Introduction
The introduction of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Consistent Waiting Periods for New Migrants) Bill 2021 in the 2021-22 Budget proposes implementing four-year waiting periods across payments for temporary migrants. The proposed amendments are centred on a rationale of cost-saving measures and an intent to create consistency across social payments available to migrants.
The Newly Arrived Residents Waiting Period (NARWP) would be increased to four years and would apply to the following payments and concession cards:
Family Tax Benefit - Part A and Part B;
the Low Income Health Care Card; and
the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card.
The changes outlined are intended to come into effect on 1 January 2022. In 2024-25, it is estimated that 45 000 families will be affected for Family Tax Benefit, and 13 200 individuals will be affected for other payments.
Labor Senators are concerned with the policy consequences of this amendment. With critical stakeholders left out of the equation, the policy formulation by the government fails to properly consider the ramifications of the amendments, along with the harm applied to at-risk groups like migrant women and children.
Australia has a longstanding history of migration and multiculturalism. Migrants have pursued the dream of building a new life in Australia and have enriched their wider communities as a whole. As such, migration to Australia occurs due to the desire to build a new life and be self-sufficient and is not informed by the desire to access these social support payments. Access to social assistance payments is often temporary and arises due to unforeseen circumstance, like the general population. Thus, the extension on waiting periods removes access to support in times of critical need.
More specifically, Labor Senators are concerned with how the bill unfairly discriminates against people who are long-time residents on a pathway to citizenship by creating a two-tier system. Under the proposed changes of the bill a permanent resident would not be able to access Parental Leave Pay, even if their partner and child are Australian citizens. More specifically, the integration undermine the efforts of new migrants in settling into their broader community safely and sustainably.
Ms Linda Forbes, Law Reform, Policy and Communications Officer from Economic Justice Australia raised this issue:
Family tax benefit targeting has aimed to ensure that no child living in Australia lives in poverty. Applying a residential waiting period of four years for family tax benefit means that the children of migrant parents on low incomes will live in poverty.
Ms Forbes also noted how the proposed changes could mean children attending the same school, who will both grow up to be Australian citizens could have access to very different support:
Introducing a four-year residential waiting period for family tax benefit means that children born in Australia to new residents may be eight or nine years of age before they attract family tax benefit.
The proposed changes would have devastating impacts for women and children, pushing them into poverty and destitution. The amendment cuts access to critical support- which disproportionately affects migrant women and children. Labor Senators note that while children are not in a position to make decisions about migrations, they appear to be the direct target of this policy.
In addition to this, Ms Deb Tsorbaris, Chief Executive Officer, from the Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare emphasised the risk of the Amendment leading to growing pressure placed on child protection systems, along with emergency relief and housing across the country:
An increase in stress on families may result in higher notifications to child protection systems across this country, and child protection in Victoria is already under severe pressure, with the number of notifications increasing.
Furthermore, Labor Senators note the likelihood of this bill adding to the rates of exploitative work taken up by temporary migrants. New migrants already face an array of barriers when it comes to competing in the labour market. Given these conditions, they are far more likely to be exploited in the labour market.
Ms Rachel Reilly, Manager, Social Policy and Advocacy, from the Australian Association of Social Workers highlighted this issue, stating that:
The more insecure the job market is, the more likely they are to experience exploitation. If you have migrant workers here that already face barriers to gaining employment because of language barriers—and we know from what's happened in the pandemic that there is a lot of job insecurity—then they could be going into forms of employment that for various different reasons could equate to serious forms of labour exploitation.
Thus, given the plethora of barriers faced by migrants, the potential for exploitation in the labour market is also underpinned by the unequal power dynamic between employer and employee. Specifically, most migrants will accept poor working environments that place them in harm's way due to the fear of losing their visa status, along with the need to support their family.
Inadequacies of Special Exemptions
The bill does not amend the current exemptions to the NARWP. The exemptions of the bill act as an important safeguard for migrants who experience hardship, however, Labor Senators note with concern the over-reliance on this measure by the government. Specifically, the special exemptions should not be an appropriate fall-back, as too many barriers and stigma are associated with accessing the existing exemptions. Adding to this, the existing exemptions of the bill are limited in scope and accessibility.
Ms Claerwen Little, National Director of UnitingCare Australia pointed out the inadequacies of exemptions to addressing the occurrences of family and/or domestic violence for migrant women:
This bill, however, will further deepen the economic insecurity experienced by some migrant women. It will increase their dependency on partners and family, leaving them more vulnerable to controlling and violent relationships. As some of our financial counsellors have noted, without any income, women will have few options to leave an abusive relationship. If they leave, they and their children will face the prospect of homelessness. For many of these women, navigating a complex and unfamiliar system to access exemptions to waiting periods will simply not be an option at a time of crisis.
Labor supports this view. Labor Senators are very concerned by the risks posed to migrant women facing economic insecurity. By increasing the waiting periods for critical support services, the government is increasing financial insecurity. People should be able to remove themselves from family or domestic violence situations regardless of their visa status.
Ms Sandra Elhelw-Wright, Chief Executive Officer, from Settlement Council of Australia amplified concern regarding the shortfalls of relying on exemptions:
… people don't necessarily know that it's an option available to them and so may not access it because they don't even know that it exists in the first place. They will undergo hardship without pursuing that mechanism. Secondly, it requires quite a high level of evidence and is a complex process to navigate. Many people, even if they are eligible, may not be able to work through that process and ultimately receive the payment.
Similarly, Ms Tsorbaris from the Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare pointed to the potential of harm that can occur to children for temporary migrants in precarious situations:
…if you're a mum and you're trying to raise a couple of children there's definitely stigma attached to seeking help and there's definitely concern about losing your children to child protection systems.
The government's fiscal rationale for the bill is based on a false economy. While the government has cited short term fiscal savings because of extending NARWP payments to four years - there is an oversight in the long-run costs for social services, community and not-for-profit sector.
The bill leads to cost-shifting, an issue brought up by several groups during the inquiry (who had primarily been left out of the consultation process by the government).
Ms Little of UnitingCare Australia pointing to the increasing burdens placed on frontline support services in dealing with the fallout of the government’s policy decision:
… we are becoming a replacement for that support. I think that's one of the main issues that we need to look at here: it's about that universality. We're taking that away, which means that, of the private charities, church-based charities and other charities in the community, the community organisations are the ones having to pick up the pieces.
In failing to provide safe and efficient support for new migrants, the government is forgoing the value brought by migrants to Australia’s labour market, as there is little room for migrants to properly pursue the jobs best for their skills and experience:
…in not providing migrants adequate support around skills recognition and employment, many migrants do not utilise their skills in the first year’s post arrival. This is estimated to have cost the Australian economy $1.25 billion, according to CEDA, the Committee for Economic Development of Australia.
Conclusion
Labor Senators note with disappointment the failure of the government to consult a large portion of the community groups throughout its policy formulation. Furthermore, the policy's rationale fails to consider its risks to women and children, as cutting social support places them in financial insecurity. This financial insecurity is also a factor that incentivises an uptake in exploitative work.
Recommendation
Labor Senators recommend the Senate not pass the bill.
Senator Helen PolleySenator Nita Green