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

I move:

  That this bill now be read a second time.

I rise today to speak on the Australian Greens' Social Services Legislation Amendment (Ending the Poverty Trap) Bill 2018. This is in fact my fifth attempt to introduce a bill to raise Newstart. Last week was the Raise the Rate Week of Action, and we heard from people across the country about the difficulties they experienced living below the poverty line while on Newstart. I'll outline a few of those later in this contribution.

This bill provides additional financial assistance to single recipients of the basic rate of the Newstart allowance, youth allowance, Austudy, sickness allowance, special benefit, widow allowance and crisis payment, increasing them by $75 a week. The bill will provide additional financial assistance to single recipients of the maximum rate of away-from-home rates of youth allowance, increasing it by an amount of $75 a week.

The intention is for Abstudy to be increased by the amount of $75 a week as well. However, this payment is based in policy rather than in legislation.

Newstart, youth allowance and the other payments mentioned above have not had a real increase in 25 years. The current rate of Newstart and related payments is so low that people are unable to cover basic living costs, such as housing, food, transport, health care and utilities. One of the reasons these payments have fallen so far behind the real cost of living is that they have different indexation arrangements to the pension rate. This bill seeks to rectify this by improving indexation for these payments in line with the pension rate.

The bill will change the indexation arrangements for these payments and other income support payments to bring them into line with the higher of the CPI, the consumer price index, and the pensioner and beneficiary living cost index, the PBLCI. This will ensure that these payments better keep up with the real cost of living similarly to the age pension.

There have been growing calls from the social services sector, from the business sector and from economists to raise the rate of Newstart and youth allowance. This has been going on for many years. Recent research shows the majority of Australians also agree that the current levels of income support payments are too low. A poll commissioned by ACOSS in April this year found that 72 per cent of Australians agree that Newstart should be increased to help people better cover the basic costs of living and search for work. It is absolutely abundantly clear that the government is out of step with the community's expectations.

Last week a number of politicians from across the spectrum joined the ranks of people calling for an increase to Newstart. A number of Labor MPs have publicly come out in support of raising the rate, including Mike Freelander, Nick Champion, Patrick Gorman, Josh Wilson, Ged Kearney, Chris Hayes and in fact Labor leader Anthony Albanese. He said in Perth last Tuesday, 'The bells are ringing for an increase in Newstart.' Former Leader of the Nationals Barnaby Joyce joined current and former coalition colleagues John Howard, Matthew Canavan and Arthur Sinodinos in calling for an increase to Newstart.

I'm glad these members are taking the time to listen to the community and recognise that the current rate is inadequate. Every single parliamentary vote for the bill is a show of solidarity with unemployed workers in this country. I urge all members of parliament to vote on this bill according to their professed beliefs. Every vote for this bill is a vote for the unemployed, for those living in poverty and for members of our community who are doing it tough.

Last year the Productivity Commission found that, despite our having experienced 27 years of uninterrupted economic growth, the proportion of Australians experiencing relative income poverty—around nine to 10 per cent—has not changed. The fact that poverty rates have remained entrenched for decades demonstrates the lack of political will from previous governments and the current one to help those struggling to make ends meet. Today about three million people in Australia are living below the poverty line. This includes 739,000 children and 410,000 young people. Most of the people affected are living in deep poverty, well below the poverty line.

The Poverty in Australia 2018 report measured the average poverty gap in Australia, which is the difference between the incomes of people in poverty and the poverty line. It found that people in poverty are living $135 per week below the poverty line. This is unacceptable in this wealthy country. In a wealthy country like ours, no-one deserves to or should be living in poverty.

These figures paint a picture of a country and a government that are letting down people on the lowest incomes. We are an incredibly wealthy country. We are currently the wealthiest nation in the world when it comes to the median wealth per adult. Today we have a clear choice to make. We can choose to strengthen our social security system of which we were once so proud. This is one of the best levers we have available to reduce poverty in this country. We can choose to help people on income support payments cover everyday essentials like health, heating, food and rent. An immediate increase in Newstart and related payments will change this picture. It will assist in alleviating poverty, help reduce income inequality and help people who are studying and seeking employment. I hope today we can make the right choice for children living in poverty, for families, for students, for single parents and for disabled people.

ACOSS, the Australian Council of Social Service, and the University of New South Wales released the Poverty in Australia 2018 report. The report found that households relying mainly on income support payments are five times more likely to experience poverty compared to those households relying mainly on wages and salaries. This reflects the fact that income support payments are usually below the poverty line. Unsurprisingly, those who experience the highest poverty rates are on youth allowance and Newstart, with 64 per cent of people on youth allowance and 55 per cent of people on Newstart experiencing poverty. The report also revealed that the freezing of Newstart since 1994 has contributed to a progressive deepening of poverty in households that are mainly reliant on Newstart. I find it utterly shameful that this country has the second-worst poverty rate in the OECD amongst unemployed people.

The Salvation Army's 2018 Economic and Social Impact Survey found that, after paying for accommodation, Newstart recipients were left with just $17 a day. How are people expected to look for work when they are living below the poverty line and trying to survive on $17 a day? Poverty can have devastating impacts on a person's health and mental health. It increases a person's risk of homelessness, social isolation and loneliness. How are these circumstances conducive to helping someone find work?

