent yet who does not want to give their children the best advantages they can.

It is actually even further demonising and denigrating single parents to imply that they need these sorts of incentives to try to find work, because they want to support their kids. Single parents have spoken to me about feeling despair and isolation, and being demonised because they think the government thinks they need to do this to encourage them into work when they are trying their hardest—cycling in and out of employment, not being able to look after their kids on holidays because they are subject to child unfriendly workplaces. You have one last chance, senators. I beg you to think again about this legislation. Vote with the Greens to oppose this schedule. Support the liquid assets test but vote with us to remove this schedule. I move Greens amendment (3) on sheet 7271:

(3) Schedule 1, page 3 (lines 1 to 22), TO BE OPPOSED.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Siewert. The question is that schedule 1 stand as printed.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the government I should indicate that we will be opposing the Greens amendments. It would come as no surprise, since the nature of those amendments essentially would make the provisions in this bill—other than the liquid assets limit—null and void, but there are a few matters I think I should highlight. Senator Siewert characterises matters in a way which I do not believe accurately depict the situation.

She indicates, in referring back to Ms Macklin's speech in 2005, that the circumstances are now exactly the same. I would not accept that claim in many respects. I could occupy the Senate's time now by going into the detail of quite a variety of matters that have changed, not only the ones has she highlighted in this bill itself with the more favourable provisions around liquid assets but a range of other measures that would affect sole parents and indeed low-income families that mean employment participation has been fostered far better today than it was back in 2005. But I would like to highlight at this stage, in indicating the government's position, that we are dealing with provisions that have been described and are still being described as transitional. I quipped a moment ago to Senator Sinodinos that the grandfathering provisions that were introduced in 2005 were perhaps not well designed because they have now left us in a situation where we have the majority of families under these arrangements not covered by grandfathering provisions and indeed we have some who remain so whilst they continue to have children. Perhaps back in 2005 had the grandfathering provisions been designed in such a way as to preserve circumstances for the parents rather than any future children, we would not be in the situation that we are in today. I do not believe that fostering arrangements that maintain incentives to remain welfare dependent in the long term without more genuine transitional arrangements is appropriate. As I have indicated, the government's position is not to support the amendments.

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

I cannot let some of those comments go without commenting. I take the minister's point: things are not exactly the same—I got that wrong. Do you know why? Because the gap between Newstart and parenting payment single has in fact increased. So, yes, the minister is right: things have not remained the same. But things have actually got worse for people living on Newstart, hence the Senate committee of inquiry into Newstart and other allowances because the gap is getting worse, because the indexation between pensions such as parenting payment single and aged care has continued to be indexed at MTAWE—very fair—and in fact the age pension has gone up. Newstart, as we know, is only indexed against the CPI. So the gap between parenting payment single and Newstart—in other words, the difference between the two—has increased, so the difference in what people will receive when they are transferred from parenting payment single to Newstart will be increased. So, yes, you are right, I am wrong and things have in fact changed. But they have got worse.

In terms of parents being able to find employment, it is arguable whether the situation of employment opportunities has improved. If you go out and talk—as I have done on many occasions—to single parents, you find they express a lot of concern about the support they do or do not get from job service providers. Some say some of them are quite good. Others tell you stories of despair. This morning, when I was outside this place on the lawns out the front, where single parents were having a meeting and a rally around this particular piece of legislation, people were articulating to me the concerns that they continue to suffer with Centrelink: poor administration, referrals to employment providers who do not support people and do not provide a service, difficulties in getting appointments, inability to find work, inability to find ongoing work, being on and off and in and out of casual work and temporary work. So those things really have not changed too much. When people are being put onto Newstart they will be subject to the same activity requirements and, of course, then the same provisions that apply to Newstart in terms of non-payment weeks for noncompliance, meeting Employment Pathway plans and all sorts of bureaucratic processes that also take time away from parents looking after families. So some things have changed—and some things have not—and I would maintain that things will get harder under these particular provisions for those transferring onto Newstart.

