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

I seek leave to move Australian Greens requests (1) to (7) on sheet 1969 together.

Leave granted.

I move:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:

(1) Page 3 (after line 23), after Schedule 1, insert:

Schedule 1A — Changes to qualifying age for youth allowance and jobseeker payments

Part 1 — Youth allowance

Social Security Act 1991

1 Paragraph 543B(1)(a)

Omit "22", substitute "18".

2 Subparagraph 543B(1)(b)(iii)

Omit "22", substitute "18".

3 Paragraph 543B(1)(d)

Omit "22", substitute "18".

4 Subsection 1067A(4) (table item 3)

Repeal the item, substitute:

Part 2 — Jobseeker payment

Social Security Act 1991

5 Subparagraph 593(1)(g)(i)

Omit "22", substitute "18".

6 Subparagraph 593(1B)(b)(i)

Omit "22", substitute "18".

7 Subparagraph 593(1D)(b)(i)

Omit "22", substitute "18".

Part 3 — Consequential amendments

Farm Household Support Act 2014

8 Section 7 (paragraph beginning "A person's rate")

Omit "22", substitute "18".

9 Subdivision A of Division 8 of Part 2 (heading)

Omit "22", substitute "18".

10 Subsection 55(1)

Omit "22", substitute "18".

11 Section 56

Omit "22", substitute "18".

12 Section 57

Omit "22", substitute "18".

13 Section 58

Omit "22", substitute "18".

14 Subsection 59(1)

Omit "22", substitute "18".

15 Subsection 59(2)

Omit "22" (wherever occurring), substitute "18".

16 Subsections 59A(1) and (2)

Omit "22" (wherever occurring), substitute "18".

17 Subdivision B of Division 8 of Part 2 (heading)

Omit "22", substitute "18".

18 Subsectio n 60(1)

Omit "22", substitute "18".

19 Section 61

Omit "22", substitute "18".

20 Section 62

Omit "22", substitute "18".

21 Section 63

Omit "22", substitute "18".

22 Section 64

Omit "22", substitute "18".

23 Section 65

Omit "22", substitute "18".

24 Subsections 65A(1) and (2)

Omit "22", substitute "18".

25 Subsection 93(1) (table items 1, 2, 15 and 16, column headed "included a reference to … ")

Omit "22", substitute "18".

26 Section 95 (table item 13A, column headed "apply as if … ")

Omit "22", substitute "18".

Social Security Act 1991

27 Subsections 1061KC(4) and (5)

Omit "22", substitute "18".

Part 4 — Application and transitional provisions

28 Application of amendments

Farm Household Support Act 2014

(1) The amendments of the Farm Household Support Act 2014 made by this Schedule apply in relation to working out the rate of a person's farm household allowance for days occurring on or after 20 September 2023.

Social Security Act 1991

(2) The amendments of sections 543B and 593 of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule apply for the purposes of working out qualification for a youth allowance or jobseeker payment in respect of days occurring on or after 20 September 2023.

(3) The amendment of subsection 1067A(4) of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule applies for the purposes of working out a person's eligibility for, or amount of, youth allowance for a day, or fares allowance for a journey on a day, that is on or after 20 September 2023.

(4) The amendments of subsections 1061KC(4) and (5) of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule apply for the purposes of working out the rate of a person's Disaster Recovery Allowance in respect of days occurring on or after 20 September 2023.

29 Transitional rules

(1) The Ministermay, by legislative instrument, make rules prescribing matters of a transitional nature (including prescribing any saving or application provisions) relating to the amendments or repeals made by this Schedule.

(2) To avoid doubt, the rules may not do the following:

(a) create an offence or civil penalty;

(b) provide powers of:

(i) arrest or detention; or

(ii) entry, search or seizure;

(c) impose a tax;

(d) set an amount to be appropriated from the Consolidated Revenue Fund under an appropriation in this Act;

(e) directly amend the text of this Act.

(2) Schedule 2, Divisions 1 to 5, page 4 (line 4) to page 13 (immediately before line 1), omit the Divisions, substitute:

Division 1 — Disability support pension (under 21)

Social Security Act 1991

1 Point 1066A-B1 (table B)

Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute:

2 Point 1066B-B1 (table B)

Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute:

Division 2 — Youth allowance

Social Security Act 1991

3 Point 1067G-B2 (table BA)

Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute:

4 Point 1067G-B3 (table BB)

Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute:

5 Point 1067G-B4 (table BC)

Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute:

Division 3 — Austudy payment

Social Security Act 1991

6 Subpoint 1067L-B2(1) (table BA)

Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute:

7 Point 1067L-B3 (table BB)

Repeal the table, substitute:

Division 4 — Jobseeker payment

Social Security Act 1991

8 Point 1068-B1 (table B)

Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute:

Division 4A — Parenting payment (single)

Social Security Act 1991

8A Point 1068A-B1

Omit "$21,470.80 per year ($825.80 per fortnight)", substitute "$32,032.00 per year ($1,232.00 per fortnight)".

Division 5 — Parenting payment (partnered)

Social Security Act 1991

9 Point 1068B-C2 (table C)

Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute:

(3) Schedule 1, item 10, page 13 (line 6), omit "jobseeker payment or" substitute "jobseeker payment, pension PP (single) or".

(4) Page 15 (after line 16), after Schedule 2, insert:

Schedule 2A — Increases to other payments

Part 1 — Crisis payments

Social Secu rity Act 1991

1 Subsection 1061JU(1)

Omit "half".

Part 2 — Age pension, carer payment and disability support pension

Social Security Act 1991

2 Point 1064-B1 (table B)

Repeal the table, substitute:

3 Point 1065-B1 (table B)

Repeal the table, substitute:

Part 3 — Service pension, income support supplement and veteran payment

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986

4 Point SCH6-B1 (table B-1)

Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute:

5 Point SCH6-B2 (table B-2)

Repeal the table (note including the notes), substitute:

Part 4 — Application of amendments

6 Application of amendments

Social Security Act 1991

(1) The amendments of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule apply in relation to working out the rate of a person's crisis payment, age pension or disability support pension for days occurring on or after 20 September 2023.

(2) For the purposes of indexing an amount:

(a) specified in a table of the Social Security Act 1991 as substituted by an item of this Part; and

(b) on the first indexation day for the amount that occurs after the day this item commences;

the current figure for the amount immediately before that first indexation day is taken to be that specified amount.

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986

(3) The amendments of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 made by this Part apply in relation to working out the rate of a person's service pension, income support supplement or veteran payment for days occurring on or after 20 September 2023.

(4) For the purposes of indexing an amount:

(a) specified in a table of Schedule 6 to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 as substituted by an item of this Schedule; and

(b) on the first indexation day for the amount that occurs after the day this item commences;

the current figure for the amount immediately before that first indexation day is taken to be that specified amount.

(5) Schedule 3, items 7 and 8, page 16 (line 18) to page 19 (immediately before line 1), omit the items, substitute:

7 Clause 38D of Schedule 1 (table)

Repeal the table, substitute:

8 Clause 38E of Schedule 1 (table)

Repeal the table, substitute:

(6) Schedule 3, items 9 to 14, page 19 (line 2) to page 30 (immediately before line 1), omit the items, substitute:

9 Subsection 1070L(2) (table)

Repeal the table, substitute:

10 Subsection 1070M(2) (table)

Repeal the table, substitute:

11 Subsection 1070N(2) (table)

Repeal the table, substitute:

12 Subsection 1070P(2) (table)

Repeal the table, substitute:

13 Subsection 1070Q(2) (table)

Repeal the table, substitute:

14 Subsection 1070R(2) (table)

Repeal the table, substitute:

(7) Schedule 3, item 18, page 31 (line 5) to page 32 (immediately before line 1), omit the item, substitute:

18 Subpoint SCH6-C8(1) of Schedule 6 (table C-2)

Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute:

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (1)

Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to expand the class of persons eligible for jobseeker payment by lowering the minimum age of eligibility from 22 to 18. As the effect of this amendment will be that people who were previously eligible to receive youth allowance payment will now be eligible to receive the higher jobseeker payment, it will result in an increase in expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and section 105 of the Farm Household Support Act 2014.

Amendment (2)

Amendment (2) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to increase the various maximum basic rate amounts of disability support pension (under 21), youth allowance, farm household allowance, austudy payment, jobseeker payment, parenting payment (single) and parenting payment (partnered). As the effect of this amendment will be that relevant recipients will receive a higher rate of payment, it will result in an increase in expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and section 105 of the Farm Household Support Act 2014.

Amendment (3)

Amendment (3) is consequential to amendment (2).

Amendment (4)

Amendment (4) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to increase the various maximum basic rate amounts of crisis payment, age pension, carer payment, disability support pension, service pension, income support supplement and veteran payment. As the effect of this amendment will be that relevant recipients will receive a higher rate of payment, it will result in an increase in expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and section 199 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.

Amendments (5), (6) and (7)

Amendments (5), (6) and (7) are framed as requests because they amend the bill to increase the maximum rate of rent assistance. As the effect of these amendments will be that relevant recipients will receive a higher rate of payment, it will result in an increase in expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, section 105 of the Farm Household Support Act 2014 and section 199 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendments (1) (2), (4), (5), (6) and (7)

If the effect of these amendments is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in

section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, section 105 of the Farm Household Support Act 2014 and section 199 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendments be moved as requests.

Amendment (3)

This amendment is consequential on the request. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request.

I talked to these amendments at length yesterday, so I don't want to speak at length about them today. These are our amendments to raise the rate of income support to above the poverty line, to at least $88 a day, so that people who are living on income support can live a life of dignity, can afford to put food on the table, can afford to pay for their medications, can afford to pay for their kids' shoes and can afford to put a roof over their head so that they are not consigned to living in tents or living in cars. I think it is a sign of a decent country that we look after everybody, that we don't leave anybody behind and that people who are living on income support, for whatever reason, have the ability to get by.

