Extract from The Guardian
Welfare
groups says individual measures, such as stripping under-30s of the
dole, would have had their own Senate inquiries in the past
Welfare groups told the Senate community affairs committee they were
taken aback by how “harsh” the budget was and believed it would be more
balanced.
Gerard Thomas from National Welfare Rights Network (NWRN) said the bills contained “the most significant change to social security in one bill I’ve witnessed in 20 years”.
“Some of the proposals would have had their own senate inquiries in the past,” he said, referring to planned changes such as stripping under-30s of dole for six months at a time, reviewing people who are on the disability support pension (DSP) and changes to the family tax benefit which are included in amendment bills 1 and 2 being examined by the senate.
Thomas said some of the proposals would make it difficult for people to move into work by not giving them enough support to find a job.
The committee, which has received more than 60 submissions, also heard from the NWRN’s Matthew Butt, who criticised the proposal to re-start the the six month period off income support for under-30s if they earned more than the allowable income for more than 12 weeks in the period.
“Since 1944 we’ve had a social security system which provides entitlement to people who are qualified. This brings in a whole new ball game to bring in time limited payments,” Thomas said.
Chief executive of Australian Council of Social Services (Acoss), Cassandra Goldie, said the government had “one hand behind its back” by focussing on expenditure and not revenue.
She said Acoss recognised the budget needed rebalancing but did not believe it should be at the expense of the most vulnerable people.
“The budget breaks a social contract. The responsibility the government has is to ensure to the maximum of our available resources that we have an income support system that ensures every person in Australia has a minimum adequate standard of living,” she said.
“We are planning for destitution, that’s what we’re doing right now and we don’t have to do it we believe.”
Goldie said Acoss did not anticipate how “unbalanced and harsh” the budget would be overall and had made submissions to the government in the lead-up.
Policy analyst, Lance Wilson, and Jobs Australia CEO, David Thompson, said the process by which people were assessed for how much capacity they had for work they could do needed to be overhauled, especially if time limited payments were to be introduced.
“The government needs to invest more in upfront critical assessment. A lot of the instrument is applied in a telephone interview and for a lot of people, just by dint by normal human nature, won’t want to bend over backwards to explain every last detail of what’s wrong with them or disclose things to someone they don’t know,” Thompson said.
He also pointed out job agencies were given $11 per client to help with transport and other costs in finding a job.
“They pool it and ration it, it doesn’t mean everyone gets $11 worth of support it means some people get some support and others get zero support. If you’re allocating $11 per client then it’s hard to see how they’ll be able to pay for transport on a regular basis,” he said.
The bills are not expected to pass the Senate intact with cross-benchers, as well as leader of Palmer’s United Party, Clive Palmer, opposing large tracts of them.
The hearings continue on Thursday.
Gerard Thomas from National Welfare Rights Network (NWRN) said the bills contained “the most significant change to social security in one bill I’ve witnessed in 20 years”.
“Some of the proposals would have had their own senate inquiries in the past,” he said, referring to planned changes such as stripping under-30s of dole for six months at a time, reviewing people who are on the disability support pension (DSP) and changes to the family tax benefit which are included in amendment bills 1 and 2 being examined by the senate.
Thomas said some of the proposals would make it difficult for people to move into work by not giving them enough support to find a job.
The committee, which has received more than 60 submissions, also heard from the NWRN’s Matthew Butt, who criticised the proposal to re-start the the six month period off income support for under-30s if they earned more than the allowable income for more than 12 weeks in the period.
“Since 1944 we’ve had a social security system which provides entitlement to people who are qualified. This brings in a whole new ball game to bring in time limited payments,” Thomas said.
Chief executive of Australian Council of Social Services (Acoss), Cassandra Goldie, said the government had “one hand behind its back” by focussing on expenditure and not revenue.
She said Acoss recognised the budget needed rebalancing but did not believe it should be at the expense of the most vulnerable people.
“The budget breaks a social contract. The responsibility the government has is to ensure to the maximum of our available resources that we have an income support system that ensures every person in Australia has a minimum adequate standard of living,” she said.
“We are planning for destitution, that’s what we’re doing right now and we don’t have to do it we believe.”
Goldie said Acoss did not anticipate how “unbalanced and harsh” the budget would be overall and had made submissions to the government in the lead-up.
Policy analyst, Lance Wilson, and Jobs Australia CEO, David Thompson, said the process by which people were assessed for how much capacity they had for work they could do needed to be overhauled, especially if time limited payments were to be introduced.
“The government needs to invest more in upfront critical assessment. A lot of the instrument is applied in a telephone interview and for a lot of people, just by dint by normal human nature, won’t want to bend over backwards to explain every last detail of what’s wrong with them or disclose things to someone they don’t know,” Thompson said.
He also pointed out job agencies were given $11 per client to help with transport and other costs in finding a job.
“They pool it and ration it, it doesn’t mean everyone gets $11 worth of support it means some people get some support and others get zero support. If you’re allocating $11 per client then it’s hard to see how they’ll be able to pay for transport on a regular basis,” he said.
The bills are not expected to pass the Senate intact with cross-benchers, as well as leader of Palmer’s United Party, Clive Palmer, opposing large tracts of them.
The hearings continue on Thursday.
No comments:
Post a Comment