The Australian Greens thank everyone who made a submission and/or representation to this inquiry.
The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Consistent Waiting Periods for New Migrants) Bill 2021 (the Bill) will increase the newly arrived resident’s waiting period (NARWP) on a range of social security payments, allowances, and tax benefits for people who are granted permanent residency in Australia.
The affected payments, allowances, and tax benefits are: Carer Payment; Carer Allowance; Parental Leave Pay; Dad and Partner Pay; and Family Tax Benefit Parts A and B.
Currently the NARWP is zero years for the Family Tax Benefit Part B, one year for the Carer Allowance and Family Tax Benefit Part A, and two years for the Carer Payment, Parental Leave Pay, and Dad and Partner Pay.
If the Bill is passed these payments will go from having a NARWP of between zero and two years, to a NARWP of four years.
When NARWPs were first introduced in 1993 they were of 26 weeks’ duration, and only applied to certain specified social security payments. NARWPs are now of up to four years duration and apply to most social security benefits.
The most recent tranche of increases to NARWPs were introduced by the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Encouraging Self-sufficiency for Newly Arrived Migrants) Bill 2018 (the 2018 Bill). When introducing the 2018 Bill, which was supported with minor amendment by both Government and Opposition, the Government said those provisions would:
… [create] a fair and equitable system that is economically responsible while ensuring safeguards are in place … [and] strike a balance between promoting self-reliance for newly arrived migrants and providing appropriate exemptions for those in vulnerable circumstances.
In regard to the current Bill, the government has failed to make an argument that the balance it claimed was struck in 2018 needs to be changed.
The Bill, as presented in evidence to the Committee by Mr Mohammad Al‑Khafaji of the Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia (FECCA):
… directly contradicts the recognition by the government in 2018 that adding a waiting time to these aspects of the social security system will have a substantial negative impact on migrant families.
The Bill is the latest in a series of changes that have eroded welfare safety nets provided to new permanent residents of Australia.
The Government is expecting the Bill to save $671.1 million over the next five years (roughly $134.2 million per year), which is expected to affect, according to the Department of Social Services (DSS) written submission to this inquiry:
45 000 families will be affected for Family Tax Benefit; and
13 200 individuals will be affected for other payments.
As noted by Ms Jana Favero of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (ASRC) in evidence provided to the Committee:
In 2018, DSS estimated that over 100,000 children would be affected by the family tax benefits proposed at the time. We suspect that similar numbers will be affected by this bill.
Furthermore, the people affected by the Bill are some of our most vulnerable residents who have already fallen through safety nets provided to other people living in Australia. As submitted by Mr Al-Khafaji of FECCA in evidence to the Committee:
Migrants on temporary visas missed out on JobKeeper, and employers who relied on them had to let them go. They were the first people to be dropped, while major corporations, who did not need the support, made huge profits from the program.
These vulnerable migrants will include parents, children, people with a disability or chronic health condition, and their carers. As many submissions to this inquiry warned, these affected migrants will disproportionately be women, who are much more likely to be caring for family, and relying on carer payments and allowances, paid parental leave, and family tax benefits. As submitted to the Committee in evidence by Ms Rachel Reilly of the Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW):
The three payments affected by this bill are made to families, mothers of newborns, and carers of people with disability or severe medical conditions, including children. Clearly, the proposed changes will have an overwhelming impact on women.
This is despite, as submitted in evidence to the Committee by Ms Claerwen Little of UnitingCare Australia:
Australia's National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children identifying migrant women as a priority group in responding to domestic and family violence.
This is particularly disappointing considering the recent National Summit on Women’s Safety, September 2021, which conducted a round table specifically on migrant and refugee experiences of family, domestic and sexual violence. Reflecting on the National Summit, Ms Deb Tsorbaris of the Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare gave evidence to the Committee that:
Suffice it to say that it would be really good to reflect on these changes in the context of governments around the country saying they want to do something significant to protect all women and children in this country. I'd have to say that these changes are absolutely in opposition to that. It seems almost bizarre to be suggesting these changes at this time.
Ms Tsorbaris was also one of many expert submitters to the Committee who gave evidence that the Bill will also further entrench a two-tiered system:
Children who were born in Australia when their parents were on temporary visas will now need to wait an additional four-year period before being eligible for support, unlike other children who are born in Australia. This is unfair.