These amendments would also reduce the age at which people are considered to be independent and able to receive the full rate of income support, from 21 to 18. It would have a big impact on many people who currently are not able to get student allowance and youth allowance, to be able to receive those benefits. It would make a massive difference to the lives of thousands of young people in Australia today. These amendments would also double the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance from what is being proposed in this bill.

I implore everybody in this place to listen to the community that is absolutely doing it the toughest in this cost-of-living crisis. You cannot survive on JobSeeker. It's not a matter of struggling to survive; you cannot survive on JobSeeker. People on JobSeeker at the moment are only getting by because of charity from charities, friends and family. And the very woefully inadequate amount that's being proposed by the government to lift the rates of JobSeeker, by only $4 a day, is just not going to cut it and is not going to make a difference for people at the moment who are desperately living in poverty.

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

The coalition will not be supporting these amendments. The coalition believes that a much more beneficial and effective way of assisting payment recipients and businesses in the community is to increase the income-free area. And we would encourage those in the chamber to support our amendments to that effect.

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

I rise to indicate that the government will be opposing these amendments. We had, I think, quite a good discussion yesterday, and I thank Senator Rice and the Australian Greens for moving this section as a block in terms of the efficiency of this debate. I did indicate yesterday, but won't now indicate at length, that this is a $9½ billion commitment from the Commonwealth government. I understand that the Australian Greens party is arguing for a larger commitment, but that is the size of the government's commitment. It is a very substantial commitment that will make a difference to very many people who are the recipients of these payments.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the requests for amendments moved by Senator Rice be agreed to.

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

I'm very disappointed with the outcome of that division but not surprised that everybody other than us and Senator Pocock is happy for jobseekers, people on youth allowance and people on student allowance to continue living in poverty, which is absolutely bad for their wellbeing, their health and their ability to get a job. If you've got people living in poverty, they're not in a position to be able to get a job. It is absolutely shameful. I now move Greens request for amendment (1) on sheet 2030, which is regarding income-free areas:

(1) Page 33 (after line 26), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 5 — Increase to income free areas for certain payments

Part 1 — Disability support pension (under 21)

Social Security Act 1991

1 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 1, colum n 3)

Omit "$2,184", substitute "$7,800".

2 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 1, column 4)

Omit "$80", substitute "$300".

3 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 2, column 3)

Omit "$1,924", substitute "$7,800".

4 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 2, column 4)

Omit "$70", substitute "$300".

5 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 3, column 3)

Omit "$1,924", substitute "$7,800".

6 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 3, column 4)

Omit "$70", substitute "$300".

7 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 4, column 3)

Omit "$1,924", substitute "$7,800".

8 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 4, column 4)

Omit "$70", substitute "$300".

Part 2 — Youth allowance (other)

Social Security Act 1991

9 1067G-H29(b)

Omit "$150", substitute "$300".

Part 3 — Jobseeker payment

Social Security Act 1991

10 Point 1068-G12

Omit "$150", substitute "$300".

Part 4 — Parenting payment (single)

Social Security Act 1991

11 Point 1068A-E14 (table item 1, column 2)

Omit "$2,600", substitute "$7,800".

12 Point 1068A-E14 (table item 1, column 3)

Omit "$100", substitute "$300".

Part 5 — Parenting payment (partnered)

Social Security Act 1991

13 Point 1068B-D27

Omit "$150", substitute "$300".

Part 6 — Application of amendments

14 Application of amendments

(1) The amendments of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule apply in relation to working out the following:

(a) the rate of a person's disability support pension, youth allowance, jobseeker payment, pension PP (single) or benefit PP (partnered) in respect of days occurring on or after 20 September 2023;

(b) whether a person's farm household allowance under the Farm Household Support Act 2014 is payable in respect of days occurring on or after 20 September 2023.

(2) For the purposes of indexing an amount:

(a) specified in:

(i) the table in point 1066A-F3 of the Social Security Act 1991, as amended by this Schedule; or

(ii) the table in point 1068A-E14 of that Act, as amended by this Schedule;

(b) on the first indexation day for the amount that occurs after the day this item commences;

the current figure for the amount immediately before that first indexation day is taken to be that specified amount.

Obviously, the Greens' position is that we need to be lifting the rate of JobSeeker, youth allowance and student allowance above the poverty line so that people can live a dignified life. This lot—everybody here other than us—has just voted against that. The least we can do and what has also been Greens policy for a very long time, as well as increasing the rate of income support above the policy line, is to allow jobseekers to earn more. It's not a case of one or another, which is the appalling and cruel position that the opposition are proposing; it's a case of doing both. We need to have the level of income that people receive lifted above the poverty line, and then we need to allow people to earn more.

We know that based on the latest statistics there are 186,290 people receiving JobSeeker who are working. There are a lot of people who receive JobSeeker, youth allowance and student allowance who are working and have income above the income-free area, which means that their earnings are slashed. The amount of JobSeeker or youth allowance or student allowance they get is slashed once they earn above the income-free area. Those people would all benefit. As I said, this is something that can be done to benefit those people, but it's not enough. About 40 per cent of people on JobSeeker have limited or reduced capacity to work. A lot of those people actually should be on other disability payments or the disability support pension, but they are left languishing on JobSeeker. But for the others who are on JobSeeker who are able to work, who—for a lot of them—are working now, increasing the income-free area so that their income from that work can be up to $300 a fortnight rather than $150 a fortnight would make a real, meaningful difference to their lives.

There is a cost-of-living crisis. We know that people are desperate to improve their standard of living, desperate to get the money that they need. We know that actually allowing them to earn more in this cost-of-living crisis would make a tangible difference to their lives.

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

r RUSTON (—) (): The coalition won't be supporting these amendments, but that's not because we don't believe that the income-free area should be increased for people to incentivise them to get more work. We know that when people report earnings they're more than twice as likely to go on to full-time employment, and we believe that increasing the income-free area is a very effective way of incentivising people to take up those extra few hours of work or possibly add to additional hours that they currently work.

The reason that we are not supporting this amendment is because we believe that the amendment that we will move shortly is a superior amendment to this. We're saying that we want to increase the income-free areas by an additional $150 per fortnight, recognising that there a range of different income-free areas that are already in existence for working-age payments. The amendment that's been put forward by the Australian Greens here proposes to put the thresholds up to $300 does not recognise the nuance that's already in our system to incentivise different people on different payments in different ways and recognise their particular circumstances—whether that be students, whether that be single parents, whether that be people who are on the JobSeeker allowance. We would certainly be encouraging those in the chamber to look at our increased income-free area amendments that are going to be moved shortly, because I think they actually reflect a much more nuanced and targeted response to incentivising Australians to get back into the workforce.

We also philosophically believe that increasing the income-free areas and taking away the barriers for people to enter the workforce, like the barrier of the amount of people's reductions in their payments when they start earning, is a much more effective way of getting people back into the workforce than just merely increasing payments by $40 a fortnight. So we commend our amendment to the chamber and, for that reason, we'll not be supporting the amendments of the Greens towards the income-free area, but we'd encourage the Greens to consider supporting our amendments to the income-free area, because they are more reflective of the nuanced circumstances of different types of income support payments.

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

Thank you for those contributions. I want to set out the government's position in relation to this amendment. The government will be opposing the amendment. The features of this package are designed to increase support for Australians who are on working-age or student payments. That's what the bill is about. It furthers the government's commitment to a strong social safety net.

Supporting workforce participation has been and will be at the core of the government's broader economic strategy. It's why the government has implemented reforms like making child care cheaper for Australian families and improving paid parental leave. But doubling the income-free area, as is proposed in this amendment does, of course, bake-in a significant structural spend for this budget and future budgets. I note that a costing for the fiscal impact of this proposal does not accompany the Greens party's proposed amendment. There is no evidence before us that a proposal of this sort would deliver the participation outcomes claimed. In fact, if you look at this proposal, we know that increasing the income-free area would mean an additional 50,000 Australians would become eligible for JobSeeker because the income cut-out thresholds would increase. The outcome of the proposal would be more Australians on JobSeeker. That's not a credible proposition.

The reality of the system is that around 77 per cent of people on JobSeeker are not reporting any earnings at all. There is already an income-free area, and 77 per cent of Australians on JobSeeker are not using it. Even for those JobSeeker recipients who do report earnings, 23 per cent of JobSeeker participants, there is no evidence of bunching—that is, people keeping income from paid employment intentionally low so that they earn less than the income-free area. Doubling the income-free area will only benefit those income support recipients who are already earning and earning regularly. These recipients already benefit and are rewarded for taking up work through the gradual tapering of income support as they earn more. Amidst all this, of course, amendments to the income-free area will not assist the 77 per cent of JobSeeker payment recipients who don't utilise it. It's on that basis that the government won't be supporting this amendment.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Greens request (1) on sheet 2030 be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move opposition amendment (1) and request (2) on sheet 1978 together:

(1) Schedule 2, Part 1, page 4 (line 3) to page 13 (line 18), omit the Part, substitute:

Part 1 — Jobseeker payment increase for certain persons who have turned 55

Social Security Act 1991

1 P oint 1068-B1 (table B, item 4A, column 2, paragraph (b))

Omit "60", substitute "55".

2 Point 1068-B1 (table B, item 4B, column 2, paragraph (b))

Omit "60", substitute "55".

3 Point 1068-B1 (table B, item 5, column 2, paragraph (a))

Omit "60", substitute "55".

4 Application of amendments

The amendments of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Part apply in relation to working out the following:

(a) the rate of a person's jobseeker payment for days occurring on or after 20 September 2023;

(b) the rate of a person's farm household allowance under the Farm Household Support Act 2014 for days occurring on or after 20 September 2023.

(2) Page 33 (after line 26), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 4 — Increase to income free areas for certain working age payments

Part 1 — Disability support pension (under 21)

Social Security Act 1991

1 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 1, column 3)

Omit "$2,184", substitute "$9,204".

