Fraser Anning (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 8602 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 28, page 7 (line 16) to page 8 (line 3), omit subsections 322(3) and (4).

(2) Schedule 1, item 30, page 9 (lines 1 to 20), omit subsections 500X(4) and (5).

(3) Schedule 1, item 31, page 10 (line 19) to page 11 (line 3), omit subsections 966(5) and (6).

(4) Schedule 3, item 2, page 15 (line 21) to page 16 (line 10), omit subsections 61AA(8) and (9).

(5) Schedule 4, item 3, page 20 (lines 8 to 31), omit subsections 31A(7A) and (8).

(6) Schedule 4, item 5, page 23 (line 15) to page 24 (line 2), omit subsections 115CBA(7) and (8).

Amongst other provisions, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Promoting Sustainable Welfare) Bill seeks to extend the waiting period for welfare proposed for new migrants. I congratulate the government on seeking to adopt my proposal to this. However, unfortunately, I have to advise that the current bill misses the mark. The existing, commendable government bill cracks down on welfare collection by recent arrivals in the general migration category; however, it very obviously neglects to address the problem of the so-called refugees, who are in fact the main offenders.

Unlike the migrants of earlier generations who came here to work and prosper, all too many of those who trek across the world posing as refugees go through one safe country after another simply looking for the most generous welfare handouts. Accordingly, I move the amendments to this bill to assist the government to target the main class of welfare seekers who wash up on our shores. In 2017, a Department of Social Services fact sheet advised that there were nearly 300,000 recent migrants in all categories relying upon work-age income replacement welfare. Since that time, with runaway levels of immigration, we can be reasonably confident that the numbers have increased substantially.

As a percentage of immigrants, that number is staggering and stands in stark contrast to the nation-building post-war Europeans who came here to work in our factories and fields and to help build the Snowy Mountains scheme. A 2017 report on a longitudinal survey of so-called refugees from the Rudd-Gillard boat people era who arrived here in 2013 showed that, five years later, 88 per cent relied on welfare payments as their main source of income. So much for self-reliance there. A 2011 study for the Department of Immigration and Citizenship found that so-called refugees were far more likely to be in receipt of Centrelink payments than other immigrant streams, with 85 per cent of reported humanitarian migrants relying on welfare, in contrast to 28 per cent of skilled migrants.

We have been treated to an unedifying sight of over a million Syrian so-called refugees in Europe, having left the safe haven of Muslim Turkey, trekking from one European country to the next in search of the continent's best handouts in Germany and Scandinavia. We have even had scores of illegal immigrants to Australia in Nauru refuse to be resettled in the United States because it has less generous welfare than Australia and they are expected to work. The sad truth is that freely available welfare is the pull factor in drawing fake refugees to our shores, as it the key draw for them to countries like Germany.

In days gone by, it was the case that recent arrivals were unable to claim welfare and were obliged to rely on themselves and Australian guarantors. Like the many hundreds of thousands of white South Africans eager to come here today, for them the opportunity to work and provide for themselves and their families in a safe and free country was everything they could want. They wouldn't have wanted a handout, even if it had been offered. The fact is that we should make welfare unobtainable for all migrants to Australia for the first few years and widely publicise the fact that we will strongly discourage the transnational parasites who currently travel around the world looking for a free ride through life at everyone else's expense. However, what we will encourage are the hardworking and self-reliant migrants that we want, the same sort of people who built this country in the first place. I commend my amendments to the Senate.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Treasury and Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government won't be supporting these amendments. These amendments would remove important protections for vulnerable refugees and their family members. It is longstanding policy that refugees and their families are exempt from all waiting periods for welfare payments.

(Quorum formed) These exemptions recognise that these individuals and families generally have no other means of support and are usually not in a position to make plans for their own support prior to coming to Australia. Given their unique and particularly vulnerable circumstances, it is appropriate to maintain immediate access to welfare payments for humanitarian entrants and their families and support their successful long-term settlement.

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

We will also be opposing these amendments that make an already bad bill, the Social Services and other Legislation Amendment (Promoting Sustainable Welfare) Bill 2018, even worse. I want to take this opportunity while I'm on my feet to draw attention to a few facts—particularly those that have come up since we were debating this in the chamber on Thursday last week.

Organisations have come out very strongly calling on the Labor Party to, in fact, not back this bill. 'ACOSS calls on the Senate to reject social security cuts for migrants'. They put out a release last week:

ACOSS, along with the community sector, calls on the Senate to do the right thing and vote against the bill to make migrants wait up to four years to access social security. There is no justification for cutting off support for people, including children, who are in financial need.

The government's original bill to impose a four year wait to access social security was cruel, and void of good policy. Migrants make huge contributions to our society. We should be supporting them when they need it, not making it harder for them to build a life in Australia.