Under the Bill, the two-tiered system will also manifest in how carers are recognised and supported by our welfare system. As noted, and welcomed by Carers Australia in their written submission, a holder of a Carer visa who is coming to Australia to care for a family member is exempt to the NARWP provided for by this bill. This is a clear recognition of the needs of carers and the people they care for. However, the Bill does not recognise that the needs of someone who came to Australia on a Carer visa are no different from someone who came to Australia on a different visa, but then became a carer due to unforeseen circumstances. Representing Carers Australia in the public hearing for this inquiry, Ms Liz Callaghan gave evidence that:
There is an expectation that new migrants will make arrangements to support themselves and their families when they first settle permanently in Australia. This expectation does not adequately reflect the often unexpected nature of caring, which can happen to anyone at any time.
Ms Callaghan further noted in her evidence that according to the 2018 ABS Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers (SDAC), around one in six of Australia’s 2.65 million carers were born in a non-English-speaking country (around 442,000), and around one in ten spoke a language other than English at home (around 265,000).
As submitted in writing by UnitingCare Australia, there has been no explanation provided by the Government as to why migrants who find themselves carers, or parents, should be more ‘self-sufficient’ than other Australian residents and citizens who may need support. Moreover, like many expert submitters to this inquiry, UnitingCare Australia was concerned that:
... the proposed measures risk undermining the inclusive and needs-based aspects of our social safety net, increasing housing insecurity and poverty among more vulnerable migrant cohorts, and increasing the burden on frontline support services and charities.
Concern regarding cost-shifting from the Commonwealth to the community social services sector was raised in most submissions to this inquiry.
Evidence in support of this was provided by the ASRC, which has seen similar cuts to safety nets inflicted on the asylum seeker and refugee communities they work with. These include tranched cuts to SRSS (Status Resolution Support Service), and cuts to service delivery by merging the Humanitarian Settlement Services program (HSS) and Complex Case Support (CCS) into the Humanitarian Settlement Program (HSP)), with each round of cuts leading to increased demand on their and services.
Ms Little of UnitingCare Australia gave evidence that after cuts like these are sustained by vulnerable communities, it is:
… the private charities, church-based charities and other charities in the community, the community organisations ... having to pick up the pieces.
But despite the community sector doing all it can with its limited resources - largely provided by state budgets and public fundraising - the ASRC argues previous cuts like these have led to destitution, homelessness, and poverty which have devastated the communities they’ve targeted.
This is why the ASRC and others argued that these cuts present a false economy. As submitted by Ms Reilly of the AASW in her evidence:
… it might be a budget-saving provision at the federal level but ... that cost is still a burden on the community that has to come from somewhere … [and] if it's about cost saving, it seems counterintuitive that we're creating a system that will ultimately cost the system a lot more in the long run.
This is because, according to Ms Reilly and other expert submitters to the inquiry, cuts to safety nets for vulnerable individuals and communities contribute to cycles of poverty and disadvantage which lead to poorer health and education outcomes, and lower community and economic participation.
Finally, it is also worth drawing attention, as many submitters to this inquiry did, that despite the name of the Bill, this legislation does not target ‘new migrants’; rather, it targets new permanent residents, many of whom will already have lived in Australia as temporary residents for many years.
As provided in evidence by Mr Al-Khafaji on behalf of FECCA:
The pathway from migration to permanent residency often exceeds four years and involves multiple temporary visas. Approximately half of permanent visas are granted to people who are already in Australia on temporary visas. Waiting times for processing permanent visa applications have continually increased in recent years. The context of prolonged pathways to permanency is important, combined with this bill, because migrants could be without support for approximately eight years. These people have worked, lived and paid taxes in Australia on temporary visas for many years.
Finding
The Australian Greens find that the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Consistent Waiting Periods for New Migrants) Bill 2021 places an unacceptable financial and social burden on migrants, in particular women and children, many of whom have lived and paid taxes in Australia for many years. It will lead to cost-shifting from the Commonwealth budget to State and Territory budgets and increasing pressure on charities and non-government organisations which provide support to migrants.
Recommendation
The Bill should be rejected by the Senate.
Senator Janet Rice
Senator Nick McKim