|
representatives vote 2020-02-12#2
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2020-03-06 10:53:25
|
Title
Bills — Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020; Second Reading- Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill 2020 - Second Reading - Criticism of Government
Description
<p class="speaker">Peta Murphy</p><p>I rise to speak in support of the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Income Reporting and Other Measures) Bill and also in support of the second reading amendment moved by the shadow minister. This is a debating chamber, so before I move to the remarks I want to make I'd like to respond to some of the things that have been said by members of the government so far in consideration of this legislation.</p><p>The member for Moncrieff spoke, somewhat bizarrely I think, about how Liberals believe in feeding their children. I want to make it clear that everyone believes in feeding their children, no matter which political party they're aligned to, or even if they're not aligned to a political party. But the sad reality in 2020 in Australia is that not everyone can afford to properly feed their children.</p>- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2020-02-12.13.3) to the usual [second reading motion](https://www.peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/bills-and-laws/making-a-law-in-the-australian-parliament/), which means it failed. The usual second reading motion is "that the bill be read for a second time", which is parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. The amendment was introduced by Barton MP [Linda Burney](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/barton/linda_burney) (Labor).
- ### Motion text
- > *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:*
- >
- > *"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes the Government's:*
- >
- > *(1) stubborn defence for three years of its failed Robodebt program which frightened thousands of innocent Australians with false or inflated debts; and*
- >
- > *(2) repeated attempts to cut the pension and social security".*
<p>Today, news.com.au has a report that everyone should find chilling. Its cost-of-living survey revealed the 'common struggle to make ends meet'. This is what news.com.au says—and those people who have been listening to the concerns that Labor has been raising about the state of the economy and how hard it is for families and individuals to make their way will find some familiar themes:</p><p class="italic">Soaring expenses, never-ending bills, low wages and inadequate welfare payments are creating a perfect financial storm that has left thousands of Aussies struggling to get by.</p><p class="italic">That's according to news.com.au readers, who have revealed in their own words just how hard life in Australia can be in 2020.</p><p>The results, according to news.com.au, are clear: many Australians are barely getting by.</p><p>Respondents to the survey were asked to select whether they felt they were on 'Struggle Street', 'barely coping', 'doing okay', or on 'Easy Street', based on how they were faring financially. About 53 per cent of respondents believe they were 'doing okay'—and I'll come back to what 'doing okay' means to these people later—only four per cent of Australians believe they were on 'Easy Street', and the rest were 'feeling the pinch', with 28 per cent on 'Struggle Street' and 14 per cent 'barely coping'.</p><p>So why did they feel they were 'barely coping'? Completely relevant to the legislation and the issues we're discussing in this debate today, this is what news.com.au reports about what Australians are saying about why they are doing it tough:</p><p class="italic">Many of those on government benefits such as the age pension, Newstart, the Disability Support Pension (DSP) and Austudy reported earning an income so meagre they were left with just a few dollars once necessary expenses like rent and bills were paid.</p><p>The member for Ryan said a number of times in his contribution to this debate: 'People should be clear—this legislation doesn't change the rate of social services.' No, it doesn't. It doesn't increase any of them, not even Newstart. Where businesses, welfare groups, community groups, and, if the member for Ryan's electorate is anything like mine, people who are struggling day to day to make ends meet are all calling for Newstart to increase. But let's just be clear about this: this bill doesn't do that.</p><p>News.com.au has quoted what people have said to that organisation. Again, I know that people on my side of the chamber, Labor members of parliament, hear this from their constituents day in, day out. I would expect that the Liberal members of parliament also hear this from their constituents, but it boggles my mind as to why they don't repeat it or aren't doing anything about it. But here's a quote from news.com.au:</p><p class="italic">I am on the DSP and it covers my mortgage and then leaves me with $90 to live on.</p><p>$90 to live on! Another said: 'Living off Austudy is impossible.' And another said:</p><p class="italic">Although I get full payment of welfare along with Rent Assistance, more than half of my pay goes to rent and bills every single fortnight. If I’m lucky, I may have $20 to myself.</p><p>And I quote from the article:</p><p class="italic">Another common theme was the impact of 'crippling' bills and other regular, unavoidable costs.</p><p>  …   …   …</p><p class="italic">Most respondents blame government policy for cost of living pressures, followed by big business and a shaky global economy.</p><p>Too right, government policy. This federal government's policy is letting down Australians.</p><p>Interestingly, we hear in this place often from ministers and members of the government about how they have brought down electricity and gas prices—they're personally responsible for it. Well, this Aussie, quoted in news.com.au, says:</p><p class="italic">The huge increases in the electricity and gas prices have caused a nightmare for me. Also, as (I’m) recently retired and not eligible for a government pension, the land tax increases (and) council rates increases have eaten into my income severely.</p><p>Another Aussie said:</p><p class="italic">It’s almost impossible to save any money—every time I get a little stashed away, in comes the electricity bill to take it off me again.</p><p>Someone else feels like they:</p><p class="italic">"are living in the most expensive country in the world," … while others reported "living pay cheque to pay cheque" and being "swamped" by bills, with "nothing left"</p><p>Another wrote: 'my gross annual income is $30,863 and (I) am barely holding it together.'