Newstart Allowance

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (20:12): I move:

That this council—

1. Notes that Newstart, at $269.40 per week for a single person with no children, is significantly below the poverty line of $426.30 a week, as defined by the ACOSS Poverty in Australia Report, 2016;

2. Acknowledges the nine South Australian councils that, as of 15 November 2017, have called for Newstart to be raised: Port Adelaide Enfield, Streaky Bay, Salisbury, Playford, Onkaparinga, Mount Gambier, Kangaroo Island, Copper Coast and Clare Valley;

3. Commends the work of the Anti-Poverty Network in raising these issues at all levels of government; and

4. Calls on the federal government to increase the level of Newstart as a matter of urgency.

Since I gave notice of this motion, just yesterday, anticipating that it would be delivered this evening on 15 November, there has actually been another council to add to that list. Last night, the Adelaide city council made a decision to join this campaign as the 10^th local council in our state, taking the number over the past two months to 10 local governments—five metropolitan and five regional—representing some 583,000 or so South Australians who have joined the chorus of business, union and welfare groups calling for an increase in the grossly inadequate Newstart Allowance.

This is an important campaign, and it has been driven by the leadership of the Anti-Poverty Network. At this point, I particularly want to single out Pas Forgione for his outstanding efforts in devoting his expertise, time and passion to the Anti-Poverty Network, and also commend all of the members of the network. Indeed, there is a great need, sadly, for the work of the Anti-Poverty Network in our state. There is also, sadly, an ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor in this country. The way we choose to treat those who are the most disadvantaged in our society says a great deal about our values and the kind of society we wish to live in.

When I was at university, I learnt in sociology about theories of deserving and undeserving poor. Unfortunately, I think those theories have taken hold in contemporary Australia, rather than what I would prefer to see, namely, the Australian values of egalitarianism, mateship and a fair go. Despite national economic growth, the level of Newstart Allowance has not been raised in real terms for 23 years. To quote Catherine Yeomans, the CEO of Mission Australia, who was writing in the Huffington Post last month:

As the cost of housing and basics continue to rise, many people have to choose between paying the rent so they can keep a roof over their head and paying for the other essentials they need to survive…

Even with supplements and rent assistance, income support payments are falling well short of the income that's actually needed to cover bills, food and rent. This is leaving families and individuals with unacceptable choices.

The situation she refers to is simply not good enough, but where is the action? A snapshot of poverty in Australia provides a shocking picture that should prompt urgent action. According to the ACOSS report in 2016, Our Poverty in Australia, the poverty line—which is 50 per cent of median income in this particular definition—for a single adult is $426.30 a week. For a couple with two children, it is $895.22 a week. Despite Australia's 20-year economic growth, there are around three million people living in poverty. One in six children under the age of 15 lives in poverty. Gone are the days when our prime minister promised that no child need live in poverty in this country.

Child poverty in Australia increased by two percentage points over the decade 2003-04 to 2013-14. Of people receiving social security payments, 36.1 per cent were living below the poverty line, including 55 per cent of those receiving Newstart Allowance, 51.5 per cent of those receiving Parenting Payment, 36.2 per cent of those receiving the Disability Support Pension, 24.3 per cent receiving Carer Payment and 13.9 per cent of those on the Age Pension. Of people below the poverty line, 57.3 per cent relied on social security as their main income, and 32.1 per cent relied on wages as their main income.

Between 2012 and 2014, poverty rates increased for children in lone-parent families (from 36.8 per cent to 40.6 per cent); those who are receiving Youth Allowance (from 50.6 per cent to 51.8 per cent); and those receiving Parenting Payment (from 47.2 to 51.5 per cent). For unemployed households, the rates remained very high (61.4 per cent to 59.9 per cent from 2007 to 2014). The vast majority of people below the poverty line were in rental housing in 2014 (59.7 per cent), with most in private rental housing (44.2 per cent). Only 15.5 per cent of people living below the poverty line were homeowners.

That is a lot of statistics and, of course, the stories behind those statistics are often more powerful. I have spoken to people and they have no food to put in their pantries. They have no need for a pantry because there is simply nothing to place in it. They are embarrassed to have people over to see these empty pantries and will go out of their way to cover that shame. That comes from the attitude we have in this country that somehow it is acceptable for people to live in poverty and that somehow it is their own fault. It comes from the idea that there are deserving and undeserving poor.