2 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 1, column 4)

Omit "$80", substitute "$354".

3 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 2, column 3)

Omit "$1,924", substitute "$8,580".

4 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 2, column 4)

Omit "$70", substitute "$330".

5 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 3, column 3)

Omit "$1,924", substitute "$8,580".

6 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 3, column 4)

Omit "$70", substitute "$330".

7 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 4, column 3)

Omit "$1,924", substitute "$8,580".

8 Point 1066A-F3 (table item 4, column 4)

Omit "$70", substitute "$330".

Part 2 — Youth allowance

Social Security Act 1991

9 Paragraphs 1067G-H29(a) and (aa)

Omit "$400", substitute "$630".

10 Paragraph 1067G-H29(b)

Omit "$150", substitute "$300".

Part 3 — Austudy payment

Social Security Act 1991

11 Point 1067L-D28

Omit "$400", substitute "$630".

Part 4 — Jobseeker payment

Social Security Act 1991

12 Point 1068-G12

Omit "$150", substitute "$300".

Part 5 — Parenting payment (partnered)

Social Security Act 1991

13 Point 1068B-D27

Omit "$150", substitute "$300".

Part 6 — Application of amendments

14 Application of amendments

(1) The amendments of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule apply in relation to working out the following:

(a) the rate of a person's disability support pension, youth allowance, austudy payment, jobseeker payment or benefit PP (partnered) in respect of days occurring on or after 20 September 2023;

(b) whether a person's farm household allowance under the Farm Household Support Act 2014 is payable in respect of days occurring on or after 20 September 2023.

(2) For the purposes of indexing an amount:

(a) specified in:

(i) the table in point 1066A-F3 of the Social Security Act 1991, as amended by this Schedule; or

(ii) paragraph 1067G-H29(a) or (aa) of that Act, as amended by this Schedule; or

(iii) point 1067L-D28 of that Act, as amended by this Schedule;

(b) on the first indexation day for the amount that occurs after the day this item commences;

the current figure for the amount immediately before that first indexation day is taken to be that specified amount.

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (2)

Amendment (2) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to increase the ordinary income free area for the disability support pension (under 21), youth allowance, austudy payment, jobseeker payment and parenting payment (partnered) under the Social Security Act 1991. As the income free area is the amount of income a person can receive before their payment begins to decrease, increasing the income free area would result in some recipients receiving a higher rate of payment and would also increase the number of people for whom payments are payable.

Increasing the income free area for youth allowance and jobseeker payment under the Social Security Act 1991 will also increase the number of people for whom the farm household allowance is payable under the Farm Household Support Act 2014. This is because the income free area for youth allowance and jobseeker payment is used to work out whether the farm household allowance is payable.

The effect of the amendment would increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and section 105 of the Farm Household Support Act 2014.

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (2)

If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and section 105 of the Farm Household Support Act 2014 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.

The coalition's amendment and request remove the $40 increase per fortnight for JobSeeker and related working-age payments and replaces it with an increase to the income-free areas of $150 per fortnight. These payments include JobSeeker, disability support pension under 21, youth allowance, Austudy payment and parenting payment partner. There is nothing in this bill as it stands that genuinely reduces barriers for Australians to get into work. At a time when we have hundreds of thousands of job vacancies right across the country, we believe that removing barriers and incentivising people to take up work is the most appropriate way not only to deal with supporting Australians who are on working-age payments but also to support our labour market.

The tightness in the labour market is absolutely obvious for every Australian to see. Every second business seems to have a sign in the window, looking for people to fill job vacancies or to fill vacant shifts. At a time of historically-low unemployment rates, we believe that the coalition's amendment will go a long way to help, as I said, both jobseekers and the businesses who are so desperately crying out for Australians to come and work in their business. We also recognise that millions of Australians go to work every day to pay their taxes that allow governments to provide the safety nets that they do in our social welfare system. But the reality is we have a situation where Australian businesses are crying out for employees, and we have hundreds of thousands of job vacancies. There is a reasonable expectation that we, as the legislators in this place, will put in place incentives to enable those opportunities to be taken up. We believe encouraging jobseekers by giving financial incentives is a far superior way of encouraging Australians who are on working-age payments to get into the workforce.

Obviously, typically, at a time of low unemployment, those opposite see it more as a priority to simply increase the base rate while providing no additional incentives or breaking down any barriers. We would say to the Labor Party: 'Look at ways that are actually going to help Australians get off working-age payments.' Despite what the minister said in his contribution to the previous amendment, we know that those Australians on working-age payments who report earnings are more than twice as likely to take on full-time employment. This is an investment in the longer term to see Australians on working-age payments make that little bit extra so they can move from being on payments to being fully independent and in the workforce.

It's not just the coalition who appreciates the benefits of increasing income-free areas. At the recent Senate inquiry, we heard about the benefits from the law reform officer from Economic Justice Australia:

At present the income free area for JobSeeker, Parenting Payment Partnered and Youth Allowance constrains recipients' opportunities for training and experience by severely limiting the numbers of hours they can work before facing deductions to their income support.

The executive manager for Community and Family Care, from Wesley Mission:

We find that people want to engage, but, as soon as their ceiling is maxed out, they'll stop, or the employer limit can't give them full and proper support.

Our amendment encourages those 77 per cent of Australian jobseekers who have reported no earnings to get out there, put their toe in the water and test out the market before we see it eating into their JobSeeker payments.

We know the longer you are out of the workforce, the harder it is to return. We believe incentivising work, not incentivising welfare, is the best approach to get people back to the workforce, filling those job vacancies, helping those businesses creating jobs and opportunity, and creating wealth for our country. That is why we think it is absolutely important that the coalition's policy is the best proposal for payments to recipients because we know it's not just about the economic dividend paid to working-age payment recipients; we know it's more broadly around assisting them in terms of their wellbeing, sense of purpose and opportunities for their future life.

We believe the coalition's amendment is sensible and reasonable. We encourage the government, and we certainly encourage the Australian Greens, to consider supporting the increase in the income-free area as proposed by this amendment because it is absolutely fair. It reflects the nuances across the working-age payment system because not all working-age payments have the same existing income-free areas for reasons that Labor put in in the first place. We believe this amendment is about the dignity of work and the dignity of having a mission. That's why we believe our approach is superior. We urge all senators to consider this amendment and request.

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

One Nation doesn't support the opposition's amendment to this bill. I will explain why. The opposition, when in government, had the opportunity to introduce this, and they didn't. It's plucking something out of the air to try and solve the problem we have at the moment to counteract what the government is wanting to do—to introduce an extra $40 a fortnight for welfare recipients to help them with the rising cost of living, which we agree with; there should be some increase. When you talk about $300 a fortnight being given to people to incentivise them—if you have to incentivise them to earn an extra $300 a fortnight, why aren't they working for the first $300 they're receiving from the taxpayers? If they won't get up and go to work for the first $300, why incentivise them to work for the second $300 that's going to be given to them?

You've got the neighbour next door, who has to go out to work—get up early in the morning, drive in the traffic, go to work, put a long day in—and then they come back and see their neighbour still sitting on the porch, having their afternoon beer, having a wonderful life and doing whatever they want to do—sit on the couch all day, watch TV, go to the beach, go to picnics, go and play computer games—and the taxpayer is funding this. If you want introduce $300 a fortnight for welfare recipients, then my suggestion is: why don't you offer the same $300 to the taxpayer, who is working, and give them that extra $7,800 a year that they can earn tax-free? That's virtually what you're doing to those on welfare: you're offering them extra money to do absolutely nothing. Let's be fair right across the board—does that make sense?—especially when you have people in this country like farmers and retailers—it doesn't matter who it is—screaming out for workers. They absolutely cannot get workers. So what does the government do? 'We'll bring in skilled migrants from overseas. We'll flood the country with more migrants, to the tune of around 7,000 a week. We don't have the housing. We don't have the water. We don't have the infrastructure. We don't have the schools, the aged-care homes, the hospital care, the doctors, the nurses. But we don't care about that. We just need to bring them in to prop up the economy, because it looks good.' And who are a lot of these people going to vote for? The government that has allowed them to come into the country. So this is all a big scam. It's not looking after the Australian people here. So I don't agree with the opposition's amendment. It's not fair on everyday working Australians. This doesn't incentivise anyone.

The figures came out that we've got 156,250 people that have been on welfare for more than 10 years. We know we have third- and fourth-generation welfare. What have you done about that? What investigation has been done into that? Why aren't they working? With these scams, also they must apply for so many jobs. What do they do? Do they just get their name ticked off? They apply for jobs that are well beyond their capabilities. They don't have the skills for them, but they've applied for a job, and that's good enough. 'You'll still get your welfare cheque. We'll look after you.' Then you've got another 150,265 who have been on welfare for between five and 10 years. Then you've got another 224,575 who have been on welfare for between two and five years. Then you've got another 73,845 who have been on welfare for between one and two years. Then you've got 238,455 who have been on welfare for less than one year. With all these jobs out there, these people are still on unemployment benefits. Something is terribly wrong with our system.

I understand that welfare was set up as a helping hand, but too many people are now using it as a way of life. It may not suit a lot of us if we look for the better things in life, if we actually want that special car, a second TV and a nicer home and we want to go for holidays and trips. That can't be paid for on welfare. I get it. And it's not supposed to be. That's why you get a job. That's why each and every one of us should not rely on the person next to us to work and pay for our way of life. Welfare was supposed to be a helping hand, but governments, of both sides, have been reluctant to do anything about it because people have become so reliant on welfare. They rely on you to keep handing it out. That's why you won't change it and you won't make it tough—because you want their votes. The more that you suppress people, the more that you keep them under your thumb, the more that they rely on you, the more they're going to lean towards your way of voting. But you're not helping this country or future generations and you're not helping the taxpayer, because we are among the most highly taxed people in the world. This is the problem that we have.