In terms of incentives, and I have been through this argument several times, they are the same incentives and I note what the government runs about not increasing Newstart, that you need to keep payments really low so you incentivise people to find work. If you have got children growing up in poverty, that is the incentive! These children are already growing up in poverty and it is really hard yakka trying to raise children on a low income. People's incentive is a better future for their children, not living in poverty and not being condemned to poverty and being provided with more barriers. They want a better future for their children. That is their incentive. That is why we will oppose this. We will continue to oppose poor reform to income support. We want genuine reform, like Minister Macklin said in 2005. We want real welfare reform. Real welfare reform is not condemning people to poverty and making their lives even harder.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I should briefly address a couple of the issues raised by Senator Siewert. I do not think the government has any argument with her at all in relation to the gap between Newstart and parenting payment growing over time—and this is one of the concerns that is being addressed with respect to Newstart. It is quite a separate issue from what is being addressed here. But I do think it is unarguable that employment opportunities, particularly for the people who would find themselves receiving parenting payment, have improved considerably since 2005.

I should also add to that the list of measures that I indicated I could go to. Since Senator Siewert has encouraged me with the suggestion that things have unquestionably gotten worse, perhaps I should. The government has already made amendments to the Social Security Act 1991 to reform the income test that applies to single principal carer parents on Newstart allowance from 1 January 2013, allowing these parents to earn about $400 more per fortnight before they lose eligibility for payment. This provides stronger incentives for parents to undertake paid work by allowing parents to retain more of their income as their employment income rises.

To ease the transition to work and overcome the barriers parents face, from 2011-12 the government has invested in training, with additional funding of $100 million for skills development for single and teen parents and more than $7 million in career advice assistance, as well as supporting parents through employment services and child care. Single parents who are studying an approved course and are receiving the pensioner education supplement when they transfer from parenting payment to Newstart allowance will remain eligible for the pensioner education supplement until they complete the course that they are studying. The government is providing additional funding to support increased demand and better target the Jobs, Education and Training Child Care Fee Assistance program.

The more generous taper rate for single principal carers on Newstart allowance put forward in the 2011-12 budget will lessen some of the impact of the earlier cessation of grandfathered status for parenting payment single recipients. For new and existing Newstart allowance single principal carers—this is a benefit for existing single principal carers who were not grandfathered—the change to the taper rate will reduce the effective marginal tax rate for these parents, provide greater incentives and rewards to engage within the workforce, and alleviate poverty in that respect. I should also highlight the changes to the tax-free threshold, a significant improvement in income for people in these circumstances.

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

Parliamentary Secretary, I find the comments about the Newstart increase being a separate issue strange. What we are talking about is dropping these single parents onto Newstart, which is now nearly $140 less than parenting payment single. These are the parents that we are dropping down onto Newstart, so I do not see why the poor payment and level of Newstart is separate from this issue. Isn't it the core of this issue? You are lessening the amount of money that people are going to be receiving, so of course the level of Newstart is entirely relevant to this inquiry. In fact, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights very clearly pointed that out. That is why they recommended that this legislation not proceed until the Newstart inquiry reports. Even this chamber's own Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee, which the government chairs and has a majority on, recommended that this legislation should be delayed until after that inquiry reports. Two government-dominated committees recommended that and linked this issue to Newstart.

In terms of transition to work, yes, you have changed the taper rate a bit, but it is still different to when you are on parenting payment single, so maybe the cut is not as bad as it would have been. In terms of access to child care, it is a moot point when you live in regional Australia, you cannot get access to child care and when child care, if it is available, is usually only available during business hours and is not available during shifts. In terms of the education supplement, I note that the term used was 'for existing'—if you have got it now it will continue: 'We will not rip it off you if you are getting it now and you transfer onto Newstart'. But it is not available for new entrants. It is the same as in education, in the same way that the Welfare to Work provisions ripped it off those who were transferring onto to Newstart as well.