The ACOSS and Jobs Australia report Faces of unemploymentvery clearly demonstrates that Newstart is not a temporary payment. The report found that, in March 2018, 64 per cent of people had received unemployment payments for more than a year, 44 per cent for over two years and 15 per cent for more than five years. It also highlighted how a person's chances of leaving unemployment payments sharply diminish over time. Seeing Newstart as a temporary payment also masks the number of youth allowance recipients who move from youth allowance to Newstart when they turn 22. The latest data from the Department of Social Services shows that people spend an average of 156 weeks on Newstart. So the government is either wilfully ignorant or misleading our nation when it says that two-thirds of people move off Newstart very quickly. It says that but then doesn't acknowledge how many people are on this for over a year—44 per cent for over two years and 15 per cent for over five years.

When faced with increasing calls to raise the rate, this government resorts to the line that 99 per cent of people on Newstart also receive other benefits. Let me be clear: these additional payments in no way substitute for the woefully low rate of Newstart and youth allowance. For most Newstart recipients, the only additional payment they receive is the energy supplement, which is 65c per day. Sixty-five cents per day for a week won't even buy you a cup of coffee; we actually made that point when the energy supplement was put in place. While I argued very strongly for it to be maintained because it helps a tiny bit, it does not raise people out of poverty. Around a third of Newstart recipients receive rent assistance of around $10 a day. Even after you combine the maximum rate of the energy supplement, rent assistance and Newstart, it doesn't come close to covering the basic costs of living.

I ask Australians to not believe what the government says; this is not a transition payment anymore. The employment situation in this country has changed from when the unemployment benefits first came in, and it's certainly changed since 1994. People have to survive on this payment long term. We know that poverty can act as a barrier to finding work. By keeping payments so low, Newstart is doing the opposite of what it is meant to do.

The abysmally low rate of Newstart isn't only affecting adults; it also has a detrimental impact on children. The Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth report released in 2019, To have and to have not: measuring child deprivation and opportunity in Australia, found that children living in poverty felt impacts in all areas of their wellbeing, spreading far wider than just the material basics. The report found that children living below the poverty line were 1.7 times more likely to face food insecurity and 2½ times more likely to be missing out on learning at home. We know this has a negative impact on children in the long term because children who grow up in adverse conditions are more likely to experience poorer outcomes as adults. As you might expect, the No. 1 recommendation of the report was to raise the rate of Newstart by $75 a week to give all kids a fair go.

An increase to Newstart would also have an immediate effect on single parents doing it tough. In 2013, following on from the initial legislation that went through in 2006, 80,000 single parents who were originally grandfathered were transferred from parenting payment (single) to Newstart. This resulted in a sharp rise in poverty among unemployed single parents—from 35 per cent in 2013 to 59 per cent in 2015. Every day, single parents are being forced onto Newstart when their youngest child turns eight and being pushed into further poverty. This situation unfairly impacts on women, because over 80 per cent of single parents are women. Children in single-parent families are three times more likely to live in poverty than children in coupled families are. We should be alleviating poverty, not exacerbating it along gender lines. Raising Newstart and the related payments provides us with a real opportunity to change the poverty rates of single-parent families across this country.

One of the distressing scenarios that is all too often left out of the debate is the impact of Newstart on older Australians. The share of older unemployed workers is growing, with 43 per cent of Newstart recipients now older than 45 years. There are now more unemployed workers aged between 55 and 64 receiving Newstart than any other age cohort. Older Australians also spend the most time on Newstart compared to other age groups. I hear too often from older people who are dismissed by potential employers and their employment service providers because of their age. They are considered too old for employment but too young for the age pension. But instead of being able to live with dignity older Australians on Newstart are pushed into poverty long term. Having had to use up virtually all of their savings to qualify for Newstart, they then age on Newstart and go onto the age pension with no savings.

The research paints a stark picture of the devastating impacts of poverty, inequality and deprivation. But what does it mean to actually live on as little as $40 a day? I asked the community to share their personal experiences of living on Newstart. The responses I received were profound, and highlighted the constant stress and anxiety felt by many income support recipients. The words they used to describe what it's like to be on Newstart included 'demeaning', 'humiliating', 'stigmatising', 'degrading' and 'trapped'. One person told me about the worry and despair they felt about being on Newstart:

It's eating one meal (and nothing extravagant) a day, because, in order to pay the minimal bills you have, that's all you can afford. It's being constantly cold in winter. It's getting sick but not going to the doctor unless you really have to. It's wearing your mostly secondhand clothes until they pretty much fall apart. It's dreading socialising because it's likely to cost and if your friends pay your way, they get sick of it and you feel like a dreg for accepting. It's being treated as if you are a useless, bludging scunge by officials, media and others in society. It's despair, loss of ability to see a future for yourself, it's constantly worrying about your ability to keep a roof above your head, to keep Centrelink and compliance agencies happy so you don't get breached and lose your home, your ability to pay your bills and the stigma that goes along with failing at those things which makes it hard in future to get a rental etc. It's not living, it's barely existence.

One parent told me about the consequences of living on Newstart for her and her son:

It breeds depression and anxiety. It leads to social isolation. The stress of worrying about how you will feed your family leads to health issues which cost the Government far more than an increase would. I have gone without food to feed my son, not let him go to birthday parties because I couldn't afford a present to give. I've kept him home from school because I didn't have food to send or petrol to get him there. The depression associated with being financially way under the poverty line leads to mental health issues that are there for life, needing medication which again costs money we don't have and costs the Government. Making people live on the current rate of Newstart is a breach of human rights. It affects mostly single parents and it takes away you dignity.