What I've suggested to the government—I've been calling for it for a long time—is that there has to be accountability. I believe that we should give people that helping hand, give them the welfare payments, but only for two out of five years. So you might have employment for six months, and you might have three months where you can't find another job. 'Okay, we'll give you that helping hand. For two out of five years, we will support you and give you that helping hand, but don't sit around all day thinking this is a way of life.'

Another problem that we have with this is that our whole educational system has failed our people. We are so far behind in our educational levels compared to other countries—in some cases, two years behind. Our kids are being pushed through the educational system. You won't hold them back because you might upset them, but you're not preparing them for life. You're not preparing them with the right education that they need, and you're allowing them to go on to universities when they shouldn't be going to universities—again, a cost to the taxpayer. A lot of these people come through the system and can't get jobs, because they can't read or write. You're allowing a lot of immigrants into the country that should be able to pass an English test but can't. What do they do? They end up on our welfare system. They can't assimilate, because they can't communicate, and if they can't communicate a lot them can't get a job. This is the problem, but you're reluctant to do anything about it.

Make some tough decisions. I see the smirk on Minister Ayres's face, across the chamber. What I'm saying doesn't suit you, but it makes sense to the Australian people out there who are listening to the broadcast, especially the taxpayers, because they've had a gutful. Go and speak to them. You might appeal to the—

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Ayres is on his feet. Do you have a point of order, Senator Ayres?

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

It was a smile, not a smirk, and I was smiling at Senator Ruston.

The TEMPORARY CH AIR: Thank you for clarifying that, Senator Ayres. I would remind senators to direct their comments through the chair. I know that it is a wideranging debate in the committee stage, but if we could direct our comments this way that would be appreciated.

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

That doesn't surprise me. I always think outside the box. I think the way that the average Australian out there is thinking, and they want our representatives to think the way they do. They can't understand why this has not been addressed and spoken about.

We won't be supporting this stupid incentive. If you're going to give it to one, give it to all Australians. Let's give Australian taxpayers $7,800 in tax relief so they can get a second job and not be taxed on it, instead of taxing people at the higher rate all the time. Then you will give more Australians the opportunity to go out and get that second job, which will help with their income. These are the hardworking Australians. Incentivise them more by giving them some tax relief, and then you might get changes made.

Have a think about what I said about the two out of five years, because that needs to be addressed. I'll tell you about one fellow whose son was working. When the son came home and told his father he had a job—this was the third generation on welfare payments—he abused his son, absolutely embarrassed by the fact that he'd gone out and got a job. Guess what! The son threw in the job.

This is what's happening in our society. Until you realise this, all these handouts aren't helping anyone at all. You're not incentivising them. People have to work. Unless they have a disability, they're an age pensioner or they have a reason that they can't work, they have no reason to collect the dole. They should be out there, providing for themselves. The taxpayer—I and everyone else in this country—owes them nothing. They owe it to themselves. If we're going to rear a better person, for themselves, the best thing to do is to give them a job. They need a direction in life and a sense of believing in themselves, and that comes from work, not handouts all the time.

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

The Greens will be opposing these amendments by the Liberal Party—and it is telling that they have moved the amendments together. They are not even going ahead with the woefully inadequate $4-a-day increase to JobSeeker but instead proposing an income-free area to allow people to earn more. We are opposing the amendments because of that very framing—that people are undeserving and unworthy, that they need to be living in absolutely dire abject poverty, and that it's a choice. Putting these two together—saying, 'Instead of living in abject poverty, just get out there and work'—is absolutely playing into the frame of the appalling contribution just made by Senator Hanson. It is playing into a frame that people living on income support don't deserve to live a life of dignity, that they are undeserving and unworthy and they just need to get up and find a job.

Anybody listening to the evidence that's been presented to the inquiry into poverty and hardship in Australia and the evidence that was presented to the inquiry into this bill would know that, currently, the conditions that people are living in on income support are absolutely tragic. People are living in tents with young babies. People are trying to bring up their kids while living in cars. People are saying they've spent the last seven years trying to pretend to their children that they're not hungry. People can't afford medication they need to keep themselves healthy. This is what happens when people are left in poverty. So to be proposing, as these amendments are: 'No, we're just going to keep on allowing people to live in poverty,' and that the answer is just allow them to work more is a complete misrepresentation of the reality that people are facing.

We acknowledge that there are overlaps between this amendment and the amendment that we circulated, but our amendment was very much in the frame of: we need to help people in any way possible who are currently languishing in poverty on the inadequate rate of JobSeeker. We need to be raising the rate and we need to be lifting the rates of income support. These amendments, circulated by the opposition, do not do that.

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

I want to set out the government's position in relation to this amendment. The government will be opposing this amendment. The effect of an adoption of this amendment would be that over a million people would lose the entitlement to an additional $40 a week. All they would be left with in September is the increment that comes through indexation.

I invite senators to consider this: there's been over a decade of advocacy, a decade of evidence and a decade of everybody who is engaged in this argument saying that the rate of JobSeeker needs to be increased in a substantial way. I appreciate there are differences about the amount, and the government has come to a conclusion about the amount. But it is unimaginable, after all of that advocacy from the business community, from the people who represent the welfare sector and the social services sector and from the trade union movement, that you could reach the conclusion: 'Nothing doing here. There will be no increase.' It is mean-spirited, it is wrong in policy and it would mean that a million people—a million Australians who would otherwise get this increase in September—would be denied this increase.

I don't want to add very much to the commentary that I gave in response to Senator Rice's and the Greens party's amendment on the income-free threshold, because I think the government's response is much the same. Workforce participation is really important, and the best evidence for the government's credentials in terms of workforce participation is the fact that since the government was elected there are just under half a million more jobs. There are 490-something thousand new jobs. Most of those jobs are permanent jobs. Many of those jobs have been taken up by Australian women, who—as a result of the new measures that the government has undertaken, whether they apply directly to them or not—have got the confidence that the kind of work that they are going into is the kind of work that will support them.

It is unimaginable, in the current environment, that the coalition's answer to people who are on JobSeeker or associated payments is: 'Nothing doing.' It's mean-spirited, it's more downward envy and it's more of the same toxic politics that we saw evidenced by Senator Hanson's contribution earlier. I urge the Senate to vote against the amendment.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the chair is that opposition amendment (1) and request (2) on sheet 1978, moved by leave together, be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 2040:

(1) Schedule 2, item 1, page 4 (line 6) to page 6 (immediately before line 1), omit the item, substitute:

1 Point 1066A-B1 (table B)

Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute:

(2) Schedule 2, Divisions 2 to 5, page 8 (line 1) to page 13 (immediately before line 1), omit the Divisions, substitute:

Division 2 — Youth allowance

Social Security Act 1991

3 Point 1067G-B2 (table BA)

Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute:

4 Point 1067G-B3 (table BB)

Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute:

5 Point 1067G-B4 (table BC)

Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute:

Division 3 — Austudy payment

Social Security Act 1991

6 Subpoint 1067L-B2(1) (table BA)

Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute:

7 Point 1067L-B3 (table BB)

Repeal the table, substitute:

Division 4 — Jobseeker payment

Social Security Act 1991

8 Point 1068-B1 (table B)

Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute:

Division 4A — Parenting payment (single)

Social Security Act 1991

8A Point 1068A-B1

Omit "$21,470.80 per year ($825.80 per fortnight)", substitute "$24,897.60 per year ($957.60 per fortnight)".

Division 5 — Parenting payment (partnered)

Social Security Act 1991

9 Point 1068B-C2 (table C)

Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute:

(3) Schedule 2, item 10, page 13 (line 6), omit "jobseeker payment" substitute "jobseeker payment, pension PP (single)".

(4) Schedule 3, items 7 and 8, page 16 (line 18) to page 19 (immediately before line 1), omit the items, substitute:

7 Clause 38D of Schedule 1 (table)

Repeal the table, substitute:

8 Clause 38E of Schedule 1 (table)

Repeal the table, substitute:

(5) Schedule 3, items 9 to 14, page 19 (line 2) to page 30 (immediately before line 1), omit the items, substitute:

9 Subsection 1070L(2) (table)

Repeal the table, substitute:

10 Subsection 1070M(2) (table)

Repeal the table, substitute:

11 Subsection 1070N(2) (table)

Repeal the table, substitute:

12 Subsection 1070P(2) (table)

Repeal the table, substitute:

13 Subsection 1070Q(2) (table)

Repeal the table, substitute:

14 Subsection 1070R(2) (table)

Repeal the table, substitute:

(6) Schedule 3, item 18, page 31 (line 5) to page 32 (immediately before line 1), omit the item, substitute:

18 Subpoint SCH6-C8(1) of Schedule 6 (table C-2)

Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute:

These amendments would raise the rates of the working-age payments to 90 per cent of the age pension and also increase Commonwealth rent assistance by 40 per cent. These changes were recommended by the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, and I have great respect for the work undertaken by EIAC. It's made up of eminent experts in their field, including a former social services minister. As committee member Ben Phillips said at about the time of the report's release, increasing payments to 90 per cent of the age pension would represent just a four per cent increase in welfare payments or less than one per cent of the budget. Personally I think one per cent is a small price to pay to remove barriers to work and ensure people in our communities across the country can afford to eat and to buy their medications or just to buy toiletries. It's worth reflecting on why 90 of the age pension was chosen.

Currently, we have no one approach to measuring the adequacy of payments. This is sometimes called a poverty line—the amount a person needs to secure their basic needs like food. We don't have one. A hundred other countries do, and it may help to explain why Australia's social security system lags behind so many OECD countries. EIAC tested the current rates against a range of methods, such as the Henderson Poverty Line, relativities to national minimum wage, comparisons with other countries and many more, and the age pension was chosen, not just because there used to be a relativity between them but because the age pension benefited from the most recent comprehensive review of the payment's adequacy, the Harmer review. The Harmer review analysed the purchasing power of pensions, their value relative to earnings, international comparisons, wellbeing outcomes and a host of other measures. The review even argued that supplementary assistance was needed for senior Australians on a pension with higher housing costs in the private rental system.