The amended bill before the Senate, however, will still impose a four-year wait to access Newstart, hurting people most in need. It will also, for the first time, impose a one-year wait to access Family Tax Benefit Part A, which is a crucial payment for low-income families, including families without paid work and families on the minimum wage trying to give their children the best start in life.

ACOSS urges Labor to join the Greens, Centre Alliance and Tim Storer in opposing the bill in the Senate, and protect people from falling further into poverty.

FECCA also put out a media release. They're the organisation that were originally saying that this was a step in the right direction. They've now actually looked into the details and also understand that, just as was demonstrated in this place not 10 minutes ago, we could have knocked off this bill. We could have knocked off the other bills, because we had the numbers to vote no. FECCA wrote:

The Federation of Ethnic Communities' Councils of Australia today—

this was on 29 November—

called on the Labor Opposition, the Australian Greens and cross-bench Senators to reject a bill which extends waiting periods for newly arrived migrants accessing social welfare supports including Family Tax Benefit.

The Chairperson of FECCA, Mary Patetsos said: "This Bill will inflict unnecessary hardship on vulnerable people and is due to be voted on in the Senate shortly.

"Earlier this week FECCA accepted amendments to the Bill on the understanding that there was not enough support in the Senate to defeat it. FECCA now believes that – combined with the votes of Labor Senators and Australian Greens Senators – there are sufficient Cross-bench Senators prepared to vote against this legislation."

FECCA maintains that the Parliament should consider that the inherent risks, while mitigated by the Opposition amendments continue to impose a burden on vulnerable people.

FECCA is the national peak body representing Australians from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds. Our role is to advocate and promote issues on behalf of our constituency to government, business and the broader community.

There's also a letter, in fact, to the Labor Party, urging them to oppose the migrant social security cuts. They make many similar points. They say:

Migrants make a huge contribution to our society. Our social security system should provide them and their children with the same support to which other residents are entitled. Now that we know the ALP would have the numbers in the Senate to block the worst parts of this bill, we call on you to vote with the Greens, Centre Alliance and Senator Tim Storer to stop the extension of social security waiting periods for recent migrants. We already have three million people living in poverty in Australia. We know that people from non-Englishspeaking backgrounds experience discrimination in getting paid work, and have higher poverty rates than others in Australia. These cuts risk worsening poverty amongst this cohort.

If legislated, this Bill will divide our communities even further, along migrant and racial grounds. These cuts are nasty and harsh, and should be rejected outright.

That comes from ACOSS, FECCA, the ACT Council of Social Service, Anglicare Australia, Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Carers Australia, Harmony Alliance: Migrant and Refugee Women for Change, Jobs Australia, National Ethnic Disability Alliance, the National Social Security Rights Network, the NT Council of Social Service, the Queensland Council of Social Service, the Settlement Council of Australia, SA Council of Social Service, the St Vincent de Paul Society National Council, Tasmanian Council of Social Service, UnitingCare Australia, the WA Council of Social Service, Women With Disabilities Australia and YWCA Australia. (Quorum formed) As you can see, there are a lot of organisations that care very deeply about the impacts of this atrocious, appalling piece of legislation that could so easily have been knocked off. The only reason this is getting through is because Labor, instead of voting on this side of the chamber with the crossbench, are voting on that side of the chamber to support legislation that condemns migrants to try and survive for four years without income support.

I outlined in my second reading contribution the impact that that will have on people. I also outlined how much harder it is for people, particularly from a non-English-speaking background to navigate our employment services, and we've had that in evidence to the Senate committee. This is bad legislation. It should not be supported. I say to the Labor Party: it's not too late; you've still got the third reading. Vote with us. Vote with the crossbench to send this legislation where it should be, and that's in the bin.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I need to make a couple of observations in the debate on Senator Anning's amendment. The first is to reflect on the second reading contribution of Senator Cameron. He got up and he quoted Gough Whitlam. He said:

Certainly, the impotent are pure.

Of course, if Senator Cameron knew his Labor Party history, he would know this was Gough Whitlam smashing into the left wing of the Labor Party as hard as he could, giving it to the left wing of the Labor Party as hard as he could and demeaning the left wing of the Labor Party by suggesting, in fact, that by their policy purity they were, of course, making themselves impotent.

Let's look at Senator Cameron's comment and, in fact, former Prime Minister Whitlam's comment in light of what's happening here in the Senate right now. Of course, we've got a situation whereby, if Labor had actually stayed true—if they had stayed pure—we could have knocked this legislation off. But, by selling out, copping out and negotiating migration policy with the racists and xenophobes in this chamber, Labor have joined the queue to do over migrants in this country.