Another person told me about the damaging impacts of Newstart on her health:

The day I get paid doesn't give me relief at all instead it's when the panic sinks in. I don't eat breakfast or lunch most days because I can't afford it once I've paid bills. Right now I'm sitting here with my last $13 trying to work out how to make it stretch till Tuesday. I go hungry a lot and when you're hungry you feel hopeless it's a constant state of living in despair. I feel like a burden to my family and friends. I had to borrow money off of my dad and he's on a pension. I've been hospitalized before because I've been suicidal over the stress of it all. On Newstart you can't afford to live at all you just exist.

Increasing Newstart and related payments and amending the indexation rate will help reduce poverty for hundreds of thousands of Australians. The cost associated with increasing these payments is far outweighed by the multitude of benefits to the people who are trying to survive on them, but doing so will also benefit our economy and our society. Independent modelling by Deloitte Access Economics last year demonstrated that increasing Newstart by $75 a week would boost the Australian economy by over $4 billion as a result of extra spending. We know it will boost spending because, when people living below the poverty line get access to a few more dollars, they spend them on the basic costs of living. It'll go straight back into the economy. Deloitte also found that increasing Newstart would create an extra 12,000 jobs. If we can afford to hand out tax cuts to people earning $200,000 a year—and those tax cuts, by the way, are about $11,000, and Newstart is $15,000, so they'll get a tax cut of almost the same amount as Newstart—this country can afford to raise Newstart and youth allowance by $75 a week.

We should not overlook the powerful impact that raising these payments will have on our communities. It will help strengthen our local communities by lifting people out of poverty. It will increase people's social and economic participation while they seek employment or undertake study. It will reduce pressure on the charities that are already struggling to keep up with demand as to food relief, housing and homelessness. Last year the proportion of food insecure Australians seeking food relief increased from 46 per cent to 51 per cent.

This country can afford to increase Newstart and youth allowance. We can afford to. And we must enable people to live with dignity. This government is wilfully misleading the community in saying that we can't afford it and that people are only living on these as transition payments. That is just not true, and the statistics bear that out. The statistics from its own Department of Social Security bear out that people are stuck on these payments, living in poverty. I recommend this bill to the chamber.

Wendy Askew (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Ending the Poverty Trap) Bill 2018, proposed by the Greens, seeks to amend the Social Security Act to increase Newstart, Austudy and other welfare payments by $150 per fortnight and to standardise indexation for some of these welfare payments. Yet, in spite of its name, it doesn't actually do what the Greens have said it will do, nor does it propose a clear direction to end the so-called poverty trap. Section 53 of the Constitution makes clear that a measure appropriating revenue or moneys shall not originate in the Senate, so this bill includes a clause in part 5 to state that there will in fact be no increase in any of the social security benefits mentioned in the bill, including the Newstart allowance, unless money is appropriated by the parliament for that purpose. It is, in plain language, a stunt.

But, putting that fact to one side, it is sadly true to say that there are people in our country living in poverty and for a wide range of reasons. The issue of poverty within Australia cannot be dealt with by some one-size-fits-all approach. You can't just wave a magic wand and give welfare recipients a few more dollars and say you have fixed the so-called poverty trap.

Simply throwing money at something will not necessarily fix it and the consequences that flow from the issue. For example, we need to address the issues in some communities within Australia where there is a large proportion of intergenerational welfare dependency. Without addressing what can sadly develop into ingrained behaviours, we will not reduce that dependency—in fact, the opposite will be the case: we will actually further cement welfare dependency for many people in those communities.

As I mentioned, this is not a one-size-fits-all approach. That is exactly why the Morrison government has continually reviewed existing programs and introduced new ones aimed at reducing the number of people on welfare. Our focus is on getting the unemployed into work. As my colleagues on this side of the chamber know all too well, the best form of welfare is a job, and this is not just a throwaway line, even if it is something the Greens hate to hear. The Morrison Liberal-National coalition government is actively boosting employment, getting more Australians into work and reducing dependency on welfare. I think we all understand that the Newstart allowance and other income support payments are intended to be a safety net for those members of the community who require financial assistance while they look for employment. These allowances are not designed as a long-term payment for people, and this is shown by the fact that around two-thirds of jobseekers who are granted Newstart exit income support within 12 months.

A hundred and seventy-two billion dollars was allocated last financial year to welfare expenditure in our budget. This represents 35 per cent of all government spending for the financial year. Our welfare system is designed to be there to help those in need. At the same time, the government—any government—must undertake a balancing act to both provide fair payments to welfare recipients and manage taxpayer funds. Every cent that is spent on welfare is a cent that has come from the hip pocket of working Australians. As the old saying goes, governments don't have any money; they only have your money. It's the government's responsibility to ensure welfare and social services are sustainable and managed responsibly both now and into the future. We need to be able to provide support for those Australians in need when they need it most and also ensure that our children, the future generations of Australians, are not burdened with government overspending for decades to come.