We've not yet had a Harmer review for working-age payments but it has provided a robust jumping-off point to look at the adequacy of current working-age payments to allow people to afford the necessities of life. A review of the magnitude of Harmer was recommended by EIAC. Given the expertise on that committee, it is something I'm confident they could produce if they were given the opportunity.

Minister, I'd like to ask a few questions about the economic inclusion advisory committee. When will legislation be introduced to formally establish this committee? And could you provide an update on the permanent secretariat for EIAC? How many positions have been allocated and have they been filled?

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

The commitment from the government is that we will legislate the committee this year. The work of the committee is valuable to the government. We are a government that is not afraid of evidence, argument, alternative points of view and, of course, pressing the case for change. In addition to the substantive point about when would the committee be a legislated function of government, the government will listen carefully to the deliberations of the committee, its recommendations, but also sift carefully through the reasoning and rationale of the experts who have been engaged in that committee. That does not mean, of course, that the government will be in a position to agree with the committee, and I anticipate that that will continue to be a feature of the engagement between the committee and the government over time.

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

One Nation will not be supporting Senator Pocock's amendment. He says he wants to raise it to 90 per cent of the age pension. At present, a single aged pensioner receives $1,064 a fortnight. A couple receive $1,604 a fortnight. For a single person, that's $27,664 a year that they receive. That's just as a welfare payment. That's an aged person. Now, to raise it to 90 per cent of that, you're probably looking at around about $25,000 a year.

I know apprentices don't even get paid near that, okay? So put it in relation to someone who is actually working, who has a job, who has to go out every day, who has to get their own tools and clothing, and who pays taxes as well. Now, to pay someone equivalent to 90 per cent of what an aged pensioner gets doesn't equate to me. I spoke to my hairdresser. I said, 'What are you on an hour?' This was a couple of months ago. They said, 'Around about on average $24 an hour.' Prior to that, those working in nursing homes were on $22 to $23 an hour. That has probably been increased now but not by much. So the fact is you're looking at welfare payments to people who do absolutely nothing, who don't go to work. They don't do anything, and you want to pay them probably more than what someone who has a job is earning out there.

You talk about these people living in poverty. I can tell you about working families, mums and dads, who are struggling. They're both working. They've got kids. They can't be home for the kids and they're struggling to pay their bills. But you're more interested in these people who are on welfare—like I said, if you have a genuine reason for not working, you'll have my full support. But when you have people on welfare for more than a decade, 20 or 30 years—and this is a question I will ask of the minister. I have the number here that 156,250 people have been on welfare for more than 10 years. Answer me the question: how many have been on welfare for more than 20 years?

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

Thank you, Senator Hanson, for that question, and also outlining your position and One Nation's position in relation to the amendment. It struck me during your contribution about the wage rates for hairdressers that perhaps the frequency of visits that I would have to make to a hairdresser for them to be employed for an hour is actually quite high, and probably higher than for Senator Cadell's long locks. I'm a low-quality proposition for hairdressers around the place, I'm afraid.

The answer to the question, Senator Hanson—I'm happy to come back to you on the actual numbers because I don't have a 20-year figure in front of me. For a time, I did work supporting the work of long-term unemployed people who were re-entering the workforce in a role I occupied as part of the Working Nation program many, many years ago, as the then Keating government was seeking to support long-term unemployed people coming back into the workforce. I understand the barriers that sit in front of long-term unemployed people both from their perspective and from employers' perspectives. The best answer that the government can offer here, apart from the settings that there are in the social security system, is by generating more employment. And the government, since its election, has seen just under half a million jobs generated in the Australian economy—500,000 new jobs, most of them permanent jobs—and that is a very good thing.

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

I appreciate the fact you'll get back to me with those figures, but don't tell me that you've created the jobs. Businesses create the jobs. Manufacturing creates the jobs. People in retail create the jobs. Not you. The government, through the chair, may create jobs through employing more public servants. They're the only jobs that you create, but they're paid for by the taxpayer as well. So, I don't believe that.

But I'll go back to the point of wanting to increase Senator Pocock's amendment by 90 per cent of the age pension. We have to look after aged pensioners. They've worked hard, they've earned that right to be looked after. But when I hear about the people on welfare payments—

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

They are living in poverty.

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

I hear the Greens screaming out, 'Poverty,' and, 'These people are living in poverty,' and all the rest of it. As I just explained to you, there are people who are parents who are both working family members who are actually living in poverty as well. They actually have to go to work, but they are living in poverty while trying to feed their kids, pay the bills. A lot of these people are losing their homes. These aren't people on welfare. So, it's not only people on welfare that you say are doing it tough, but there's a difference. People on welfare have the choice. They have a choice to go and apply for a job, a choice to go and work. That is their choice. Everyone has a choice. But if you keep propping these people up all the time, they are going to take the easy way out because it suits them. Their lifestyle suits them. But you're crying for them in this place. Cry for the people who are sick, disabled, people who can't work for the right reasons. Don't cry for those people who have made the choice to sit on their backsides all day long watching TV or taking it for granted that you're going to keep handing them out this money. Think of the future generations. That's what it's about. Make the tough decisions in this place that we need to.

And another thing: how do you determine that someone is unemployed? They're not unemployed if they do one hour paid work a week—that's the international standard—or they do voluntary work. Really? Are you deceiving the people or trying to deceive yourselves? There are a lot more people out there, and that is not the right way to go about it, as well. I'd say—unless that's changed, but that's my understanding—the minister may want to refer to that. If I've got it wrong, please tell me I'm wrong, but that was the standard: if you've got one hour paid work a week, you're not classified as unemployed. So who are we really deceiving in this nation? How many are actually on the extra benefits and payments because they're not classified as unemployed? This is a real problem that we have. The budget that we pay out for welfare payments in this country is around $250 billion a year. When I first came into here, it was around $180 billion. Seven years later, it's $250 billion. That is disgraceful. It should not be the way.

As I said to you before, people are screaming out for employees. I spoke to farmers just a week ago. They can't get workers. Do you know what the cane farmer said to me? He said: 'We have to drag the old boys back behind the machinery and equipment, because we can't get anyone to work. Years ago, if anyone came to work this machinery here, they'd have to have a mechanics licence and all these other things, plus, plus, plus, before we'd allow them behind the wheel of this machinery. Now we'll grab anyone, as long as they've got two legs and two arms.' That's how desperate they are. Production is going down because they can't get the people to work, yet you're so intent on keeping on paying these welfare payments to people, and you're not going after them and saying, 'why?'

I'll put another point across, too, on robodebt—that whole thing that happened there. There was a reason why they were sent that letter: there's a lot of scamming and there's a lot of welfare rorting that's going on. People were sent that letter because they do owe the government money. They'd been rorting the system. About 10 per cent of the people should not have gotten those letters—10 per cent. What happened to the other 90 per cent? What about those ones that are rorting the system? Because of robodebt and because it was poorly handled by ministers advised by their bureaucrats—I say all the time the ministers are so lazy a lot of them don't even know their portfolios and rely on the bureaucrats to give them the information, because they can't even research it themselves. That's the problem in this place. You're being fed the garbage, and you don't go and do the research, the work, yourselves to understand. That was the problem with it. If this same letter were sent out through the Taxation Office, it wouldn't have been under the scrutiny that it was, but because the social welfare system didn't have the authority to send out this letter, that's where the problem came from.

At the end of the day, the problem is that there are welfare cheats. There are people using multiple names claiming multiple welfare payments. Then we have the ones here also who are allowed to have multiple marriages, multiple wives, and are collecting welfare as well. But you don't do anything about that. That's happening. Maybe you don't know about that. What are you doing about that? Bigamy in this country—multiple wives, multiple children, collecting multiple checks and saying to the taxpayer, 'Thank you very much; you're a bunch of fools in this country.' That's exactly what's happening. Until you address these important issues and address what the taxpayer wants—accountability. That's what they want: accountability for their hard-earned tax dollars, because they're doing it tough out there, and all I hear is crying.

As I said to you, people have a choice. There are so many jobs on offer out there. Even I myself could do with some more staff. But guess what: I can't find the people. No-one is applying for the jobs. Isn't it funny? And I hear this right across the board, so don't just make out that it's One Nation, because—I tell you what—I'm hearing it from other members of parliament right across the board. It is hard to find the people who are capable of doing the job, right across the board, whether it's in farming, retail, political offices or political parties—whatever you want to do—so you grab whoever you can that is willing to work.

That's what's happened for me. As a young woman going to work, I got offered three jobs—you could pick whatever job you wanted—and those days are here again now. But the difference is that a lot of people don't want to work. They don't have the work ethic that the older generation have. I'd rather have the older generation work for me, actually, because their work ethic is great. It's fantastic. The fact is we're letting the young ones down; we're letting them off the hook. I'm quite happy to give these kids a kickstart, but it's about finding the ones who want to start at the bottom and work their way up. They always want to start at the top, and that's a problem that we've instilled on them as well.

To go back to the point of Senator Pocock's amendment, it's not helping the people; it's not helping future generations. You're not incentivising them. You're not getting them off welfare payments. You're not being fair on the working Australians who are barely making this $27,000 a year themselves, and that's for an age pension. It'll go to about $25,000 a year—I haven't got the exact figure. You're not being fair on those tradies who are screaming out that they'd like more money. Be fair. If you're going to make a decision in this place, make it fair right across the board for everyone. Incentivise people to get up off their backsides, start going to work and start applying for these jobs. If you don't, do investigations into why these people are still on welfare after 10, 20, 30 or 40 years.

Why are we getting a fourth generation that is on welfare? What have you done about that? What have you done to address that issue? Where is the accountability? Where's the accountability? Why are we seeing our welfare bill go up continually year in, year out? You got 100,000 people off welfare payments, yet you brought—what?—over 400,000 into the country in the last year. That doesn't equate to me.