</p><p>Many others share their agonising fear over how they would handle an emergency when they are living pay cheque to pay cheque: 'I can just cover bills but anything outside normal breaks me.' These aren't my words; these are the words of Aussies who are doing it tough. One might say they're having a go, but it doesn't appear to feel like they're getting a go. One reader said that she only eats every third day when her son is not with her and that she 'can't afford doctors or basic needs (and) rely on help from others …'. This is happening in Australia in 2020. It really shouldn't be. People who are doing okay describe themselves in this way:</p><p class="italic">I am not pay cheque to pay cheque and am able to put money away for savings. However, I also do turn down events and occasions because I do not have the funds.</p><p>Another person said, 'We're "just managing to keep the bills paid" with "little to no going out," but we're "doing okay."' You're right, member for Ryan; this bill doesn't do anything to increase any of the services that anyone relies on. But it should. It really should.</p><p>In my office, one of the significant inquiries that we have is from people who are relying on various Centrelink payments. Like everyone else in this place, I have constituents who have been burdened by the government's illegal, pernicious robodebt scheme. I've spoken in this place before about a single mum who came to me because she had had $30,000 garnished out of her bank account, leaving her with less than $50 to survive over a weekend looking after her children. I've also mentioned a first-time young mother who had a wrongful debt raised against her by the robodebt system that she did not owe—not once, but twice. We had to make inquiries and representations to get it waived the second time. Just last week a constituent contacted my office regarding a debt that had been levied against them by Centrelink or—somewhat ironically named–Services Australia, as it's now known. We asked for an investigation.</p><p>The local Services Australia—I would say at this point the people working there are terrific. They are working as hard as they can to do the best job they can under really difficult circumstances. These criticisms are not about people who work at government services. They are about the way this federal government runs, or runs down, those services. So I was contacted last week in my office by someone who'd a debt raised against them. The local Services Australia office did an investigation, and, low and behold, it was an incorrect debt. Because she had received a one-off commission payment from some work that she'd done, it had been averaged over the financial year—which is what the algorithm of robodebt does—and she had been levied a debt that she had been told to repay.</p><p>Notwithstanding what we now know, that the government knows, that this scheme is illegal, and notwithstanding that we know that serious numbers of people have died after receiving a robodebt notice—some 2,000 people—notwithstanding that we know, through Senate estimates, that the robodebt scheme led the department to take money from 73 estates of people who were dead—amounting to some 225,000 people—notwithstanding all of that, people are still being lumped with debts that they don't owe. It is still happening—why? Why won't the ministers just acknowledge that this shouldn't be happening?</p><p>On behalf of my electorate, I am calling for people who have paid a robodebt to get in touch with Gordon Legal and the class action that is happening, because we know that most Australians are good people. They understand that if a government says something to them, they should have faith in the government that the government is correct. So many people have received a robodebt notice and have paid it. Why wouldn't you, if you're a normal Australian who believes and trusts in our system of government? But now we know that, for thousands and thousands of people, that robodebt system wasn't correct. If you're someone that lives in my electorate and you've paid a robodebt and you have concerns—contact my office. We will help you. We will put you forward to see whether or not you can be part of that class action. I'm calling on the government, like many of my Labor colleagues, to just admit the mistake and pay back people the money that they're owed.</p><p>Very recently in my electorate, I've also had people come to talk about what seems to be an emerging administrative problem. These are people who have been on Newstart and have applied to be on the disability support pension and are entitled to go on the disability support pension because they have a disability. I have a constituent who applied in January 2019 and only just was transferred to the DSP last week. These are people who can't work because of their disability. I have another constituent who also applied over 12 months ago and was only just granted at the end of the last month. The arrears owed were over $10,000—such a substantial amount that it had to be paid over a fortnight. In my electorate, people from St Vincent de Paul have come and spoken to me a number of times about the burden that the inadequate state of Newstart is putting on these organisations looking after people in need in my electorate. It's not good enough.</p><p>This legislation is welcome. Hopefully, it will make some change. We support this legislation. But, like other Labor colleagues, I'm concerned about this government's capacity to actually role out an IT system and to make sure that it benefits vulnerable people and doesn't just cause them further distress.</p><p>We know that this government has a pretty bad record of rolling out IT systems. The My Health Record system, which, in my personal opinion, is a terrific idea and should be something that Australians can rely on—this government has spent almost $2 billion on this e-health scheme, and we have doctors and patients refusing to use it because of legitimate privacy concerns, including breaches. I know from my personal experience, as someone that sees a range of medical professionals and has regular tests, that it's not working as it should, because people aren't uploading the records to it. They aren't confident in the system. Radiology reports aren't being uploaded. Blood tests aren't being uploaded. It is something that should make life so much better for patients in the system, but because people don't trust this government to roll things out properly, it is not fulfilling its potential. I really hope that this legislation does make life better for people that rely on services. But we will wait and see, and we will be vigilant.</p><p>I also want to express, in my closing remarks, my profound disappointment that I was in the chamber and a minister of the Crown yelled out at opposition backbenchers and called either me or someone else a goose. We deserve better than that. The Australian public deserves better than that. That's not how you behave when you're a minister. What you actually do is administer a system that makes life better for Australians, and you act like a mature adult, not a child.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|