The Morrison government takes a philosophical approach that welfare payments should generally be seen as a hand up, not a handout, and this approach continues to bear fruit and be supported by the coalition government's employment achievements. Since the coalition government came into office in September 2013, around 1.4 million jobs have been created, which is an increase of 12.2 per cent. That's around 240,000 jobs per year. This compares to an average of just 155,000 per year the last time Labor was in government. The unemployment rate has declined by 0.2 percentage points over the year, to 5.2 per cent in May 2019, while the participation rate is at a record high of 66 per cent. In figures announced last week, full-time employment had risen by 21,100 to stand at a record high of 8,815,600, which is 2.9 per cent higher than it was a year ago. Due to our measures, more Australians are getting out of the social welfare cycle and into jobs. There are now—as at June 2019—230,000 fewer working-age Australians on welfare than in June 2014. We now see the lowest number of working-age Australians on income support payments in 30 years, with welfare dependence at 14.3 per cent. This is all achieved under a strong coalition government.

The coalition government is delivering a range of programs to help jobseekers into employment. The government has invested $18.4 million into the Regional Employment Trials Program, which has been rolled out in 10 regions across the country, including in the north and north-west of my home state, Tasmania. The program is designed to bring local organisations, training providers, not-for-profit organisations and other services together to assist unemployed Australians to prepare for and find work, by providing employment and training opportunities tailored to their local needs. Over 3,200 unemployed people are expected to participate in these projects Australia wide.

Another coalition government initiative for areas where the local labour market is facing difficulties is the Stronger Transitions program. Employment facilitators are located on the ground to provide support and connect workers with potential employers, training and support services. Stronger Transitions has been assisting workers facing retrenchment to transition to new jobs and also prepare for the jobs of the future. In Tasmania, for example, a Devonport jobs fair last year was attended by 802 people. There were 44 exhibitors and 114 jobs on offer that day. Similar fairs have been held and continue to be held across the country.

Earlier this month, the Career Transition Assistance program was rolled out nationwide. The scheme will support mature-aged jobseekers to build the skills they need to transition into work by better identifying their transferable skills and improving their job readiness for jobs in their area. This will be tailored to local job markets and develop the skills needed in the area. It will also include assistance in developing digital and technological literacy.

The coalition government also continues to support a range of programs and activities for jobseekers to gain experience in the workforce. These include the PaTH internships for young jobseekers, which provide short-term work placement opportunities, allowing them to demonstrate and develop skills to improve their employment prospects. Participants of the PaTH internships are also eligible for an additional incentive payment of $200 per fortnight. More than 76,000 young people have already participated in the PaTH program, with over 62.5 per cent moving into employment after participating in at least one element of the program. The National Work Experience Program, as the name suggests, places jobseekers in work experience to gain confidence in the workforce and develop skills. There are also incentive payments available and wage subsidies for businesses that provide ongoing employment to the participants after they have completed their work experience. These are just a few of the ways that the coalition government has been encouraging more Australians to move off welfare and into work. Our goal is to get as many people into work as possible.

For those who have not yet been successful in gaining employment, the safety net provided by the government continues to be available through a range of services and relief measures. As the Senate has heard in previous contributions on this bill, 99 per cent of Newstart recipients also receive other benefit payments or allowances. These benefits include the energy supplement. Earlier this year the coalition government extended the one-off energy assistance payment to Newstart recipients in order to help with increases in energy prices. Those on Newstart who rent are eligible for rent assistance. Newstart allowance recipients are also eligible for the telephone allowance and pharmaceutical allowance. Newstart recipients with children and families are also likely to receive family tax benefit part A and/or family tax benefit part B. The coalition government invests around $29 billion each year to support families through these family tax benefits, childcare payments and the paid parental leave schemes.

The government has also invested around $2 billion in funding to support community organisations around the country. These community organisations provide help and support to vulnerable Australians when they need it most. The Department of Social Services Families and Communities Program provides further support to vulnerable families to improve children's wellbeing, to help improve financial capability and literacy and to build stronger and more resilient communities.

The coalition government is actively working to break down the barriers to unemployment, to provide the hand-up that people need to get off welfare and into the workforce. I'm sure the majority of those senators sitting opposite recognise that this bill will not fix the wide range of issues surrounding unemployment. Only a few days ago the Leader of the Opposition was quoted in The Australian newspaper as saying that this bill is 'just a little stunt' and stated that the problem with the Greens bill is that it 'was about them, not about the unemployed'. When Senator Watt spoke on the bill in the last parliament, in 2018, he made similar comments.

Labor have made these sorts of remarks about this Greens' bill but they have been much less clear about their position on Newstart. Before the election, the then opposition leader, Mr Shorten, stated that Labor would initiate some sort of review into the rate of Newstart but, curiously, when pressed would not be specific about what that meant. Even more curiously, their pre-election costings made no provision for an increase in the Newstart allowance. Just last month, when asked about Labor's position, the new shadow Treasurer, Dr Chalmers, apparently ruled out a review into Newstart from the opposition. Labor have been talking about the Greens making political stunts yet at the same time don't seem to have their own policy position on Newstart—or, if they do, they haven't shared it with the Australian people. We only know that they are doing the right thing in this instance and voting down this stunt of a bill.

There is one thing I will say about the Greens, and that is that they are consistent in their cavalier disregard for the consequences of public spending. Unlike the major political parties in this place, they have never actually had to take the responsibility of managing government finances, and in this bill seemed to adopt their usual approach that the Consolidated Revenue Fund is some sort of magic pudding which can be spent without any financial consequences for other public expenditure.

It would be more useful if all of us in this chamber and, more importantly, as citizens of this great nation returned our minds to encouraging and supporting more people to move off Newstart and into jobs. The coalition government has the track record of doing this and is continuing to assist more Australians than ever before into work and off welfare. I urge the Senate to oppose this bill.