Like I said, go and do your sums, go and talk to the Australian grassroots people out there, go and talk to businesses, go and talk to the farmers and make it fair right across the board. Get these people off welfare payments by incentivising them. Don't keep increasing their payments all the time to make life better in one way. You've got to incentivise them to see that this is not the way of life, to get off welfare payments and to go and get a job.

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

I indicate that the Greens will be supporting this amendment. It's very similar—exactly the same, in fact—as an amendment that we also were pursuing. I also want to thank Senator David Pocock for his passion for and commitment to raising the wellbeing of people who are living on income support.

Of course, it's extremely disappointing that both the Labor and the Liberal parties teamed up to vote against increasing income support to above the poverty line, as per the amendment I moved previously. It is interesting to see that we have here an amendment that is based on the recommendations that the government's own Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, their own hand-picked committee, made. It was chaired by former minister Jenny Macklin. It had the people that they picked. They had the people that they wanted to advise the government on income support on this committee. The committee reviewed the evidence of the academics who have decades of expertise in this area and talked to people with lived experience, and they said that we needed to raise income support to at least 90 per cent of the age pension, which was the level they picked.

I would have thought, given the whole issue of what level income support should be, that, at the very least, the government would have listened to the recommendations of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. So I do want to ask the minister: was the evidence of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee part of the evidence base for this bill?

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

Thank you, Senator Rice. As I indicated in response to Senator Pocock's last contribution, we respect the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. The government certainly hasn't made appointments to that committee that reflect desire to shut out expert evidence or alternative points of view. In fact, we value the advice and deliberative capacity of that group. It does not mean that we'll agree with the conclusions that they reach, because the government has to have regard to a range of considerations that are our responsibility, but we are not afraid of alternative points of view. It certainly was taken into account and engaged with as one of the sources of advice that the government had prior to making decisions about the range of issues that are incorporated into this bill.

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

It's good to hear that their advice was considered as part of the evidence base for this bill. I want to ask a simple question. The Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, in making their recommendations, said that the rate of JobSeeker was seriously inadequate. I know the government's position is that you had to take other things into account in determining where you landed on the level—and, obviously, we are very disappointed with where you landed. I don't want to go into that; I understand where you've landed. What I want to know is this: does the government agree with the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee's assessment that the current rate of JobSeeker is seriously inadequate?

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

Indeed, and that's why the government is implementing a $40 increase, exclusive of indexation. That means that, on 20 September, people will receive in the order of $56. It is important to assess that in line with the government's other changes. It sits alongside cost-of-living relief that the government provided in the budget for concession card holders. It includes help with power bills through the government's Energy Bill Relief Fund, record investment in Medicare bulk-billing, cheaper medicines and a range of other improvements to the social safety net. The $40 increase is a substantial increase. It's been carefully calibrated to provide additional support. We agree with the conclusion that the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee reached that there needed to be a substantial increase to JobSeeker and associated payments. The government has reached a conclusion about the scale of that increase, and we will continue to consider, in every budget deliberation, how we approach that question.

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

I want to thank Senator Hanson for her concern for people who are working and doing it tough. The reality is that, across the country at the moment, there are many people who do have jobs and many families that are doing it tough, dealing with inflation and interest rates that are going up, and we do need to be mindful of them. I said this yesterday and I want to say it again: we need to take heed of the words from Commissioner Holmes about the way that we talk about people in Australia who are receiving welfare payments and who are on JobSeeker. It matters; the language we use matters. The way that we've heard them talked about, and the othering of them, talking about them as some lazy group of people that should not be of concern to us, is deeply concerning. I would urge all senators to think about the way that we talk about that. We should be proud to live in a country where we have chosen to have a social security system and a safety net. The other part of this conversation is that we're kidding ourselves if we think that we can save money on social security by having people live in poverty and not pick that up somewhere else in our health budget or in our policing.

All these other areas are where we know we're going to pick up the bill eventually, and so it's such short-term thinking to think that we can just rip away social security payments and have people living in poverty and that's better for taxpayers. It's not, and we know it's not. We will be paying the costs when it comes to the health of those people who can't afford fresh food, who can't afford the basic necessities of life and who certainly, from what I've heard from a lot of people, can't afford to fill scripts and to see the GP when they need medical care. We know how expensive that becomes when people don't have access to health care when they need it and have to put it off so that things end up compounding and they end up in the emergency departments.

My question to the minister is based on what I have heard from a lot of young people, particularly students, many on the living-away-from home allowance and on the youth allowance, who say that on this payment they simply cannot afford fresh food. 'I can't afford to eat healthy food, so I'm surviving on two-minute noodles and whatever I can to get by.' Minister, are you confident that $40 per fortnight will make the difference needed to ensure people can afford fresh food, or can you share the strategy for how we can make fresh food more accessible to those on low incomes and payments?

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

Thank you, Senator Pocock. Of course, $40 a week, taken together with the range of other measures that sit within this bill and the range of other measures that the government has undertaken, will make a substantial difference. In terms of JobSeeker recipients, it will make a substantial difference to a million people who will be the recipients of that additional amount. Some of the other measures in this bill affect a substantial cohort of people. I do not stand here to pretend that this will resolve all of the issues for the many thousands of Australians who are doing it tough, particularly in an environment of higher than normal inflation. My answer to your question is very much the same answer that I gave perhaps at more length yesterday in response to questions from Senator Rice. The government has made a carefully calibrated assessment, and this is a substantial increase that will make a substantial difference to a lot of people.

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

Minister, this is my last question. I'm interested in how the government measures or monitors living standards of people on working-age payments, and, depending on your answer, are you looking to establish a modern adequacy measure for working-age payments so that we can monitor this?

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

S (—) (): I want to make sure that I can give you some proper advice, Senator Pocock. As I think you indicated in your initial contribution on this, Australia doesn't have an official poverty line and poverty is a complex issue. It's driven by many factors, and there is no single measure. There are a range of measures. There are ranges of data that are used, and they all tend to give different answers about the extent of poverty. It's important to remember that all of those commonly used relative poverty indicators don't provide an assessment of people's absolute material living standards. The data only takes you as far as aggregate data can take an assessment of poverty. The government considers factors when examining living standards that include non-income base supports available to households. It considers existing savings and wealth that can potentially be drawn upon and it considers homeownership status when making a range of these kinds of decisions. It's not something, in my view, that is resolved necessarily by being able to establish a single effective measure of poverty in Australia. In fact, the different data provides different information that assists the assessment. Different information and different relative assessments assist the contribution. I'm not sure there would be many in the welfare sector who would agree that a single definitive dataset or index would necessarily assist better policymaking in this area. When legislated, I look forward to more advice to government on this range of questions, including from the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, which will, as I indicated before, be legislated over the course of this year.

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

The coalition will not be supporting these amendments put forward by Senator David Pocock because we don't believe the two measures contained in this are the best way to address the issues facing Australians on working-age payments. We believe it would be far better addressed in relation to housing affordability, for the government to reconsider its failed housing policy agenda and start addressing the real issues facing our current housing market. For the reason that we believe this is a very blunt way of addressing the issues that are before Australians who are on working-age payments, we will not be supporting the amendments.

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

I indicate the government will not be supporting the amendments. Thank you for the discussion around this. The government urges the Senate to oppose the amendments.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the requests for amendments be agreed to.

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

I move amendment (1) on sheet 2028:

(1) Page 33 (after line 26), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 4 — Reinstatement of 6-year limit on debt recovery for social security debts

A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999

1 After paragraph 84(1)(b)

Insert:

Note: Section 85 specifies a time limit on recovery action for debts due to the Commonwealth under the Social Security Act 1991.

2 After subparagraph 84A(1)(b)(ii)

Insert:

Note: Section 85 specifies a time limit on recovery action for debts due to the Commonwealth under the Social Security Act 1991.

3 After section 84A

Insert:

85 Time limits on recovery action under sections 84 and 84A for debts due to the Commonwealth under the Social Security Act 1991

(1) This section applies to action under section 84 or 84A for the recovery of a debt if the debt is a debt due by a person to the Commonwealth under the Social Security Act 1991.

(2) Subject to subsections (3), (4) and (5), action under section 84 or 84A for the recovery of a debt is not to be commenced after the end of the period of 6 years starting on the first day on which an officer becomes aware, or could reasonably be expected to have become aware, of the circumstances that gave rise to the debt.

(3) If:

(a) subsection (2) applies so that action under section 84 or 84A for the recovery of a debt must be commenced within a particular period; and

(b) within that period part of the amount owing is paid;

action under that section for the recovery of the balance of the debt may be commenced within the period of 6 years starting on the day of payment.

(4) If:

(a) subsection (2) applies so that action under section 84 or 84A for the recovery of a debt must be commenced within a particular period; and

(b) within that period, the person who owes the amount acknowledges that he or she owes it;

action under that section for the recovery of the debt may be commenced within the period of 6 years starting on the day of acknowledgment.

4 Section 93B

Before "For", insert "(1)".

5 At the end of section 93B

Add:

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to action taken under section 84 or 84A for the recovery of a debt if the debt is a debt due by a person to the Commonwealth under the Social Security Act 1991.

Note: Section 85 specifies a time limit on recovery action for debts due to the Commonwealth under the Social Security Act 1991.

6 Before paragraph 95(3)(b)

Insert:

(a) the debt cannot be recovered by means of:

(i) deductions under section 84; or

(ii) deductions under section 1231 of the Social Security Act 1991; or

(iii) setting off under section 84A family assistance; or

because the relevant time limit for recovery action under that section has elapsed; or

Social Security Act 1991

7 Subsection 1231(2)

Omit "The", substitute "Subject to subsections (4) to (6), the".

8 At the end of section 1231

Add:

(3) Subject to subsections (4), (5) and (6), action under this section for the recovery of a debt or overpayment is not to be commenced after the end of the period of 6 years starting on the first day on which an officer becomes aware, or could reasonably be expected to have become aware, of the circumstances that gave rise to the debt.

