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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Assistant Minister for Social Services (Senator Fifield) to a question without notice asked by Senator Siewert today relating to income support arrangements.

I asked a series of questions in a number of estimates committees about this particular measure and it became fairly obvious that not a lot of the detail about how this would operate had been worked out, that not a lot of thought had been given to how it would impact on young people, other than saying, 'We know it might have an impact so we'll provide emergency relief funding of $229 million.' Hence my question today about how the emergency relief provision would apply to young people. It is an admission that this is going to have a fundamental impact on young people who are dumped off Newstart or youth allowance onto no income support at all for six months or potentially for longer. What impact is that going to have on people? It will have a devastating impact.

When I asked about how that emergency relief would be provided, we could not be told. When I asked today whether it would involve food vouchers, the government specifically would not rule that out. That is taking us down the line of the American so-called 'social security process'. Is that what this government are considering? If it is not, they should have taken the opportunity to exclusively rule it out. When I asked who this would apply to, the government again would not rule out that this could apply to pregnant women who are unemployed, who are more than six weeks before their due date. In other words, there is the potential that women who are six months pregnant could be put on Newstart nil payment. In other words, they could get no funding support—no income.

I asked about an unemployed couple with children under the age of 30: 'Would only the principal carer be exempt from this and not the other person, so that, therefore, you could have a family of, say, two adults and a couple of kids living on no income?' The government would not rule it out. How is somebody on no income supposed to meet the requirement of 40 job applications a month when they have no money for phone calls, no money for transport, no money for a computer and when even getting to the library is extremely difficult? Even buying a paper is extremely difficult when you have no money. What will happen? If they do not meet that magic number, 40, do they then get a compliance requirement? That would then add another month to their sentence—because that is what it is. This government is sentencing young people—condemning them—to poverty. And, if they miss these requirements, they will get another month on the six-months rule.

It is appalling that we could even be considering meeting the so-called budget crisis by condemning these young people to no income support. And then, potentially, they will have to go and ask for a food voucher. Emergency relief services around Australia are already under immense pressure. In my home state of Western Australia, in 2012, 20,000 requests for assistance were turned away. The government, in this $229 million, is budgeting for around 550,000 requests for assistance. Already our emergency relief services are overtaxed. How did they come up with the magic number of $229 million? When we asked in estimates, there was not really a satisfactory answer, other than: 'We thought, maybe, $400 per person over the four years.' For people living on no income support, that is a drop in the ocean. I asked: 'How did you come up with the magic number of six months of no income support? Where is the evidence to support that as an incentive?' No answer was able to be provided because this is not based on evidence. It is appalling, cruel policy that condemns young people to lifelong consequences from the impact of living in poverty.

Question agreed to.