Chapter 2Views on the bill
2.1This chapter examines evidence received from submitters in relation to the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023 [Provisions] (the bill).
2.2Whilst inquiry participants broadly supported the overall intent of the bill, they expressed a range of concerns about key provisions of the bill, including those related to the independence of the committee, its membership structure, and reporting framework.
2.3The chapter sets out these views on the bill and concludes with the committee’s view and subsequent recommendation.
Overarching views on the bill
2.4Submitters generally supported and appreciated the overall intent of the bill. For example, the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) stated that:
[We] warmly welcomed the establishment of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee (EIAC). If done well, the legislated EIAC offers an excellent opportunity to improve policy making to lift the incomes of people with the least in Australia.
2.5Additionally, Monash University submitted:
We welcome the establishment of such a body to further advise government in principle. The presence of an ongoing body ensures that broad perspectives across multiple pieces of legislation can be obtained.
2.6However, submitters also raised concerns that the bill may not, in its current form, enable the EIAC to fulfill its potential. UnitingCare raised that:
We believe for the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee (EIAC) to fulfill its potential, there must be a solid foundation of transparency, independence, and inclusivity.
2.7The Salvation Army similarly raised:
[W]e see that for the EIAC to fulfill its potential there must be sufficient independence and transparency to allow the community to contribute to the work of the EIAC.
Independence of the EIAC
2.8Many submitters were of the view that the bill’s provisions could be strengthened by increasing the committee’s independence from the government of the day. Submitters primarily raised these matters in relation to the scope of the EIAC’s report, the termination of members, and the Joint Ministers’ powers over the EIAC. These are discussed below.
Scope of the EIAC’s report
2.9Subclause 8(3)(a) of the bill stipulates that the EIAC’s report must have regard to the Commonwealth Government’s economic and fiscal outlook and strategy, and subclause 8(3)(c) mandates that the report have regard to relevant Commonwealth Government policies.
2.10Ms Charmaine Crowe, Program Director of Social Security at ACOSS, told the committee that these provisions limit the EIAC’s independence:
Ultimately, we want this committee to be able to fulfil its remit of providing advice to government. And there shouldn't be clauses that make it very difficult to do so—for instance, having regard to the government's economic and fiscal outlook et cetera. This is about ensuring that the committee is independent to provide the advice that it deems important …
2.11Consequently, in its submission, ACOSS recommended that clause 8 be amended to read that the 'committee may have regard to the following matters' as opposed to the 'committee must have regard to the following matters'.
2.12Monash University submitted that the EIAC should determine what constitutes a relevant government policy, rather than the Joint Ministers, as they argued that implications for diversity and inclusion as they relate to policy are not always evident.
Directions from the Joint Ministers on the EIAC’s report
2.13As explained in Chapter 1, clause 8 of the bill pertains to the EIAC’s function. It dictates matters relating to the formulation of the EIAC’s report and the directions that the Joint Ministers are empowered to issue relating to the report’s contents.
2.14Several submitters raised concerns that the EIAC will lack independence from government if the bill, as currently drafted, is not amended. Submitters generally expressed concerns about subclause 8(6) of the bill, which states that the Joint Ministers may ensure that the EIAC’s report addresses the matters as specified by subclause 8(2), and no other matters. Subclause 8(2) stipulates the content parameters of the EIAC’s report.
2.15For example, Professor Peter Whiteford, a member of the Interim EIAC and a Professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University, cautioned against subclause 8(6)(b), commenting that this subclause seems to potentially limit the independence of the EIAC.
2.16Similarly, while ACOSS acknowledged that it may be beneficial for the government to seek advice from the EIAC on the matters set out in the bill, ACOSS maintained that it is essential the EIAC be able to advise government on the policy settings that it deems require reform:
The government of the day should not be able to silence the [EIAC] on issues that fall within the scope of section 8(2), as set out in section 8(6)(b).
2.17The Brotherhood of St. Laurence also stressed that the EIAC must be independent and be able to report on any matters within its remit, and the Antipoverty Centre underlined that the EIAC must have independence in how it operates and take no overall dictation from the Joint Ministers. Consequently, both organisations recommended that section 8(6)(b) be omitted from the bill.
Transparency of directions from Joint Ministers
2.18Dr J. Rob Bray PSM, a research fellow at the Australian National University, took a similar view of subclause 8(6)(b) to those discussed above. Dr Bray submitted that the subclause is 'troubling and should be rejected' as the terms used throughout subclause 8(2) are subject to multiple interpretations. Consequently, he stated that:
… the exercise of this power is likely to result in a stalemate of interpretation: of a Minister saying that a particular aspect of a report does not address one of the specified matters, while the Committee considers it does. Since however the Committee is required to comply with a direction, it is essentially a Ministerial power to censor anything which the Minister deems is not addressed in subsection 8(2), without regard to whether in fact it does.
2.19Dr Bray suggested that if the subclause were to remain in the bill, then an additional clause should be added that requires any direction by the Joint Ministers to be either published on the Department of Social Services’ (the Department) website or tabled in parliament.
