Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think we need to take stock at the beginning of this committee stage to recognise what we're talking about—that is, the ability for those living on income support to be living dignified lives, to be able to fulfil their potential, to be able to get through and not be living in dire and abject poverty, to have a society where we care for everybody, or, in the words of the Labor government, where we don't leave anybody behind.

This bill is called 'strengthening the safety net', and it is very clear from the evidence before us, it is very clear from the cruel policies of the previous decade of the Liberal government, that we don't have a safety net. In the words of one of the submitters to the inquiry into this bill, what we have is a parachute with holes in it. Eventually, people relying on that parachute with holes are going to hit the bottom. What the bill before us today will do is put a tiny patch on one of those holes in the parachute; it is not going to stop jobseekers hitting the bottom.

The Greens, of course, want to see increases in income support so that people can live lives of dignity, so people can get by, so they have an income that is liveable so they can survive. This bill does not do this. This bill has an increase of $2.85 a day in income support—$2.85. The government is crowing about indexation, which is something all governments have done. I don't understand why we should suddenly be giving kudos to the government for indexing payments when it is a standard thing and has always happened. The payment for people on income support will be increased by $4 a day, which would still leave them way, way below the poverty line. Four dollars a day will not cut it for people who are only eating a meal a day. Four dollars a day is not going to cut it for people who can't afford to put a roof over their heads, who are currently living in tents, living in cars, living on the streets, couch surfing, being moved back into an overcrowded family home, having to stay in a situation of family violence because they can't afford to move out. Four dollars a day is still going to leave people in dire poverty, yet this government had a choice.

They have made a choice to increase income support by only that tiny amount at the same time as they are going ahead with the stage 3 tax cuts that are going to give $9,000 a year in tax cuts to every one of us in this place, to every billionaire, to everybody in the top two per cent of society. You have chosen to do that rather than lift people who are living on income support out of poverty. You have made the choice to give only this paltry $4-a-day increase. On the other hand, you're going to spend $368 billion on war machines, on nuclear powered submarines, and you have chosen to give only a paltry $4-a-day increase when you're sitting on a budget surplus of $20 billion that could make a meaningful difference to the lives of people living in poverty. That's where I want to start. That's what this bill is doing.

There are some good things in this bill. We absolutely support the changes to parenting payment single so that single-parent families will be able to access parenting payment single for children up to the age of 14. We want to see it up to the age of 16; I am going to move amendments for that to be the case. We also want to see those payments brought forward as quickly as possible so we don't have this ridiculous situation of families whose kids are turning eight right now being taken off parenting payment single and going back into dire poverty by living on JobSeeker, who are going to be struggling for the coming three months until their payment then goes up again. We will be moving amendments for the date that that comes in to be brought forward from the date of royal assent.

Fundamentally, there is so much more that could be done, and the evidence shows that that's what should be being done. The government's own Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee—which it set up, handpicked, with its own former Labor minister chairing it—told it that it needed to make a serious increase to the rate of JobSeeker and other work related payments. Yet you have squibbed that. You have not listened to that advice. You are leaving people behind.

I want to start off, Minister, by asking: do you think people living on income support should be forced to live below the poverty line?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Senator Rice. This is a very substantial investment in the social safety net by the Albanese government. It's a $9½ billion investment, with substantial increases to payments—including the JobSeeker payment. The $40 increase means the basic rate of the JobSeeker payment will increase by $56.10 to $749.20 every fortnight from September this year if this legislation passes unamended through the Senate. That's what will happen. These are substantial increases.

I take your point, and the government has always taken the point, that many of those Australians who live on social security payments are doing it very tough. Rates of homelessness are unacceptable, and that is why the government has a series of reforms in this place—which are currently being opposed by the majority of senators in this place. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister have made it clear that, in every budget, this government will examine where it is possible to make improvements. We have taken advice from the task force you've referred to but also more broadly from across the community sector. We have formed a view these are very substantial increases. I commend the whole bill to the Senate. Thank you for traversing the whole context of this, and I look forward to further discussion.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister, for that explanation of the position of the government on the bill, but you didn't answer my question. My question was a very simple one, with a 'yes' or 'no' answer: do you think people living on income support should be living below the poverty line?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish that all Australians lived above the poverty line. I wish that all Australians had the benefit of work and support from the government, that housing was available at rates that were affordable. There are very significant challenges out there. The government have determined that this is the package that we are bringing forward. It is a very substantial package and I think it should be supported.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You said that you would like all people to be living above the poverty line, so can I be clear: do you think that people who are living on income support should be forced to live below the poverty line?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government is offering this very substantial improvement to the social welfare net. That is the government's position.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Ayres. Senator Rice is on her feet.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a very simple question that I've been asking the minister and I would like a simple answer. Yes or no, does he believe that people relying on income support should be forced to live below the poverty line?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Rice, that isn't a point of order. The minister was in process of answering your question. I will remind the minister of Senator Rice's question and ask the minister to continue his response.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Minister.