I have heard talk about issues around JET as well. Remember that debate we had years ago, when the Howard government changed to JET one year? Single parents could study for one year! If they are trying to do university, as far as I am aware, there is no first-degree university education available that goes for a year. Some TAFE courses do, so it is really useful for that, but I know a lot of my constituents—and I did a lot of work on this particular issue at the time—had to drop out of university because it was no longer available. There is strong concern that those sorts of supports are not there for the full course of people's study.

Not only that, but changing people's income—and that is why the government is doing it; it is to change people's income, and it is trying to disguise this by saying it is not a revenue measure—and their income support makes it harder for people to study. This is bad for single parents. People out there who are going to be affected by this are devastated and are very concerned about it. I have had people ringing, visiting and emailing my office and telling me their stories. These are people who are already subject to the Welfare to Work provisions. They are not from the grandfathered group. They are saying, 'Don't do this! Don't inflict this on that group that do not have to be inflicted with it.' They know what it is like.

Again, I urge senators not to support this legislation.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that schedule 1 stand as printed.

The committee divided. [17:40]

(The Temporary Chairman—Senator Stephens)

Question agreed to.

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

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 7271 together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item.

(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute:

One of the concerns that many people have expressed to me, and during the Senate committee inquiry into this bill, is the commencement date of 1 January 2013. This is a particularly bad time of year. It is a week after Christmas when all families feel financial strain but in particular those on low incomes feel the strain. More often than not, when they are trying to give their children a Christmas on a very low income, they end up with some debt—hopefully temporary debt—and it is also, of course, when children are at home on school holidays. If a parent does not work in a child-friendly workplace or if they have not been able to get leave during the holidays, they may well have to leave their casual employment to look after their children or they may have to pay for fairly expensive child care. So there are added expenses during that holiday period. I am sure every parent knows that when children are on holiday there is always added expense in terms of their activities. If a parent is on a very low income, more often than not they cannot afford to send them very often to the pictures, and there is always additional expense during school holidays.

So this is the worst time of the year that the government could bring in this change and start dropping people's income. It is rubbing salt in the wound. Not only is the government taking this most extraordinary step of dropping people to a much lower payment when they are trying to support their children, but it is doing it at the most expensive time of the year for families and also the time of the year when there is a bit of festivity around and people are enjoying the summer holidays. They have a lot of expenses, and what does the government do? How do you celebrate the new year? Take a drop in your income by $60 to $100 a week. That is a very significant impact. Not only do you have those holiday period expenses and those Christmas expenses, but you are also preparing for the new school year. You are preparing school uniforms, books, a schoolbag and various other pieces of equipment. So it is at a very expensive time of the year, and proportionally more expensive for families on low incomes. For families that are struggling, the burden and the percentage of the impact is far higher than for families that are not struggling to survive on a low income. So, as I said, this is rubbing salt into the wound.

These two amendments seek to change the commencement date from 1 January to 1 July 2013 so that it is not at the peak expense time for single-income families. We believe this is at least one way you can help single-income families who are now going to be subject to this. I am predicting that the Senate will support the third reading and that therefore this will go through, so what I am seeking to do is to change the commencement date so it is not quite so severe—just a small bit less severe—on those families that are struggling to survive on this low income.

I commend the amendment and again urge senators to consider this and think about the impact. Imagine if you were sitting around on New Year's Day or at Christmas thinking, 'In a week's time I'm going to have less income.' What would you feel like when this very significant proportion of your income is going to disappear and life is going to get that much harder? You are not going to have a very good Christmas, I can tell you, and you are not going to have very good school holidays when this regime comes in.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendment (2) on sheet 7271 be agreed to.

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

Madam Temporary Chairman, are you moving (1) and (2)? I moved them together.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: To clarify your situation, Senator Siewert, I understand that amendment (1) becomes null and void because it was contingent upon amendment (3) getting up, so we are moving amendment (2). The question is that amendment (2) on sheet 7271 be agreed to.