Patrick Dodson (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Reconciliation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in relation to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Ending the Poverty Trap) Bill 2018. The rate of Newstart is obviously too low, and the government needs to increase it. It's a very simple matter, but complex. But it has to be addressed. It's just not possible to live with dignity on $40 a day. I don't know whether you've ever seen people walking in the streets hoping to find someone that might give them a dollar to supplement their meagre bit of income in order to buy something to eat or to pay for something that they need to fix. It's not a pleasant sight.

I remember an old lady once coming from Bathurst Island. She came to Darwin, and she saw Aboriginal people and white people looking into the rubbish bins—these are the public rubbish bins on the streets—for things to take out either to eat, to sell or to use in some other manner. She remarked to me that Australia must be a poor place, because people have to live by going to the rubbish bins, and that she felt very sympathetic to the Aboriginal people. I see many things on a daily basis where I come from, in Broome, and in Fitzroy Crossing, Kununurra or any of those towns in the Kimberley and the Pilbara. I don't see the lauded words about how people are well off, how they're getting ahead, where the jobs are and how people are actually participating in a world that we would like to see them participating in. Newstart is trapping people in poverty. It's pushing them into homelessness and, if you're homeless, that's the start of many other social problems, of course. It's preventing people from getting work. If there's work to be had, it prevents people from getting it.

The refusal of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to even acknowledge the seriousness of this problem appears very cruel and heartless. We're talking about fellow human beings, whether they're First Nations peoples or others or whether they're in their 50s or are young people. We're talking about people who have, for one reason or another, come to rely upon a measure that the government believes is very generous but in reality is not. How does the government expect people to find work if they can't afford a haircut, new shoes or a decent shirt? How are people meant to get to an interview if they can't afford to keep a car on the road or pay for public transport—if it exists? It does not in some of these places. How does the government expect people to keep healthy if they can't afford to eat well and eat good food, to replace a refrigerator or the air conditioning if it's broken down, or to go to the doctor and have their prescriptions actually filled?

This is why Labor took to the election a commitment to review the payment, the purpose of which was to address Newstart's inadequacy by increasing the rate and lifting people out of poverty, just as we did with the pension when we were last in government. But we did not win the election, and the ball is now in the government's court, sitting there waiting for the Treasurer and Prime Minister to act, to show some compassion and empathy with those in our society who live in poverty.

The current rate of Newstart is simply not enough to live on, and the government must increase it. There are over 722,000 Australians who rely on Newstart and almost one million Australians who rely on Newstart and other allowances, like sickness allowance and youth allowance, that are linked to the Newstart rate,. We've already heard that there is broad support for boosting Newstart. Boosting it is backed by the Business Council of Australia, as well as former Liberal leaders John Howard and John Hewson—I bet they live on more than $40 a day. COTA, the Council on the Ageing, and National Seniors have called for its increase as have COSBOA, the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, the Small Business Association of Australia, Deloitte, KPMG and the Local Government Association. We can also add the Hon. Barnaby Joyce, Senator Canavan and Senator Sinodinos to the list because of their concerns about it. Even the Reserve Bank has lent its support to an increase. When the governor, Philip Lowe, was asked recently in Adelaide whether Newstart should be increased, he said:

Anything at the moment that can boost income growth is good for the economy.

…   …   …

… stronger support payments for unemployed people will help as well but that's up to the government.

He's right. It is up to the government, and they need to explain why they keep ruling it out.

Increasing Newstart would be a very quick and very effective form of economic stimulus, as so many economists have pointed out. It would help people in those regions under the most economic pressure. An increase would be spent locally, creating jobs where they are needed and boosting the local economy. With interest rates lower than during the GFC, wages growth at a record low and unemployment and underemployment hurting families, the government has an economic opportunity here to again show how great it is at managing our economy by dealing with the least within it. Of course, the government is trying desperately to say, 'There's nothing to see here; you're all mistaken. Newstart's okay.'

In defending the indefensible, there are three red herrings that Liberal and National ministers, MPs and senators have in high rotation: people get other payments; Newstart is indexed; it's only a temporary payment. Each of these arguments is disingenuous. People on Newstart deserve to be treated with much more respect by this government. It's their government, after all, as well.

'People get other payments.' A favourite argument of ministers at the moment is to say, 'Yes, 40 bucks a day isn't very much, but, don't worry, people get other payments.' The Treasurer, Mr Frydenberg, said last week:

We're not changing Newstart and the reason why is Newstart recipients, 99 per cent of [them] receive other benefits, so it might be a parenting benefit or another benefit.

This is a very sneaky line for the Treasurer to put forward, especially when he has literally thousands of bureaucrats to make sure his numbers are right.

Let's look at the facts according to the government's own figures. In answers provided to Senate estimates, the Department of Social Security confirmed that 52 per cent of all Newstart recipients receive only the base rate of Newstart plus supplements. The most common of these is the energy supplement, which is just $8.80 a fortnight. The department has also confirmed that, on average, 52 per cent of Newstart recipients receive just $14.64 a fortnight in supplements. This means the majority of people on Newstart are getting by on $40 a day plus a dollar. 'A Dollar Down and a Dollar a Week'—haven't we heard that song before! One of the most egregious examples of out-of-touch politicians was the Treasurer seriously arguing that Newstart doesn't need to go up because most Australians get a dollar a day of other payments. This line is nothing more than a cynical sound bite. Even rent assistance is only received by 21 per cent of couples and singles on Newstart. The average rent people are paying is $456 a fortnight, and only $115, on average, is covered by rent assistance. The Treasurer should choose his words more carefully when he's talking about people in such difficult circumstances because he does wield an enormous amount of influence and, if the poor and the struggling and those who live in hopelessness do not hear words of encouragement from the second most powerful person in the country—the Treasurer—then what hope is there for them?