Minister, what I hear you saying is that you think that all people should be able to live above the poverty line. That is what I heard from a couple of answers ago. Well then, why aren't you acting? Why has the government decided to not increase income support to lift people out of poverty? It had been done before. The previous government, during the COVID pandemic, had the JobSeeker supplement that raised people out of poverty. This had massive, excellent implications for people's quality of life. It enabled people to pay to get their cars repaired. It enabled people to pay for their medications. It enabled people to put food on the table for their kids and not be living in poverty. Your government has made a choice to leave people below the poverty line, yet you are saying that you think all people should be able to live a life of dignity above the poverty line. That's what I hear you saying. So why aren't you acting? Why have you made that choice to leave people languishing below the poverty line at the same time as going ahead with the stage 3 tax cuts that are going to cost the bottom line over $300 billion that would more than adequately pay for increasing income support to above the poverty line?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think what's important here is to understand the total context of the package that is being brought forward. A single JobSeeker payment recipient aged under 55, without children, who's living alone and receiving the maximum rate of rent assistance, will receive an extra $84 a fortnight. Commonwealth rent assistance has been increased by the largest amount ever. These are very significant increases that accord with the commitments that the government has made.

I understand that there are alternative views, and that some of them will eventually take the shape of amendments in this committee-of-the-whole process. It's important to understand the fiscal context within which the government operates. Some of those amendments would create an additional impact on the budget of billions and billions of dollars just over the forward estimates. The government has had to weigh the fiscal consequences of these questions against the backdrop of rising inflation—inflation that's out there in the community. We should be paying very close attention to dealing with inflation. It affects low-income people more than anybody else.

The package that is being delivered here is substantial. If it makes its way through this chamber unamended, it will be in people's accounts in the last week of September.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to clarify, Minister: are you claiming that for those individuals you mentioned, living alone with their children, getting the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance, that their income support is going to be above the poverty line?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm claiming that in the real world it's a real amount of money. It's a real increase, and it makes a real difference. That is what the government is dealing with here: a set of payments and an increase to payments that are real and that will be there. I absolutely understand that—not just in this place but more broader in the community—Australians will make the argument for more. I respect that argument. But these are real amounts of money—a real government is following through on its commitments—and, should this legislation make its way unamended through here—they will make their way into real people's accounts and make a real difference. That is what I'm saying, Senator Rice.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge it will make a difference to people. We will not be standing in the way of getting this real increase—although it is absolutely insufficient—because $4 a day will make a difference. It might enable people to put a bit of extra food in their kids' lunchboxes. It might mean they can eat two meals a day instead of one meal a day. But my question remains: even with this real increase, I would like to know whether you accept that this increase is not going to lift people above the poverty line? People will be grateful for this increase, because they are living in absolute dire poverty now. They will welcome an extra $4 a day, but they would have welcomed much more an extra $40 a day, which would have lifted them above the poverty line. I just want to get a straight answer from the government, to acknowledge that, with this increase, people on income support are still going to be living in poverty.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a political question asked for a political purpose, designed to prosecute a political campaign. I understand that point. I get it. But what has been said out there in the community sector? The Australian Council of Social Services said just this afternoon in an ACOSS statement on the strengthening the safety net bill: 'We are calling for parliament to pass the strengthening the safety net bill without further delay, to deliver the increases to income supports people desperately need.' I emphasise the words 'without further delay', and I think that ought to be borne in mind in terms of the way the debate is managed in this Committee of the Whole process.

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

By leave—I move amendments (1) to (3) and (4) to (6) on sheet 2041 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 6), omit "14", substitute "16".

(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 8), omit "14", substitute "16".

(3) Schedule 1, item 3, page 3 (line 10), omit "14", substitute "16".

(4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 15), omit "20 September 2023", substitute "the commencement of this item".

(5) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 19), omit "20 September 2023", substitute "the commencement of this item".

(6) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 23), omit "20 September 2023", substitute "the commencement of this item".