2.20The Salvation Army also proposed that subclause 8(6)(b) be amended to require that any direction made by the Joint Ministers under this subclause be made public to maintain transparency.
2.21Similarly, Monash University recommended that in the instance where the EIAC disagrees with the Joint Ministers under subclause 8(6)(b), then the EIAC should have the autonomy to dissent and expound on the Joint Ministers’ direction, which would be contained in an appendix to the EIAC’s report. Monash University cautioned that without such a safeguard, the Joint Ministers could veto any content in the report by deeming it to be out of scope.
Provisions regarding membership termination
2.22As discussed in Chapter 1, clause 19 of the bill provides that the Minister for Social Services (the Minister) may at any time terminate an EIAC member’s appointment. The explanatory memorandum clarifies that the Minister must consult with the Treasurer prior to terminating a member, and also lists some circumstances where termination may occur, including misbehaviour.
2.23The Salvation Army submitted that this clause is not conducive to creating an environment where EIAC members can provide 'honest and accurate advice that may run counter to political considerations'.
2.24As such, the Salvation Army recommended amending clause 19 to empower the Minister to terminate an employee only where a member breaches the Act or breaches the terms and conditions that the Minister is empowered to set under clause 20.
2.25Similarly, ACOSS commented on the explanatory memorandum’s inclusion of 'misbehaviour' as a reason that the Minister may terminate a member. ACOSS contended that EIAC members should have clear guidance on what constitutes misbehaviour, and as such recommended that 'misbehaviour' as grounds for termination should be defined.
2.26The Antipoverty Centre echoed these sentiments and expressed that a Minister should not have the power to terminate an EIAC member without reason. They instead suggested that the Minister may make a recommendation to the EIAC, citing a reason for termination, which is then formally decided upon by the EIAC. The Antipoverty Centre argued that:
This will allow for the [EIAC] to have the ultimate decision over actions of its members and prevent political influence and control over the make-up and decision of the committee.
Transparency measures
2.27In addition to recommendations mentioned above to improve the transparency surrounding the directions the EIAC takes from the Joint Ministers, several submitters recommended strengthening the bill’s provisions to increase transparency of reporting and appointment of members.
Timing of the report’s publication and government response
2.28Subclause 8(9) provides that the Minister must publish the EIAC’s report on the Department’s website. The explanatory memorandum provides that this will support transparency as it will ensure the public is informed about the EIAC’s advice.
2.29Several submitters believed that this provision could be amended to specify that the EIAC’s report be published at least two weeks before the Federal Budget is handed down. The Salvation Army commented that this amendment would significantly add to the transparency of the EIAC’s operations, and ACOSS highlighted that this would align with the government’s commitment made in respect to the Interim EIAC’s first report.
2.30The Antipoverty Centre went further and suggested that the report be published at least one month before the Federal Budget.
2.31Some submitters also raised that a new subclause could be included in the bill, which requires the Joint Ministers to issue a public response to the EIAC report prior to the release of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook.
2.32Anglicare Australia and ACOSS similarly argued that the EIAC can only be effective if it is transparent, and if the government commits to providing a public response to the report.
Appointment of members
2.33Some submitters to the inquiry also raised that transparency surrounding the appointment of members could be improved by amending the bill’s provisions.
2.34In its submission, ACOSS called for the Chair and the members of the EIAC to be 'appointed through an open competitive process in which the positions are publicly advertised and selections are made in accordance with published criteria'.
2.35ACOSS commented that this would increase transparency and as such, recommended that the bill be amended to ensure that appointments are made through an open and competitive process.
2.36The Antipoverty Centre echoed a similar sentiment when it submitted to the committee that EIAC members must be appointed based on merit, and that appointment processes and decisions must be transparent.
Inclusivity within the EIAC’s membership
2.37In its submission, the Department explained that the members of the EIAC will consist of academic experts, economists, representatives from advocacy organisations, unions, business sectors, and those from the community sector that support economically disadvantaged people.
2.38The explanatory memorandum also provided that the Minister must ensure that at least one of the EIAC’s members is an Indigenous person who also falls into one of the above categories. Further, the Minister must account for the desirability of the EIAC’s membership to reflect the diversity of the general community, including gender diversity and people with disability and/or lived experience of people with disability.
2.39The Department submitted that the proposed membership requirements would ensure diversity in the EIAC, which would consequently support the development of new ways to address complex social problems and entrenched disadvantage.
Direct and contemporary experience within the EIAC’s membership
2.40However, submitters have overwhelmingly called for subclauses 11(2) and 11(3) to be amended, to expand the EIAC’s membership by including at least one member who has direct and contemporary experience of economic exclusion.
2.41The Brotherhood of St. Laurence informed the committee of the importance of having EIAC members with direct experience:
The phrase in disability 'nothing about us without us' really applies here as well. Consultation with people with lived experience of economic disadvantage and the issues that the [EIAC] is considering are great, but there’s a further step that needs to happen in terms of also having representation on the [EIAC] – to be involved in those conversations and decisions around the [EIAC’s] recommendations.