'Newstart is indexed.' The second red herring is the Liberals and Nationals claiming that Newstart doesn't need to be increased because it's indexed twice a year. But this is the problem: it only goes up by CPI, not the cost of living and not in line with wages. That is why people on Newstart have fallen so far behind. There hasn't been a single real increase in Newstart payments in 25 years. It simply hasn't kept up with community living standards. This compares to the pension, which Labor reviewed and boosted significantly when we were in government. Labor's changes mean the pension is indexed by whichever is higher between the CPI and the Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index, which is a better measure of cost of living. The pension is also pegged to wages. Of course, the government wants to cut pensions by linking indexation to CPI, which would be a cut of $80 a week within 10 years.

'Newstart is a temporary payment.' The third red herring regularly deployed by the Liberal and Nationals is that Newstart is only a temporary payment. This is not the case for many people, particularly if they're in regions where local economies have been hit hard by structural change. In fact, the average time a person is on Newstart is three years. Can you imagine living on $40 a day for three years? One month would drive you insane. Three years would make you give up hope that your country cared for you or that your government had any compassion for your circumstances. The question the Prime Minister and the Treasurer and the minister for social security really need to answer is not 'Could you live on $40 a day' but 'Could you live on $40 a day for three years?' That's the question. Of course no-one can do that without falling into poverty.

Older people are on Newstart. Many of those on Newstart for long periods are older Australians. People over 55 make up the single largest group on Newstart. There are more than 183,000 Australians between 55 and the pension age who are on Newstart. That is one in four people on Newstart.

It is very difficult to get another job if you have been made redundant in your late 50s. After working for decades at Holden, Ford or Toyota—most of those are gone—or at whatever employment you had, it's very hard to get re-employed in your 50s, particularly if you worked in the trades areas or other hard areas. There are many men, in particular, in this situation who are struggling to live with any dignity after working for so long.

We also speak of people on the land. There are many women who have struggled to get back into the workforce after caring for their children, looking after aged parents or divorce. This is counter to the tired old stereotype that those people opposite like to rely on, which is linking unemployment to young people. It's time the government stopped simply ignoring those on Newstart.

The head of COTA Australia, Ian Yates, has called out the government's weak arguments for refusing to increase Newstart. He said:

Just blanket saying no on the basis that it is a short-term benefit is flying in the face of reality when people over the aged of 50, and particularly over the age of 60, are regularly staying on it for many years.

It is very difficult to live on Newstart, so for older unemployed people they run down their assets and they make decisions in terms of what they eat, medicines that they might have … that again is counterproductive because that ends up costing the Government more in the health system.

Ministers claim that the pension is generous. Of course, a dismissive and uncaring attitude towards pensioners and people who rely on social security is what Australians expect from the Liberals and Nationals. Just last week, the Minister for Families and Social Services described the pension as generous. She said:

I don't think a debate about whether I could live on (the pension) or not is relevant. It is a generous amount of money …

If the pension is generous, what would the minister describe Newstart as?

All of this does matter because she's in charge. Any increase in Newstart won't happen until the minister and her government drop their opposition to it. Newstart can only increase if the government want it to increase. We all know that Newstart cannot increase until the government want it to increase; they have the numbers in the House of Representatives. It's only the government that can get money bills through the House of Representatives, as was ably told to us earlier.

Increasing Newstart is very important, but this bill we are debating today is itself simply playing politics. That's because we know the government is responsible for this and the government has to do something about it. There is absolutely no chance of increasing Newstart unless the government comes to the party. We know that's not going to happen, so we've wasted a bit of time here this morning. It's something that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have ruled out. It is time the government reviewed the payment and put forward an increase which it will support. Until it does that, hundreds of thousands of Australians will remain needlessly stuck in poverty, shut out of work and cut off from playing a full role in our community.

Australians are worried about inequality and disadvantage. We don't view ourselves as an unequal society. We don't want to tread the American pathway, but we see poverty, disadvantage and homelessness in our country. (Time expired)

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

I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Ending the Poverty Trap) Bill 2018, which my fantastic and dedicated colleague Senator Siewert has brought before this parliament once again. I laud her for doing so.

It brings to mind the purpose of us being here. We've just heard Senator Dodson deliver, in the main, a really moving speech which set out all of the beautiful arguments for the economic and social imperative for increasing Newstart. Very disappointingly, at the end of his speech he just described the whole exercise as, 'We've wasted a bit of time this morning in talking about these issues,' because he thinks that the government isn't going to do this. Well, what's the point of parliament if we are not here to advocate for the right thing to do to help people and to argue our case for good policy measures that help genuine human beings? That is, in fact, our job: to be in here and represent them.