I am also moving these amendments on behalf of Senator Rice; I understand the Greens will not be moving their own amendments that are very similar to these. I thank Senator Rice for her ongoing work in this area standing up for people in our communities across the country who desperately need more support to get their lives back together and stay on their feet. I would also like to acknowledge the member for North Sydney, Kylie Tink, for her work on this and for moving very similar amendments to these in the House of Representatives.

Minister, you rightly pointed to inflation as a big issue. We've seen numerous reports over the last few weeks and months about the effect that corporate profits are having on inflation in Australia. We have seen the banks making $60,000 a minute at the moment, and then we've seen—which is really troubling, and Australians across the country are feeling this every day—the supermarkets making more profits than any comparable supermarkets in developed countries.

I'd like to know what the government is planning to do to ensure that the duopoly of supermarkets is not ripping off Australians every day and making more profit than it should be, not only making life hard for Australians across the country but also, as we know from expert analysis, driving inflation.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Pocock. First, I would just like to indicate that it seemed, from what you were saying, that, in regard to the amendments proposed by you that go to the age for the parenting payment, there's a similar amendment from the Australian Greens. It sounds like there's some coordination there, so I'm grateful for that efficiency and assistance. That will mean that we move in a more speedy and coherent way through this discussion.

In terms of the parenting payment itself, I'll wait and see if you have questions or if, in your remarks around that, the government needs to respond to it—except to say that it is a very substantial shift. I am aware and the government is aware that advocates have been arguing for more, but, almost unanimously, advocates out there in the community like Ms Edwards and Ms Mostyn have said that this is a very significant increase.

In terms of the government's approach to enforcing competition law and to supermarket and retail prices, it's a little bit outside the scope of the parameters of this bill, but it is a reasonable question. The ACCC has to do its work. If you need more information from the government on the government's approach in terms of supermarket prices and competition, I'm very happy to make sure that additional briefings are provided, either directly to you or to the parliament. There is a very important set of issues there and the government is focused on competition in that market and other markets.

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

I have a question on the amendment. I understand the government's position, and, indeed, this is an improvement. I do note, though, that two of the government's own committees recommended lifting the age to 16. Why did the government choose not to take the expert advice of the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce and the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's an important point to make: the government actively seeks advice. We are not a closed door to different views.

Most different views, Senator Ruston. We actually want to engage with the community sector, who, of course, will have ambition in these areas. We want to engage with the business community about welfare reform. We want to engage with the trade union movement about welfare reform. We are not afraid of alternative views, and we are prepared to engage with that; the government has engaged with that. This is a $1.9 billion expansion of eligibility. There are 60,000 single principal carers currently on the JobSeeker payment whose youngest child is under 14 who will transfer to the single parent payment on 20 September 2023. That is a very big group of Australians for whom this will make a very big difference. And I will just make the point again that the government is happy to engage in here on these questions, just as we are happy to engage with the community. This is a very substantial increase; it is a very substantial change. It has been welcomed right across the sector, but I take the point, of course, that people in the community have argued for more, and that will continue to be the case.

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

Could you clarify what the process will be for people who have fallen off the payment to reapply? Will that be seamless? Will they be informed that they're now eligible for the payment? And what sort of time frame will it take for people to get back onto that payment?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Of course, there is a very significant effort going on here to implement what I call the machinery of government but what are the ICT systems, the processes, the way that Services Australia engages with Australians who are eligible for these measures. That is why 20 September has been identified as—what do they say in management speak?—a stretch target, but it's an achievable date. That commitment has been made.

The ICT changes encompass the suite of changes to be delivered, not just the changes to the parenting payment. It's not just a simple rate change, and it can't be implemented simply by entering a new program into the system or hitting a switch. The parenting payment single, until the new measure is legislated, will continue to be administered according to the existing legislation. Services Australia, I'm advised, is implementing a range of measures to support recipients in this cohort, including communication with affected individuals to ensure that they are aware of the impact of changes on their circumstances and that they're supported to automatically transfer between payments. From 20 September 2023, Services Australia will automatically transition single parents who are principal carers, whose youngest child is under 14 and who are on the JobSeeker payment to parenting payment single. So, if the information is there in the system, they will be automatically transferred.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition won't be supporting setting the eligibility of parenting payment single to 16 from 14, but we do wish to put on the record the concerns that we have in relation to the removal of ParentsNext as a program to maintain connectivity between people who are caring for children and the workforce. But we will support the extension that's being brought forward by the government to 14 years of age. We do acknowledge that there are measures to address and recognise the caring responsibilities of Australians who have young children.