Last month, during Anti-Poverty Week, SACOSS shone a light on the inequalities faced by those living in poverty, pointing to 10 poverty premiums paid by low income earners in South Australia. Essentially, these are extra costs borne by those living in poverty, costs that those with higher incomes can effectively buy their way out of. According to Greg Ogle from SACOSS, retailers are focused on luring premium customers who are equipped with the means to pay on time, to prepay and to buy in bulk and it is these people who benefit from the generous discounts on offer. The situation is simply perverse. It should not cost more to be poor, but it does. These are just some of the cost of living stressors faced by those trying to survive on Newstart, demonstrating that the allowance is utterly inadequate.

In recent years, we have seen a war waged on our most vulnerable and our most in need. We have seen a war on the poor when we need a war on poverty. I am proud to represent a party, the Greens, that has always stood for the most vulnerable in our society, championing kindness, equality and the common good. This war on the poor needs to end and instead we must urgently wage war on poverty itself. The Greens are committed to turning this around, building a system that does right by those who generally do it tough. Raising the level of Newstart would go a significant way to ending this war on the poor.

It is true that only the federal government can raise Newstart, but in the absence of leadership at a national level, the duty to speak up for those suffering disadvantage falls to others. Local councils have started to take up the slack, speaking up for their residents and taking a stand for those in desperate need of financial relief. For those who would say that councils should stick to the Rs, I would point out that it is not just roads, rates and rubbish, but it is indeed residents that councils are there to represent.

It is appropriate for this chamber to recognise the significance of such efforts and to join the call, standing with struggling jobseekers across South Australia. The nine councils that I noted yesterday in the official part of this motion have now been joined by Adelaide city council and the campaign continues to grow. There is good reason for local councils to take this stance. According to Pas Forgione, State Coordinator of the Anti-Poverty Network, South Australia:

Raising Newstart is a no-brainer: for the unemployed, it would mean a greater capacity to eat well, look after their physical and mental health, stay connected to their community and social supports, cope with emergency expenses, more effectively search for work, plus much less financial stress.

Increasing Newstart would benefit local economies, by increasing the spending power of those on low incomes, whose extra funds would circulate through local businesses. It would also reduce the strain on Council community services assisting the growing number of people [who are] experiencing hardship.

The Anti-Poverty Network has shown wonderful and considerable leadership in spearheading this campaign and raising the issues of poverty at all levels of government. It is now time that the federal government took leadership in raising the level of Newstart to ensure that Australians need no longer live below the poverty line. Hard times can befall us all and every South Australian should have the real support they need when they need it, support to be able to pay the rent on time, to be able to afford to put food on the table and to keep the lights on. This is the kind of support that an income support scheme, such as Newstart, should provide, but instead of real support the current levels simply condemn our most disadvantaged to living in poverty.

I conclude by referring to Senator Richard Di Natale, the leader of the Greens, in his National Press Club address of March this year. He bemoaned and said:

[While the old parties] promised jobs, jobs, jobs… neither party was honest enough to say… that our labour market has changed for good. Rapid globalisation and a culture where employers see wages as nothing more than a cost to be pushed down to raise profits, means that hundreds of thousands of Australians have found themselves out of work and [are] scared senseless about what the future holds for them and their families.

We know that the emerging technologies are going to rapidly and dramatically change the face of work. We know that for every job that is advertised there are at least 10 people who are looking. We always talk about the 16 per cent of people who want to work more hours, but we never hear about the more than one in four Australians who want to work less hours. A four-day work week or a six-hour day might actually make many Australians happier and create more opportunities for others.

We need to look beyond what the current status quo is and certainly not accept a dog-eat-dog society, where people are pushed into poverty by necessity. Having our eyes held up to higher goals where every Australian lives with dignity and in a state that we would be proud to have our friends and family also live in is something that we should be striving for.

So, while I understand that members may not see that this motion applies to them, I would ask them to reconsider in their parties and with their policy hats in mind why it is that we continue to blame the poor for their situation; why it is that in Ceduna or Playford, for example, we can trial the idea of cashless welfare, but we have yet to embrace trialling a universal basic income. One strips people of their dignity; the other would afford them their dignity. The Greens will be pushing for universal basic income to be accepted, and we will continue to fight until the old parties agree with us. I commend the motion to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.J. Stephens.