Extract from The Guardian
The Coalition should find “better and fairer” ways to repair the budget than the billions of dollars in as-yet-unlegislated “zombie cuts” that fall hardest on families already living below the poverty line, according to Australia’s peak welfare group.
The Australian Council of Social Service said payments for people living below the poverty line, or at risk of poverty, were “the last place governments should look for budget savings”.
“It is widely recognised that the lowest payments are inadequate to keep people (including children) out of poverty,” Acoss says in an assessment of budget and election commitments to be released Wednesday.
“Newstart allowance for a single adult is just $264 per week ... In 2011 [it] was $97 per week below the poverty line. It has not been increased in real terms since 1994. Family tax benefits, together with Newstart allowance (a total income of $547 per week) left a sole parent family with a primary school age child $93 per week below the poverty line in 2011.”
Acoss welcomed Labor’s announcement last week that it would continue to oppose most of the 2014 budget measures that hit the poorest and said it was “comfortable” with the ALP’s decision to make alternative cuts to family tax benefits that would leave families earning over $100,000 worse off than they would be under the Coalition because these families were not living in poverty.
But Acoss noted Labor has yet to announce a position on the Coalition’s 2016 budget decision to abolish an “energy supplement” – originally introduced to compensate for the carbon price – to new applicants for unemployment benefits, the aged pension or the disability pension.
That cut will save $1.4bn over five years and means new recipients of the aged pension would get around $7 a week less than current pensioners, and new Newstart claimants would get $4 a week less – amounts that seem small but are essential for people already living on so little, Acoss says.
“The government argues that the energy supplements are no longer needed since the ‘carbon price’ introduced by Labor was reversed by the Abbott government, yet the related tax cuts remain in place,” Acoss says, adding that the government makes similar arguments that family tax benefit supplements are no longer needed because of more advanced payment methods.
It says both these arguments “ignore the realities of the lives of individuals and families living on low incomes. Removal of these supplements will plunge more households into poverty, reducing further their ability to cover essential costs such housing, electricity, food, or replacing worn out refrigerators or renewing their car registration.”
Acoss cites a new analysis showing that, if the energy supplements are removed, pensioners and the unemployed would be worse off than they would have been had the carbon tax and the compensation never happened.
“Acoss urges all major parties to avoid any budget savings that impact disproportionately on people living on low incomes, including sole parents and unemployed people who have already suffered cuts to their payments in recent years,” the paper says.
Acoss calculates the real world impact of the cuts, including the decision to force under 25-year-old jobseekers to wait one month for benefits, to put those aged between 22 and 24 on the lower “youth allowance”, the cuts to family tax benefit supplements, changes to family tax benefits more broadly and the cuts to energy supplements. It found:
But it said it would halve the end of year supplement for the family tax benefit part A for families earning more than $100,000.
While Acoss said it understood the decision, parenting advocacy group The Parenthood said it meant families had to choose between “the lesser of two evils” at the election.
Acoss argues Newstart is inadequate and should be increased by $53 a week, the one month waiting period should be abandoned and an independent payment review commission should be established to assess the adequacy of all payments including pensions, family payments and allowances.
The Australian Council of Social Service said payments for people living below the poverty line, or at risk of poverty, were “the last place governments should look for budget savings”.
“It is widely recognised that the lowest payments are inadequate to keep people (including children) out of poverty,” Acoss says in an assessment of budget and election commitments to be released Wednesday.
“Newstart allowance for a single adult is just $264 per week ... In 2011 [it] was $97 per week below the poverty line. It has not been increased in real terms since 1994. Family tax benefits, together with Newstart allowance (a total income of $547 per week) left a sole parent family with a primary school age child $93 per week below the poverty line in 2011.”
Acoss welcomed Labor’s announcement last week that it would continue to oppose most of the 2014 budget measures that hit the poorest and said it was “comfortable” with the ALP’s decision to make alternative cuts to family tax benefits that would leave families earning over $100,000 worse off than they would be under the Coalition because these families were not living in poverty.
But Acoss noted Labor has yet to announce a position on the Coalition’s 2016 budget decision to abolish an “energy supplement” – originally introduced to compensate for the carbon price – to new applicants for unemployment benefits, the aged pension or the disability pension.
That cut will save $1.4bn over five years and means new recipients of the aged pension would get around $7 a week less than current pensioners, and new Newstart claimants would get $4 a week less – amounts that seem small but are essential for people already living on so little, Acoss says.
“The government argues that the energy supplements are no longer needed since the ‘carbon price’ introduced by Labor was reversed by the Abbott government, yet the related tax cuts remain in place,” Acoss says, adding that the government makes similar arguments that family tax benefit supplements are no longer needed because of more advanced payment methods.
It says both these arguments “ignore the realities of the lives of individuals and families living on low incomes. Removal of these supplements will plunge more households into poverty, reducing further their ability to cover essential costs such housing, electricity, food, or replacing worn out refrigerators or renewing their car registration.”
Acoss cites a new analysis showing that, if the energy supplements are removed, pensioners and the unemployed would be worse off than they would have been had the carbon tax and the compensation never happened.
“Acoss urges all major parties to avoid any budget savings that impact disproportionately on people living on low incomes, including sole parents and unemployed people who have already suffered cuts to their payments in recent years,” the paper says.
Acoss calculates the real world impact of the cuts, including the decision to force under 25-year-old jobseekers to wait one month for benefits, to put those aged between 22 and 24 on the lower “youth allowance”, the cuts to family tax benefit supplements, changes to family tax benefits more broadly and the cuts to energy supplements. It found:
- a sole parent with two teenage children and no private income (who applies for social security after these measures take effect) would lose $96 per week
- an unemployed 22 year old living independently of their parents would forego $1,053 in income support while waiting a month for benefits, and then receive $51 per week less. This would be almost a 20% reduction in their income compared with the current Newstart rate of $264 per week
- new claimants for Newstart Allowance would also miss out on the $4 per week energy supplement ($8 per week for couples) and have to live on even less than $38 a day
- new claimants for pension payments would miss out on $7 per week ($5 per week for couples).
But it said it would halve the end of year supplement for the family tax benefit part A for families earning more than $100,000.
While Acoss said it understood the decision, parenting advocacy group The Parenthood said it meant families had to choose between “the lesser of two evils” at the election.
Acoss argues Newstart is inadequate and should be increased by $53 a week, the one month waiting period should be abandoned and an independent payment review commission should be established to assess the adequacy of all payments including pensions, family payments and allowances.
No comments:
Post a Comment