So I feel very disappointed at the lack of hope. Sure, we've got a hideous government that doesn't give a damn about anyone except its wealthy donors; but we see positive steps, with people in the business community calling for an increase in Newstart. Of course we have ACOSS and other fantastic community organisations that have long called for an increase in Newstart, but we now have people in the Nationals calling for an increase in Newstart and we now have people in the Labor ranks calling for an increase in Newstart. So I just don't accept that it is a waste of time for us to continue to raise this and to put out the actual experiences of people who are being forced to live so far below the poverty line. It is beyond a lack of dignity; it is a crime, in my view. I think that is actually a really important task for us. That is how we convince people to change their minds and to do the right thing, to step up and actually act like a government and act in the interests of people.

The evidence is really clear. We saw, just two weeks ago, in some misguided attempt at economic stimulus, $158 billion dished out—$90-odd billion of which is going to people who are already extremely wealthy. All of the economic commentators say that is not the way to create stimulus. Those people will bank that money. We have three million Australians who are living in poverty, below the poverty line, on Newstart. If they want economic stimulus, even if they don't care about the human face of these people—and it's pretty clear that they haven't so far—then lift Newstart. These people are desperate to spend that money because they don't actually have enough money to meet their basic needs. I'm sure they want a second-hand pair of shoes to go to that interview. I'm sure they want the bus fare or the petrol money to get to that interview. I'm sure they want to buy their child lunch for school.

These are real people we are talking about, and it's very disappointing, when there is clear drive in the community and across the business and community sectors—and now amongst the backbench—for this to happen, that hope is given up too early. We will not give up fighting for this, and more and more people are going to join the call for this. I think it's inevitable that we will get an increase in Newstart, because that is actually our job here in parliament. It's to act in the interests of Australians. It is perfectly clear, when you have three million Australians who cannot afford to feed their children or to get to a job interview, that there is an unmet need here. I have confidence that ultimately this rate will be lifted, and I, personally, hope that it's by more than $75.

They have to live on 40 bucks a day, and after they've paid their rent it's less than $17. It often gets asked rhetorically, 'Could you live on $40 a day?' It's just really embarrassing to listen to people like Minister Cormann refuse to answer that question. The answer is obvious: no-one can live on $40 a day, let alone for the average of three years that we condemn people to live on it for. Why don't they just come out and be honest about it? A transition payment! I wish! But there are actually more people than jobs. The statistics show that it's a good three years that people are stuck on it. In fact, 15 per cent of people have been on it for more than five years. A particularly heartbreaking thing is that these are often older workers. These people are desperate to get back into the workforce. No-one will hire them.

When you add to that the housing crisis that we are in—and we saw that Anglicare study, I think, last year; Senator Siewert reminded me of it earlier. It showed that, actually, there was one property in the whole of the nation that was considered affordable to rent if you were on Newstart. That is one property for the three million people that are in poverty on Newstart. If the government aren't going to raise Newstart, what are they going to do about fixing the housing crisis? Unfortunately, they will not do much, by the sound of their policy platform. They'd rather run scare campaigns about franking credits for rich people.

I am very embarrassed by the agenda of this government and I think it brings the entire institution into disrepute when we see massive tax cuts handed out to wealthy people, massive corporate tax cuts and favours done for big donors, while ordinary Australians and the environment on which we all rely are utterly neglected, derided and degraded. The cheek of you. Have some dignity, have some compassion and please reflect on what your role is in this place. Are you here just to go out for lunch with lobbyists and line up the job that you want to move into after you finish in politics? I hope that doesn't describe everyone in this place. I certainly know it doesn't describe us Greens. But, seriously, we've got an opportunity to do the right thing here.

I also heard one of our newer senators describe this bill as a stunt. We in this party will continue to raise issues that need action. We will continue to stand up for people that deserve a bit of extra help in this incredibly wealthy nation of ours, where the gap between the wealthy and the have-nots is growing. We make no apology for putting these issues on the agenda. You might find it awkward, inconvenient or a waste of time, as it was, sadly, described, but we do not. There are three million people that need our help. It's up to you how you vote on this bill, and I believe you're not even going to let us have a vote on this bill today. When this bill does eventually come to a vote, I hope that people vote with their conscience and vote according to their professed values. Let's just get this done, folks. Let's be honest; we spend a lot of time wasting time in this place. This is one of the real issues that could materially improve people's lives. We could help many millions of people, hundreds of thousands of those children. What more noble and worthy cause could there be?

So I urge people to back up the pretty words, to back up your backbench statements supporting this and to listen to the business community that wants this done. You normally listen to them on everything else; I don't know why you've got a tin ear when it comes to increasing Newstart. Please, let's get this done, folks. Let's actually rise out of the mud and the embarrassment of the way in which this place normally conducts itself and do something good for a change.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm delighted to rise this morning just to make some brief remarks on the private senator's bill moved by Senator Siewert on behalf of the Australian Greens, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Ending the Poverty Trap) Bill 2018. I'd like to restrict my comments to three themes. The first is a very interesting point that Senator Askew made in her contribution. I'm surprised that Senator Waters hasn't yet tackled what I thought was a very substantive issue that Senator Askew raised. Second, I want to draw attention to the point that the Newstart issue should be seen in the broader context of what is happening to employment growth and employment opportunities for Australians more generally. And, in the interests of complete frankness and transparency, I think it is important that we reflect on some of the comments that have been made, particularly by those on the centre-right of Australian politics. I do think it always curious—and those who were watching would have seen the smile on my face—when Senator Waters reaches out to bring to her side of the argument the likes of the member for New England, the former senator Barnaby Joyce; and Senator Canavan. You just can't help but grin when you think that the strength of the argument that the Australian Greens are making relies heavily on the contributions or the points of view of Senator Canavan and the former Senator Barnaby Joyce, though they are people that I pay close attention to.