We know that FECCA, the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia, do not support this dirty deal that Labor stitched up. We know that ACOSS do not support this dirty deal that Labor has stitched up. We know that, because a letter signed by Dr Cassandra Goldie on behalf of ACOSS and Mr Mohammad Al-Khafaji on behalf of FECCA—

Senator Anning interjecting—

You really are not worthy of your place in this chamber, mate. You really are a grub of the highest order.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim, through the chair, please.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it's a good thing you didn't hear what Senator Anning just said, Chair. I think it's actually very good that you didn't hear what Senator Anning just said.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim, whilst I didn't hear the conversation, if there was something said that was unparliamentary, I'd ask the senator to withdraw.

Fraser Anning (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It wasn't unparliamentary.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that it's come up, I'm going to place on the record what Senator Anning said. When I read out the name of Mr Mohammad Al-Khafaji, who is the Acting Chief Executive Officer of FECCA, Senator Anning said words to the effect of 'I'm sure he's on the dole.' I'll leave it to the Senate to decide whether that's acceptable. I don't believe that that is acceptable. I note Senator Anning's not denying what I have placed on the record that he said. I want to place my views on this very clearly. Despite the utter stupidity of making such a statement, given that Mr Al-Khafaji is actually the Acting Chief Executive Officer of FECCA and, therefore, clearly not on unemployment benefits, the racism inherent in that statement is there for this whole country and this whole chamber to see.

It does illustrate the point that I was making, which is that Labor have stitched up a deal on migration policy with the racists and the xenophobes. I hope that Senator Cameron, with all his 'Certainly, the impotent are pure' rubbish, felt comfortable sitting over there with Senator Anning and Senator Pauline Hanson. Of course, last week Senator Pauline Hanson said the words, 'I am so proud of the Labor Party'. If you're getting hugs and kisses from Senator Hanson, that says an awful lot more about the Labor Party than I could, than any of the other Greens could or, in fact, than any member of the Labor Party would care to admit. You've pulled the wrong rein here, Senator Cameron. Surely that is clear to you now. The point is it is not too late to fix this, because we are going to give you a chance to do the right thing on the third reading of this legislation by calling another division. We're going to give you a chance, finally, at five seconds to midnight, to do the right thing, to stick up for ethnic communities in this country, to stick up for migrants to this country who, through our recent history as a nation, have contributed so much to building this country and who are being done over tonight by the Australian Labor Party.

You have to ask yourself: why has the ALP stitched up this dirty deal to do over migrants? When you look at the motivations for it, there's only one I could possibly think of. Why would they pay the price of negotiating on migration policy with racists and xenophobes in order to deliver a budget saving so that when they come into government the budget is in better shape than it otherwise would have been—$1.3 billion over the four out-years of this year's budget; that is the budget saving. We always knew the Labor Party would sell out, but we know more now. We know their price. Do you know what? It's a dirty deal done dirt cheap. $1.3 billion is peanuts in the context of the four out-years in Commonwealth budgets. It is parking meter change down the back of the couch. That's what Labor have sold out for: a pitiful $1.3 billion over four years. And they're voting over there with Senator Anning. They're voting over there with Senator Pauline Hanson. I won't forget this day. I will not forget it. I won't forget you, Senator Anning, the resident racist of this chamber. And I won't forget Senator Cameron, quoting us, 'Certainly the impotent are pure'.

I will tell you what—to all Labor Party members—if you'd actually kept your purity on this legislation, if you had held fast to the values you purport to hold and voted with the Greens and other crossbenchers, this legislation would be consigned to the dustbin of history. Instead, it's going to get passed, against the wishes of ACOSS, against the wishes of FECCA, and against the wishes of every significant stakeholder that represents migrant Australians. This is going to be passed against their wishes, the wishes of the Australian Greens and the wishes of other crossbenchers in this place who understand the value that migrants bring to this country. They understand the value that migrants have brought in the past, and we understand—unlike the Labor Party, going on their record tonight—the value that migrants will bring into the future for this country.

You don't separate Australians into different classes of people. We all are entitled to the same access to the law, and we oughtn't be voting to require people to work and pay tax and then turn around and tell them that the social security safety net that their taxes have paid for is not available—or part of it is not available—to them. That is the position that the Labor Party have brought into this debate. Well, I'll tell you what, I have seen the light on the hill flickering and guttering in my time in politics. That light on the hill that so many in the ALP still like to look at and pretend is burning brightly, I've rarely seen it so close to going out as I have tonight. I hope you're all ashamed of yourselves.

A division having been called and the bells being rung—

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Burston, according to standing orders, a senator shall vote in a division in accordance with that senator's vote by voice. As you are not on the side where we needed two voices, the division is cancelled.

Question negatived.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the bill stand as printed.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; reported adopted.