2.42Similarly, at a public hearing in Canberra, Dr Cassandra Goldie explained:
It is crucial that we also have substantial representation of people directly affected on the committee. Who is in the room changes the conversation, the focus and the culture of the work of the committee itself. We strongly urge the committee here to back the very powerful recommendations across those that have provided submissions to the inquiry, ensuring that there is that substantial representation in addition to and not in replacement of the deep consultation mechanisms that will be required for the ongoing work of the committee with particular people who may be directly affected by its recommendations.
2.43Alternatively, Monash University proposed that the membership provisions be broadened to include a member that has a 'strong research record in diversity and inclusion and current experience in inclusive program design and evaluation.' Monash University asserted that this addition would ensure that the EIAC’s recommendations would appropriately reflect lived experience.
2.44Economic Justice Australia echoed a similar sentiment, and advocated for expanding the bill’s membership provisions to include a representative from an organisation with expertise regarding structural and systemic issues that affect access to social security rights and entitlements.
2.45The Department told the committee that the Interim EIAC and the membership provisions in the bill both include representatives of organisations that work closely with and represent people with lived experience of disadvantage, including ACOSS and the Brotherhood of St. Laurence.
Other cohorts
2.46Some submitters raised that the EIAC’s membership should also be widened to include other cohorts. For instance, People with Disability Australia (PWDA) recommended that a clause be added that mandates that at least one member is a person with disability. PWDA submitted that this would also ensure that Australia meets its obligations under Article 4(3) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which requires the government to actively involve people with disability in law and policy development that affect their rights.
2.47Additionally, the Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Council of Australia (FECCA) recommended that the EIAC’s membership include representation from people with multicultural backgrounds.
Remuneration of members
2.48Several submitters and witnesses at public hearings raised concerns in relation to subclause 14(1) of the bill, which provides that EIAC members are not to be paid any remuneration. Both ACOSS and Ms Kate Colvin, Chief Executive Officer of Homelessness Australia, raised that if EIAC members are not remunerated, then this would act as a barrier to participation by those with direct and contemporary lived experience of economic exclusion.
2.49Ms Beverly Baker, President of the National Older Women’s Network, observed that:
It seems a bit odd that, in a committee that is looking at financial inclusion, we’re being financially excluded as a starting point.
2.50Ms Kristin O’Connell of the Antipoverty Centre echoed a similar sentiment when she said, 'that’s what we’re talking about here – excluding people, because they’re poor, from a discussion about being excluded because they’re poor'.
2.51In its submission, the Department acknowledged that EIAC members will not be remunerated but did note that funding was provided in the 2023–24 Budget for members to be paid travel allowances, as well as for the commissioning of research, undertaking consultations, and for secretariat support to be provided.
Inclusion of a reference to poverty
2.52A number of submitters and witnesses expressed the importance to make specific reference to poverty in the bill’s provisions. The Brotherhood of St. Laurence argued that the bill would be improved if it explicitly mentioned poverty reduction as being within the EIAC’s remit.
2.53This was echoed by ACOSS, who called for the EIAC to focus on poverty reduction by placing it at the core of the EIAC’s remit. The National Older Women’s Network also stated that the EIAC should 'absolutely, desperately and definitely' be tasked with looking at a national measure or measures of poverty.
2.54Professor Whiteford also expressed the view that it could be useful to add in the legislation that the EIAC 'should be looking at poverty as well as inequality'.
Committee view
2.55The committee thanks the individuals and organisations that provided a submission to the inquiry, or that appeared at a public hearing, for their views and recommendations on the bill. The committee notes that most submitters supported the intent of the bill to establish an ongoing EIAC but would like to see several of the bills’ provisions strengthened. In particular, the committee acknowledges that inquiry participants suggested amendments to ensure the independence of the EIAC and the provision of transparent reporting mechanisms. As such, the committee is of the view that the Australian Government gives consideration to publishing a ministerial response to the EIAC’s findings on the Department of Social Services’ website.
2.56The committee notes that inquiry participants also recommended that the EIAC’s membership be broadened so that at least one EIAC member has direct and contemporary experience of economic exclusion. The committee also recognises the calls for the membership to be expanded to account for other cohorts, such as people with disability and people with multicultural backgrounds. The committee is of the view that subclause 11(3)(b), which stipulates that the Minister must have regard to the desirability of the diversity within the general community when appointing EIAC members will ensure diversity of experience. However, the committee recommends that the Australian Government gives consideration to strengthening the desirability to provide for diversity of the EIAC’s membership by ensuring that at least one of those members is someone who has had direct experience of economic exclusion.
2.57The committee also acknowledges the call from submitters and witnesses for the bill to explicitly reference poverty as part of the EIAC’s remit.
2.58The committee is of the view that the bill will enable the EIAC to be an effective mechanism that provides expert advice to government on economic inclusion and addressing disadvantage ahead of each Federal Budget. It reflects the government’s commitment to hear from experts, stakeholders and the community so they are considered in the design and development of policy. Consequently, the committee recommends that the bill be passed.
2.59The committee recommends that the bill be passed.
Senator Marielle Smith
Chair