Let me just read from Senator Askew's opening statement in her contribution, which I think might have been Senator Askew's first contribution on a piece of legislation since her maiden speech. Let me just remind the Senate what Senator Askew said, and when we debate this again in the future before we do bring it to a vote, which I understand will not be today, I hope that the Greens might just reflect on this point and bring back to the Senate a response. Senator Askew said in her opening remarks:

This bill … proposed by the Greens, seeks to amend the Social Security Act to increase Newstart, Austudy and other welfare payments by $150 per fortnight and to standardise indexation for some of those welfare payments.

I have no argument with that.

Yet, in spite of its name, it doesn't actually do what the Greens have said it will do, nor does it propose a clear direction to end the so-called poverty trap.

Senator Askew says:

Section 53 of the Constitution makes clear that a measure appropriating revenue or moneys shall not originate in the Senate, so this bill includes a clause in part 5 to state that there will in fact be no increase in any of the social security benefits mentioned in the bill, including the Newstart allowance, unless money is appropriated by the parliament for that purpose. It is … a stunt.

It's a stunt—not my words. I do believe it is a political stunt, but that is not to distract from the substantive issue about whether Newstart should be increased, and I'll come to that in a moment. But who else called this particular private senator's bill a stunt? Who else called it a stunt? I notice Senator Sterle and Senator McCarthy are here in the chamber. I wonder if they call recall who else called this a stunt just in the last few days? It was none other than the Leader of the Opposition, Anthony Albanese. A few days ago the Leader of the Opposition was quoted in The Australian newspaper as saying, 'This bill is just a little stunt.' So the problem with the Greens bill is that it is about them and not about the unemployed.

This is not the first Leader of the Opposition to have made such remarks. Before the election, the opposition leader, Mr Shorten, stated that Labor would initiate some sort of review into the rate of Newstart but, curiously, when pressed, would not be specific about what that meant. Even more curiously, Labor's pre-election costings made no provision for any increase in Newstart allowance. Just in front of me here, I also have some comments from the member for Rankin, Mr Chalmers, who I think is now the shadow Treasurer. I might stand corrected but I'm happy to come back in a future contribution if that's required. I think he said that Labor wouldn't be progressing with that review that had been proposed prior to the election. I've heard in this place before a bit of tit for tat between Labor and the Greens about whether the review was suitable, whether or not the Greens bill is actually a stunt. But, putting all of that aside for a moment, I think it is important to reflect on the very, very substantial achievements of what is now the Morrison government and the governments under prime ministers Turnbull and Morrison in regard to employment growth in our country, because an increase in the Newstart allowance should be seen in the context of what is happening more broadly with employment growth.

Let me run through a key few points. The first is—no surprise, and this was endorsed by the country at the recent election—an endorsement for the Morrison government to continue its focus on delivering a strong economy that has seen the largest increase in jobs since the global financial crisis, with more than 1.3 million jobs created since the coalition was elected. The proportion of Australians receiving working-age income support payments has fallen to its lowest level in 13 years and is now just at 14.3 per cent. There were 230,000 fewer working-age recipients on income support payments between June 2014 and June 2018, and add to that that more than 100,000 young Australians between the ages of 15 and 24 found employment—the highest number in our history. To put that in perspective, 52,000 jobs were lost in the same category between November 2007 and August 2013.

But, despite making some political statements at the beginning of my contribution, and moving to the more substantive issue of what is happening to employment growth in our country, which is a positive story, I am someone who believes that the Newstart allowance amount must be more than reviewed, which was Labor's position; it should be increased. I think that Liberals should pay very, very close attention to the comments of former leader John Howard on this matter. And, while I'm someone who treats with a degree of caution what the big business community might say in our country, I do think that the comments of the Reserve Bank Governor, Philip Lowe—I don't think the way that those comments have been represented in this place is necessarily completely accurate—in terms of the importance of wages growth in our country is something that should weigh heavily on the mind of every coalition member and senator.

I might just add this point: the accusation that the coalition is somehow mean-spirited or cold-hearted when it comes to the real living costs of Australians is a shallow political statement. Nothing demonstrates the fact that these issues are alive to members of the government more than the government's very quick responsiveness to the matter of deeming for older Australians. I think even the commentary today on the front page of The Australian newspaper, where coalition members and senators are actively thinking about alternative ways of generating wages growth in our country, and as a consequence of that advanced economic growth, demonstrates that economic issues are top-of-mind, first-order issues for this government. And I am someone who argues for being open-minded about Newstart, giving heavy attention to the comments of Mr Howard and the Reserve Bank Governor as being a very powerful starting point.

Just for the record, I think it's important to share with the Senate what it was that Mr Howard did actually say in May 2018. Mr Howard was asked a question at the PricewaterhouseCoopers post-budget breakfast. The interviewer asked Mr Howard, 'Mr Howard, do you agree Newstart should increase?' Mr Howard responded:

Yes, I actually think there is an argument about that, I do …

The interviewer said, 'What is that argument?' Mr Howard responded:

I think it is—I was in favour of freezing it when it happened, but I think that probably that freeze has gone on too long.

So I do think that these matters should be top of mind. They do deserve careful consideration. And, with those brief remarks, I look forward to coming back to the Senate to continue my contribution. With that, I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.