(4) If:

(a) subsection (3) applies so that action under this section for the recovery of a debt or overpayment must be commenced within a particular period; and

(b) within that period part of the amount owing is paid;

action under this section for the recovery of the balance of the debt or overpayment may be commenced within the period of 6 years starting on the day of payment.

(5) If:

(a) subsection (3) applies so that action under this section for the recovery of a debt or overpayment must be commenced within a particular period; and

(b) within that period, the person who owes the amount acknowledges that he or she owes it;

action under this section for the recovery of the debt or overpayment may be commenced within the period of 6 years starting on the day of acknowledgment.

(6) If:

(a) subsection (3) applies so that action under this section for the recovery of a debt or overpayment must be commenced within a particular period; and

(b) within that period:

(i) action is taken under this section or section 1232 (legal proceedings) or 1233 (garnishee notice) for the recovery of the debt or overpayment; or

(ii) a review of a file relating to action for the recovery of the debt or overpayment occurs; or

(iii) other internal Departmental activity relating to action for the recovery of the debt or overpayment occurs;

action under this section for the recovery of the debt or overpayment may be commenced within the period of 6 years after the end of the activity or action referred to in paragraph (b).

9 Section 1232

Before "If", insert "(1)".

10 At the end of section 1232

Add:

(2) Subject to subsections (3), (4) and(5), legal proceedings for the recovery of the debt are not to be commenced after the end of the period of 6 years starting on the first day on which an officer becomes aware, or could reasonably be expected to have become aware, of the circumstances that gave rise to the debt.

(3) If:

(a) subsection (2) applies so that legal proceedings for the recovery of a debt must be commenced within a particular period; and

(b) within that period part of the amount owing is paid;

legal proceedings for the recovery of the balance of the debt may be commenced within the period of 6 years starting on the day of payment.

(4) If:

(a) subsection (2) applies so that legal proceedings for the recovery of a debt must be commenced within a particular period; and

(b) within that period, the person who owes the amount acknowledges that he or she owes it;

legal proceedings for the recovery of the debt may be commenced within the period of 6 years starting on the day of acknowledgment.

(5) If:

(a) subsection (2) applies so that action under this section for the recovery of a debt must be commenced within a particular period; and

(b) within that period:

(i) action is taken under this section or section 1231 (deductions) or 1233 (garnishee notice) for the recovery of the debt; or

(ii) a review of a file relating to action for the recovery of the debt occurs; or

(iii) other internal Departmental activity relating to action for the recovery of the debt occurs;

action under this section for the recovery of the debt may be commenced within the period of 6 years after the end of the activity or action referred to in paragraph (b).

11 After subsection 1233(7)

Insert:

(7A) Subject to subsections (7B), (7C) and (7D), action under this section for the recovery of a debt is not to be commenced after the end of the period of 6 years starting on the first day on which an officer becomes aware, or could reasonably be expected to have become aware, of the circumstances that gave rise to the debt.

(7B) If:

(a) subsection (7A) applies so that action under this section for the recovery of a debt must be commenced within a particular period; and

(b) within that period part of the amount owing is paid;

action under this section for the recovery of the balance of the debt may be commenced within the period of 6 years starting on the day of payment.

(7C) If:

(a) subsection (7A) applies so that action under this section for the recovery of a debt must be commenced within a particular period; and

(b) within that period, the person who owes the amount acknowledges that he or she owes it;

action under this section for the recovery of the debt may be commenced within the period of 6 years starting on the day of acknowledgment.

(7D) If:

(a) subsection (7A) applies so that action under this section for the recovery of a debt must be commenced within a particular period; and

(b) within that period:

(i) action is taken under this section or section 1231 (deductions) or 1232 (legal proceedings) for the recovery of the debt; or

(ii) a review of a file relating to action for the recovery of the debt occurs; or

(iii) other internal Departmental activity relating to action for the recovery of the debt occurs;

action under this section for the recovery of the debt may be commenced within the period of 6 years after the end of the activity or action referred to in paragraph (b).

12 Section 1234B

Repeal the section.

13 Before paragraph 1236(1B)(b)

Insert:

(a) the debt cannot be recovered by means of deductions, or legal proceedings, or garnishee notice, because the relevant 6 year period mentioned in section 1231, 1232 or 1233 has elapsed; or

(aa) the debt cannot be recovered by means of deductions or setting off because the relevant 6 year period mentioned in section 85 of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 has elapsed; or

14 Application of amendments

A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999

(1) The amendments of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 made by this Schedule apply in relation to:

(a) a debt that arises on or after the commencement of this item; and

(b) a debt that arose before the commencement of this item, to the extent that the debt was outstanding immediately before that commencement.

(2) Paragraph (1)(b) applies in relation to a debt only if, immediately before the commencement of this item, action under section 84 or 84A of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 could be commenced or taken for the recovery of the debt.

Social Security Act 1991

(3) The amendments of the Social Security Act 1991 made by this Schedule apply in relation to:

(a) a debt or overpayment that arises on or after the commencement of this item; and

(b) a debt or overpayment that arose before the commencement of this item, to the extent that the debt or overpayment was outstanding immediately before that commencement.

(4) Paragraph (3)(b) applies in relation to a debt or overpayment only if, immediately before the commencement of this item, action under section 1231 or 1233, or legal proceedings under section 1232, of the Social Security Act 1991 could be commenced for the recovery of the debt or overpayment.

This amendment is about implementing one of the recommendations from the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme. It was Greens senator Rachel Siewert who first established the first Senate Standing Committees on Community Affairs inquiry into the Centrelink compliance program, otherwise known as robodebt, and it was the Greens who first called for a royal commission into robodebt. People fought and campaigned for the robodebt royal commission to be established. Obviously, the royal commission had some very far-reaching and important recommendations. The royal commission can't bring restitution to everyone who lost so much in the face of the illegal debt recovery, but at least it has brought some measures of transparency and accountability after years of cover up and concealment by Liberal ministers and senior bureaucrats, laughing and lying as they inflicted untold misery on vulnerable people, illegally trying to recover debts in a search for budget savings.

We've now got recommendations from the royal commission, and we think it's really important that they get implemented as quickly as possible. Many of them are very large and very complex and are going to take a lot of time for the government to work out the best way to implement them across portfolios. We, as Greens, acknowledge the importance of taking your time with those recommendations. However, there was one recommendation which was pretty straightforward, which was recommendation 18.2. It refers to the changes made by the Turnbull government that changed the legislation's previous requirement for a six-year time frame for debts to be raised. Basically, if it was a debt that was more than six years old you couldn't raise a debt against it. The Turnbull government changed that so that debts older than six years were fair game. The robodebt royal commission made a very clear recommendation that we should change that:

The Commonwealth should repeal s 1234B of the Social Security Act and reinstate the effective limitation period of six years for the bringing of proceedings to recover debts under Part 5.2 of the Act …

There is no reason that current and former social security recipients should be on a different footing from other debtors.

We have legislation before us today to amend the Social Security Act. It is a very straightforward thing, as per my amendment, to reinstate the provisions that were there before the Abbott government's changes. This recommendation isn't complex. It's not one of the complex robodebt royal commission recommendations. I understand the arguments from the government that we need to implement those recommendations slowly and carefully. I accept that for most of them, but that's not the case for this one. In particular, I've also heard the argument: 'No, we've got to wait to do this until we've got the full picture of what we need to do.' I would have been very happy for an amendment that acknowledged that this is a stopgap provision and that, in the fullness of time, once we've got all of the changes that are required, we can change the provisions if there's a better way of doing it.

In the meantime, here is a very straightforward opportunity to provide some justice for people by putting in place the provision as it used to be—to say that debts that are more than six years old should not be pursued. We don't know when the full suite of changes, after the government's careful consideration of them, are going to come into place. It might be years off. In the meantime, at least do this. It was a very simple recommendation of the royal commission and it's something that could easily be done today.

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

The government won't be supporting this amendment, on the basis that Senator Rice herself set out in her contribution. We will consider all of the recommendations of the robodebt royal commission. We will develop, as a government, a careful package of reforms. We will not be rushed into consideration of individual elements of that. We intend to offer a very thorough-going response to the robodebt royal commission to ensure not just better policy outcomes here, but to ensure that something like this can never happen again.

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

The opposition will not be supporting this amendment either because we don't believe this is the appropriate place to deal with such an amendment.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 2028, as moved by Senator Rice, be agreed to.

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

I move amendment (1) on sheet 2049, as circulated in my name:

(1) Page 33 (after line 26), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 4 — Removing the activity test

A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999

1 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child )

Repeal the definition.

2 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child result )

Repeal the definition.

3 Subsection 3(1) (definition of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person )

Repeal the definition.

4 Subsection 3(1) (definition of activity test result )

Repeal the definition.

5 Subsection 3(1) (definition of child wellbeing result )

Repeal the definition.

6 Subsection 3(1)

Insert:

circumstances test result has the meaning given by clause 11 of Schedule 2.

7 Subsection 3(1) (definition of deemed activity test result )

Repeal the definition.

8 Subsection 3(1)

Insert:

deemed circumstances test result has the meaning given by clause 16 of Schedule 2.

9 Subsection 3(1) (definition of extended child wellbeing period )

Repeal the definition.

10 Subsection 3(1) (definition of low income result )

Repeal the definition.

11 Subsection 3(1) (definition of paid work )

Omit "(other than in paragraph 12(2)(a) of Schedule 2)".

12 Subsection 3(1) (definition of recognised activity )

Repeal the definition.

13 Subsection 3(1) definition of recognised activity result )

Repeal the definition.

14 Subsection 3B(1)

Omit "(other than in paragraph 12(2)(a) of Schedule 2)".

15 Subsection 3B(1) (note)

Repeal the note.

