|
senate vote 2023-08-02#4
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-09-15 09:28:10
|
Title
Bills — Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023; in Committee- Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Safety Net) Bill 2023 - in Committee - Increase working-age payments
Description
<p class="speaker">David Pocock</p><p>by leave—I move amendments (1) to (6) on sheet 2040:</p>-
- The majority voted against [amendments (1) to (6)](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr7041_amend_ebd3b615-45ea-4419-9b7e-4b7aec29d4c7%22;rec=0) introduced by ACT Senator [David Pocock](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/act/david_pocock) (Independent), which means they failed.
- ### What did these amendments do?
- Senator Pocock [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2023-08-02.23.1):
- > *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*
<p class="italic">(1) Schedule 2, item 1, page 4 (line 6) to page 6 (immediately before line 1), omit the item, substitute:</p><p class="italic">1 Point 1066A-B1 (table B)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 2, Divisions 2 to 5, page 8 (line 1) to page 13 (immediately before line 1), omit the Divisions, substitute:</p><p class="italic">Division 2 — Youth allowance</p><p class="italic"> <i>Social Security Act 1991</i></p><p class="italic">3 Point 1067G-B2 (table BA)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute:</p><p class="italic">4 Point 1067G-B3 (table BB)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute:</p><p class="italic">5 Point 1067G-B4 (table BC)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute:</p><p class="italic">Division 3 — Austudy payment</p><p class="italic"> <i>Social Security Act 1991</i></p><p class="italic">6 Subpoint 1067L-B2(1) (table BA)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the table (not including the note), substitute:</p><p class="italic">7 Point 1067L-B3 (table BB)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the table, substitute:</p><p class="italic">Division 4 — Jobseeker payment</p><p class="italic"> <i>Social Security Act 1991</i></p><p class="italic">8 Point 1068-B1 (table B)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute:</p><p class="italic">Division 4A — Parenting payment (single)</p><p class="italic"> <i>Social Security Act 1991</i></p><p class="italic">8A Point 1068A-B1</p><p class="italic">Omit "$21,470.80 per year ($825.80 per fortnight)", substitute "$24,897.60 per year ($957.60 per fortnight)".</p><p class="italic">Division 5 — Parenting payment (partnered)</p><p class="italic"> <i>Social Security Act 1991</i></p><p class="italic">9 Point 1068B-C2 (table C)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(3) Schedule 2, item 10, page 13 (line 6), omit "jobseeker payment" substitute "jobseeker payment, pension PP (single)".</p><p class="italic">(4) Schedule 3, items 7 and 8, page 16 (line 18) to page 19 (immediately before line 1), omit the items, substitute:</p><p class="italic">7 Clause 38D of Schedule 1 (table)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the table, substitute:</p><p class="italic">8 Clause 38E of Schedule 1 (table)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the table, substitute:</p><p class="italic">(5) Schedule 3, items 9 to 14, page 19 (line 2) to page 30 (immediately before line 1), omit the items, substitute:</p><p class="italic">9 Subsection 1070L(2) (table)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the table, substitute:</p><p class="italic">10 Subsection 1070M(2) (table)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the table, substitute:</p><p class="italic">11 Subsection 1070N(2) (table)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the table, substitute:</p><p class="italic">12 Subsection 1070P(2) (table)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the table, substitute:</p><p class="italic">13 Subsection 1070Q(2) (table)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the table, substitute:</p><p class="italic">14 Subsection 1070R(2) (table)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the table, substitute:</p><p class="italic">(6) Schedule 3, item 18, page 31 (line 5) to page 32 (immediately before line 1), omit the item, substitute:</p><p class="italic">18 Subpoint SCH6-C8(1) of Schedule 6 (table C-2)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the table (not including the notes), substitute:</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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?</p> <p class="speaker">Tim Ayres</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Pauline Hanson</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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?</p> <p class="speaker">Tim Ayres</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Pauline Hanson</p><p>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.</p><p>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—</p> <p class="speaker">Janet Rice</p><p>They are living in poverty.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|