We are particularly keen to understand: if you're going to increase the age to 14 at the same time as you are going to remove ParentsNext as a program to maintain the connectivity of people who have caring responsibilities with the workforce, has the government made any consideration in relation to how that connectivity is able to be maintained in the absence of ParentsNext and in recognition of the increase in the age to 14?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Ruston for her indication of the coalition's position in relation to the parenting payment. It is an important reform. It is going to make a very significant difference for, as I said, 60,000 Australians from 20 September. The ParentsNext issues are not within the scope of this bill. The government will always be focused on making sure that, broadly, across the whole suite of the government's policy offerings, there is the maximum opportunity for women, particularly women with children, to participate in the world of work. It's an important policy objective, and the government will continue to pursue it.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To take that one step further, you've said that ParentsNext is not within the scope of this bill, but, clearly, this bill has an impact on the very same people. We're talking about people with children; the purpose of ParentsNext was to keep those people connected to the workforce. My question was about whether the government has given any consideration specifically to the impact of lifting the age of eligible children to 14 under the single parenting payment when, at the same time—albeit by different mechanism—you are removing this program for people with caring responsibilities to maintain some level of connection with the workforce. Are you saying that nothing has happened, or is there some other piece of information or policy development that we can look to somewhere else? I'm not asking for it to be in this bill, but could you point to where else you're looking to maintain this connection to the workforce?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are of course no changes, as I've indicated here, to mutual obligation more broadly. Over time, the government's approach to these questions will unfold. It will not be, as I understand it, led from this portfolio.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I confirm that the Greens will be supporting the requests and amendments moved by Senator David Pocock, which are identical to the requests and amendments that we were moving. I'll withdraw requests (1) to (3) and amendments (4) to (6) on sheet 2037. I start off with that clarification.

Certainly, in supporting them, we feel these amendments are important in building upon the measures in this bill. As I have said over the last months and will continue to say, we support the measures in the bill, which reintroduce the parenting payment single for single-parent families whose children are aged over eight. It's an important measure, and we really do congratulate the advocates who have worked so hard to get the government to engage with this and to make this change. It will make an absolute, measurable difference to so many families' lives and to so many children's lives once they are able to access the increased rate of support under parenting payment single rather than the abysmally poor rate of JobSeeker. We know that it is, to some extent, reversing the changes that the Howard government introduced, which forced parents to lose access to the payment when their youngest child turned eight.

However, the government is only increasing the parenting payment single until a child is aged 14, leaving 18,290 single parents currently without access to the payment based on the latest available data. We are concerned, as I know are the advocates. We know that the needs of single-parent families don't go away when their children turn 14. Some of those parents are already engaging in the workforce well before their children being 14. They might be working part-time, so are using the parenting payment single to top up the income coming into the household so they can afford to live. Any of us who have had teenage children aged between 14 and 16, or who are thinking of the struggles of being a single parent with children aged between 14 and 16, know the need for this support is still there. The amendments moved by Senator Pocock and I would reinstate the measure to the way it was before former Prime Minister Howard changed it back to eight.

The other measure in these amendments is to bring forward the date of implementation. I hear what the minister says—that 20 September is the earliest the department could do it. Frankly, I don't accept that. Frankly, we have a situation of this incredible cut-off that potentially could have been solved by having some level of temporary payment. There were all sorts of measures that could have been brought into play to bridge that gap so that families with kids turning eight after 1 July would be able to access the payment immediately rather than having to wait for 20 September.