16 Clause 1 of Schedule 2 (method statement, step 1)

Repeal the step.

17 Clause 1 of Schedule 2 (method statement, step 5, paragraph (a))

Omit "activity-tested", substitute "circumstances-tested".

18 Clause 1 of Schedule 2 (method statement, step 5, paragraph (b))

Omit "activity-tested", substitute "circumstances-tested".

19 Clause 1 of Schedule 2 (method statement, step 6)

Omit "activity-tested", substitute "circumstances-tested".

20 Clause 1 of Schedule 2 (method statement, step 7)

Omit "activity-tested", substitute "circumstances-tested".

21 Clause 4 of Schedule 2 (heading)

Omit "Activity-tested", substitute "Circumstances-tested".

22 Subclause 4(1) of Schedule 2

Omit "activity-tested amount", substitute "circumstances-tested amount".

23 Subparagraph 4(1)(a)(i) of Schedule 2

Omit "activity test", substitute "circumstances test".

24 Subclause 4(2) of Schedule 2

Omit "activity test" (wherever occurring), substitute "circumstances test".

25 Clause 4A of Schedule 2 (heading)

Omit "activity-tested", substitute "circumstances-tested".

26 Paragraph 4A(1)(a) of Schedule 2

Omit "activity-tested", substitute "circumstances-tested".

27 Subclause 4A(2) of Schedule 2

Omit "adjustedactivity-tested amount", substitute "adjustedcircumstances-tested amount".

28 Paragraphs 4A(2)(a) and (b) of Schedule 2

Omit "activity-tested", substitute "circumstances-tested".

29 Clause 8 of Schedule 2 (method statement, step 1)

Omit "activity test", substitute "circumstances test".

30 Clause 8 of Schedule 2 (method statement, step 4)

Omit "activity-tested", substitute "circumstances-tested".

31 Clause 8 of Schedule 2 (method statement, step 5)

Omit "activity-tested", substitute "circumstances-tested".

32 Clause 10 of Schedule 2 (heading)

Omit "Activity-tested", substitute "Circumstances-tested".

33 Subclause 10(1)

Omit "activity-tested amount", substitute "circumstances-tested amount".

34 Paragraph 10(1)(a) of Schedule 2

Omit "activity test", substitute "circumstances test".

35 Subclause 10(2) of Schedule 2

Omit "activity test" (wherever occurring), substitute "circumstances test".

36 Part 5 of Schedule 2 (heading)

Repeal the heading, substitute:

Part 5 — Circumstances test

37 Division 1 of Part 5 of Schedule 2 (heading)

Omit "activity test", substitute "circumstances test".

38 Clause 11 of Schedule 2 (heading)

Omit "activity test", substitute "circumstances test".

39 Subclause 11(1) of Schedule 2

Omit "activity test result", substitute "circumstances test result".

40 Subparagraph 11(1)(b)(ii) of Schedule 2

Repeal the subparagraph, substitute:

(ii) the result worked out in accordance with paragraph (a) for the individual's partner in relation to the child.

41 Subclause 11(1) of Schedule 2 (table heading)

Repeal the heading, substitute:

Individual's circumstances test result

42 Subclause 11(1) of Schedule 2 (table items 1 and 2)

Repeal the items, substitute:

43 Subclause 11(1) of Schedule 2 (table item 4)

Repeal the item.

44 Subclause 11(1) of Schedule 2 (table item 6)

Repeal the item.

45 Subclause 11(5) of Schedule 2

Omit "activity test" (wherever occurring), substitute "circumstances test".

46 Clauses 12, 13, 15 and 15A of Schedule 2

Repeal the clauses.

47 Division 2 of Part 5 of Schedule 2 (heading)

Omit "activity test", substitute "circumstances test".

48 Clause 16 of Schedule 2 (heading)

Omit "activity test", substitute "circumstances test".

49 Subclause 16(1) of Schedule 2

Omit "deemed activity test result", substitute "deemed circumstances test result".

A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999

50 Subparagraph 67CE(1)(b)(ii)

Omit "activity test", substitute "circumstances test".

51 Subsection 67FB(4)

Repeal the subsection.

52 Paragraph 105C(1)(b)

Omit "one", substitute "either".

53 Subparagraph 105C(1)(b)(ia)

Repeal the subparagraph.

54 Subparagraph 105D(2)(a)(ii)

Omit "activity test", substitute "circumstances test".

55 Subparagraph 105E(1)(c)(ii)

Omit "activity test", substitute "circumstances test".

56 Subparagraph 105E(3)(c)(ii)

Omit "activity test", substitute "circumstances test".

57 Subparagraph 108(5)(b)

Omit "activity test", substitute "circumstances test".

58 Paragraph 111(2A)(b)

Omit "activity test", substitute "circumstances test".

59 Paragraph 157(2)(k)

Repeal the paragraph.

60 Application of amendments

The amendments of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 and A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 made by this Schedule apply in relation to sessions of care provided to a child in a CCS fortnight that starts after the commencement of this item.

This amendment would remove the activity test, which is a longstanding source of pain for parents, as multiple reviews, including those conducted by IEIAC and the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, have recognised. There is evidence to suggest the activity test discourages parents from working more hours, especially in casual jobs with variable hours. As IEIAC said, 'The activity test is a poor piece of public policy that should be reformed.' We have an opportunity now to do that. I do not intend to force a division on this given the time.

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

The Greens will be wholeheartedly supporting Senator Pocock's amendment.

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

The opposition will not be supporting this amendment.

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

The government will oppose the amendment. The Productivity Commission has kicked off a comprehensive inquiry into early childhood education and the range of issues that have been outlined here, and it will provide an interim report at the end of the year.

Question negatived.

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

I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 2031:

(1) Page 33 (after line 26), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 6 — Determination of a national poverty line

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999

1 After section 241

Insert:

241A National poverty line

Minister to determine national poverty line

(1) As soon as practicable after the end of the 2022-23 financial year, and each later financial year, the Minister must, by notifiable instrument, determine a national poverty line for the next financial year.

Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee to give Minister advice

(2) The Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee must give the Minister written advice that relates to the determination of a national poverty line for a financial year.

(3) In considering advice to be given to the Minister under subsection (2), the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee may make provision for public consultation.

(4) The Minister must:

(a) follow the advice provided by the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee under subsection (2) in determining a national poverty line for the relevant financial year; and

(b) cause a copy of that advice to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the advice.

Definitions

(5) In this section:

Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee means the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee or any body that replaces that committee.

This is about establishing a national poverty line. For too long we have seen both Labor and Liberal governments content with leaving income support payments well below the poverty line. There are numerous definitions in the community at the moment as to what the poverty line is. The Henderson poverty line is currently $88 a day. We have other poverty lines in use. It is clear, in order to be able to track poverty across Australia, that we need to have a definition.

I heard Senator Ayres saying earlier it was too complex and we can't possibly have one. That is not the situation; that is not where the current thinking is. Yes, it's complex, but we can establish one, and we should establish one. My amendment would give the recommendation to the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee to do the research to determine what the national poverty line is and then implement that recommendation.

Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While I understand the motivation behind the Greens' amendment on sheet 2031, it's not something that we can support. The amendment calls for the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee to determine a single national poverty line for a financial year, every year. It requires the committee to give that poverty line to the minister and for the minister to have to table it. This is asking the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee to do something that is impossible. Poverty doesn't look the same everywhere. Poverty in Tasmania isn't like poverty in Sydney, where the cost of living is really high. You've got to draw the line higher. Because the cost of just feeding and housing yourself is higher in Sydney than it is in Tasmania, you can't guarantee much about a single national poverty line consistent everywhere except that it's going to be wrong everywhere. It's the problem with averages. It's going to be too high in Tassie and too low in Sydney, and it's going to be wrong from day one.

The Henderson poverty line is a series that most people use in Australia to define the threshold for poverty. It's updated every three months. That's because the cost of living changes more than once a year and payments change twice a year, and the cost of housing changes when interest rates change every month. If you set the 2023 Henderson poverty line to where it was at in 2022, based on data from the previous year, you'd be wrong as soon as you start, and you'd get more wrong the longer you wait to update. The Greens have designed this amendment to have the line updated once a year based on the data of the previous year to inform a budget that applies to the next year. It misleads because it applies a single standard on everyone using old information, and then projects it forward as if nothing else is changing.

Finally, the Henderson poverty line is actually a series of 20 different lines. There is no one line. The Henderson model breaks it down based on your living circumstances. A single unemployed parent with four kids is going to have more bills to pay and more mouths to feed than a working couple with no kids. They can both be in poverty, but they can't be if you use a single line. You can't compare a working single parent with a retired pensioner who owns their own home and say that because that pensioner owns their own home they can't be in poverty. You might have bought it 50 years ago when prices were cheap and now you own it, but you can't afford your heating, you can't afford your groceries, your car doesn't leave the garage because you can't afford the registration. A single national poverty line would say that you're fine, and we know that you're not.

Poverty doesn't look like any one single thing. It matters where you live. It matters who lives with you. If we were to support this amendment it would be because we think poverty rates are important to measure and track, and it's important to have the government focused on reducing the number of people who are living below the line. We do think it's important to do all of those things. But it's because poverty is important that we think it's worth measuring right and tracking right, and we don't want to ignore whole groups of people who are living in poverty right now because we want a single, simple number instead of a messy, complicated bunch of different ones.

Poverty rates should be a national obsession. I want governments to measure success or failure based on how many people are unable to make ends meet, but we will not get there by jumping out of the gates with a number we know is wrong based on data we know is old averaging away people who don't seem to count. It's because they count that they deserve to be counted, and that's what this amendment would prevent. That's why we can't support it.

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

For the reasons that I set out in response to the amendment moved by Senator Pocock earlier, the government will be opposing the amendment.

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

The coalition will also be opposing this amendment.

Andrew McLachlan (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the Australian Greens amendment on sheet 2031, as moved by Senator Rice, be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.