So I want to know: did the government have any consideration at all of enabling families whose kids are turning eight as of 1 July to access this increased payment or a temporary bridging payment immediately, so that they weren't forced into living in poverty on the totally inadequate JobSeeker payment for those months between 1 July and 20 September?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks very much, Senator Rice, and thank you for your comments in relation to the impact of changing the eligibility here. It is going to change the lives of 60,000 families in September, in a very substantial way. It's a $1.9 billion change. It is a very substantial measure. The government and the minister sought advice at all levels from the department about how the changes to this payment could be made best, most reliably and in the most sound way possible, in legal and policy delivery terms. I hear your cynicism, but 20 September is the most ambitious timetable that could be delivered. The government is determined to deliver it. It is, of course, as I say, contingent on the rapid progress of this piece of legislation through the Senate and the House of Representatives this week.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Included in my questions was the question: did you look at any potential bridging payments? If 20 September is the earliest date that the department says they could get all of this in place—as I said, I don't accept that that's the case, but even if that is the case—was there consideration of any bridging payment for the 8,000 families who are going to be forced onto JobSeeker in the interim?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Rice. I didn't mean to gloss over that issue in terms of the possibility of bridging payments. A bridging payment itself would require legislative authorisation. If this bill makes its way through the Senate and House of Representatives this week, the timetable for delivery of payments is 20 September. There is no capacity for government to just make payments by fiat. This is the most legally sound and public policy sound way of proceeding. That advice has been sought, and that's why the government has adopted the approach that it has.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, what do you say to these 8,145 single-parent families who have had their income support slashed from 1 July, who were living on a still not-adequate-enough parenting payment single but are now going to be in dire poverty? Almost none of them have got savings to fall back on. Many of them won't have family support. They are going to be struggling to pay the rent. People are going to be at risk of homelessness, and they've got three months of living on this JobSeeker payment before their income goes back up again. What do you say to them, to those families that are going to be in dire circumstances? When they come knocking on the door of an MP's office or when they're knocking on the door of the Centrelink office to say, 'Hey, I can't pay the rent; I'm about to be homeless,' what do you say to them?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I say is that single-parent families who are currently not eligible for that payment will, as a result of this legislation, be eligible for that payment for the whole period while their kids are nine, 10, 11, 12, 13 and all the way through to 14.

This is a very substantial change, and this government will deliver those changes in a way that is legally sound and public policy sound. No person will be worse off, but, on 20 September, 60,000 single parents and their children will be eligible for a significant expansion in payments.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't think that's going to cut it for people who are about to be homeless. In three months time they'll be getting more money, and the government is saying that it's supporting them, yet there is this cliff that they have already gone off. If people in that circumstance turn up to a Centrelink office and say, 'I'm about to be homeless,' what support is the government going to be able to offer them?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was about to come to that issue precisely, Senator Rice, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to deal with that. First, I'd say that I understand that—not just in here but also in the community—people will make the case for more. I understand it. But let's be measured and precise in terms of the arguments that we're making. It is not three months. It is six weeks. There will be 60,000 individual parents and their children who benefit from the expanded eligibility here. As you say, there has been a long period of time when people have brought their kids up without access to those payments, and that has been very difficult. For families who are in the situation that you describe, who are experiencing extreme circumstances, there are emergency supports available for them, of course. They should contact Services Australia. There is the crisis payment, and there are other emergency relief payments and assistance that are available. But, as I say, on 20 September that expanded eligibility will be available to those 60,000 families.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just in terms of the timing, it's 10 weeks, isn't it? It's all of July and August and half of September.

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I remember another debate in here that got untidy when people were talking about dates and birthdays and all sorts of things. I don't want to revisit that.

We'll measure it in days, Senator Rice, and I'll come back to you about that question if you like.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The measures came into place, however, on 1 July. People were taken off the parenting payment single. If they had a child that turned eight on 1 July, they would have been off the parenting payment single from 1 July. I want to go to the impact analysis prepared for the parenting payment single changes, in particular the analysis for option 1(c). It says:

Relative to the other options considered, the greater length of time on the higher payment rate may disincentivise single parents from re-engaging with the workforce even where they may have capacity as their youngest child grows in independence. This risk is somewhat mitigated by the continuation of mutual obligations requirements and incentives to workforce participation that exist in the social security system.

Is the department effectively saying in this that they think that paying people income support—paying people the parenting payment single—makes them less likely to work?

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's hard for me to read into the mind of the author of that particular sentence that you've outlined. I'd just say that the government's position is that nothing is changing here in terms of the role of mutual obligations in the system.

The government may make changes over time, but those arrangements are undisturbed and the government is focused at this time on expanding the eligibility of the parenting payment to a broader cohort of Australians.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, regardless of that, is it fair to say, then, that the government is choosing to send parents back into the workforce? We know that they're going to lose access to the parenting payment single, so you're going to be choosing to send people back into the workforce when their youngest child turns 14, rather than giving them the extra two years that were in place before former prime minister Howard legislated to slash it down to the age of eight.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government's decision here is to move from eight to 14—not 13 and not 15, but 14. Irrespective of what position the government adopts, there is a point where families lose eligibility for the payment. This is a very substantial increase, and it offers expanded payments and expanded eligibility for 60,000 families.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there no-one seeking the call? Senator Roberts.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My questions are to the minister. I have two questions. This bill is specifically trying to partially solve a problem that government caused—not just your government but the previous government. The extra costs people are facing in our community right across the country are due to skyrocketing electricity prices cascading through all stages of our economy, driving inflation. That has been admitted by the energy relief payments that were announced in the budget. The 2050 net zero target, coming from the UN policy, is hurting Australians all over the country. It has been admitted. We've also got insane Greens climate policies destroying baseload power, forcing up prices, thanks to the Labor Party and the Liberals and Nationals, who've adopted these Greens and UN policies. We've got high immigration, driving up house prices and rents.

I've recently been travelling, for the last five weeks or so, in regional Queensland. In Bundaberg people are sleeping in tents, caravans and cars in parks. In Gladstone, people are sleeping in tents, caravans and cars in showgrounds, and that is happening across regional Queensland. We've had a mismanaged response to COVID, with half a trillion dollars in cash splashed around, driving inflation and, of course, higher prices. While shutting down the supply side of the economy, it was driving up prices.

People are doing it tough, Minister, because of your policies. My first question is: are you aware of that? Secondly, who's paying for this solution to the problem you've created? I'll tell you who's paying for the largesse in this budget and the ability to afford these increased welfare payments, which are necessary because people are doing it tough due to your policies. I'll tell you who's paying for it: agriculture, with exports recently at record levels; the mining of coal—I'm proudly wearing a tie that I got 40 years ago from a coal company—and the mining of iron ore and other minerals. That's what's paying for our ability to afford these increased payments. Government is causing the problems, slamming everyday Australians, and mining and farming are providing the money to ease the burden government has inflicted. Are you aware of that, Minister?

When you sit back and look at it, every major problem in this country is due to government, largely the federal government. Who pays? It is always the people who pay. Yet who has the solutions? It is the people. We could fix this far better, Minister, if we just addressed productive capacity. We will be supporting Greens amendment 2028, limiting the period for recovering errors from people overpaid to six years, and we will be supporting the bill as it stands at the moment.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not sure that I can offer a response to all of the issues that Senator Roberts traversed there.

But I'd make this point: the government is very aware of the impact on the cost of living of Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation's illegal invasion—violent, brutal, illegal invasion—of Ukraine and the impact that it's had on energy prices. We are very aware of the impact of nearly a decade of energy policy failure in terms of investment in the Australian energy system and its responsiveness to change. We are making the investments now to fix the transmission grid, and we're making sure that it is able to absorb more low-cost renewables and storage. And the government took steps, which were opposed by some people in here, to put caps and other mechanisms in place to make sure that energy prices that rose significantly—spiked significantly—as a result of Russia's illegal war in Ukraine had as much smaller impact on Australian households and businesses.

I acknowledge, though, there are rising costs for Australian families, and the government policy, Senator Roberts, matters—it matters. Sensible, careful policy in the national interest matters, and that is what this government is determined to do. We are a government that does what we said we would to do, and that is the course upon which we are embarking. Bringing it back to this legislation, this legislation is completely consistent with the approach that the government took during the election to fiscal prudence and to making sure that no Australians are left behind.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Blaming Ukraine for a problem that has been caused entirely in this country leads to misleading the population of Australia and hiding the problem. The real problem is our energy prices. Coal prices have gone up internationally but not for Australian contracts feeding power stations in this country. Stop misleading the parliament. Coal prices that feed our electricity in this country are still on the same long-term contracts at $80 to $100 a tonne as they had been before Ukraine became an issue. What's really killing this country is investment in solar and wind, which are inherently more expensive because they produce far less and lower-density electricity and so their unit costs of electricity are far higher.

Every time a coal-fired power station is shut in this country, we see the spike and an increase in electricity prices. Minister, it is important that governments in this country start facing up to the reality rather than blaming something in Ukraine. Ukraine had nothing to do with the continuation of coal prices in this country not rising at all. It had nothing to do with energy prices rising due to solar and wind and subsidies and now you safeguard mechanism adding to fines for coal-fired power. These are the things that are crippling our country and crippling our productive capacity.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Ayres, you may want to respond to those elements that are relevant to the amendment.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't need any encouragement, but I'm grateful for it, Madam Acting Deputy President, and will stick to the parameters of the legislation that is indeed in front of the Senate. If Senator Roberts has any questions that are directed towards that, I'd be delighted to answer them.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) to (3) and (4) to (6) on sheet 2041, moved together by Senator David Pocock, be agreed to.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It now being past 1.30, the committee will report to the Senate.

Progress reported.