Additional Comments from the Australian Greens

Introduction

Australia's social security system, particularly with respect to the treatment of people of working age, has become one of the meanest, harshest and arguably cruellest amongst OECD countries … Therefore, it is important for us to understand how crucial it is that we create this independent Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee to provide a powerful influence on changing this history of culture and policy associated with the treatment of people who are economically excluded.[1]

1.1The Australian Greens welcomed the introduction of the interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee (EIAC) and we welcome the establishment of the permanent EIAC. Like most of the participants of the inquiry, we generally support and appreciate the intent of the EIAC. We believe that the EIAC is an important opportunity to eradicate poverty and tackle disadvantage in Australia. However, the Australian Greens are of the opinion that in its current form, this bill will fail to deliver an independent and robust body to advise the government on economic inclusion.

1.2An overwhelming majority of submitters and witnesses to the inquiry highlighted that the bill needs to be amended to strengthen the EIAC’s transparency, independence, focus and diversity.

1.3We find it astounding that the Labor majority committee has chosen to ignore the testimonies and evidence of social service organisations, advocates and some members of their own interim EIAC, and has recommended that this bill be passed unamended.

1.4In response to the evidence provided throughout the inquiry and the clear deficiencies with the bill, the Australian Greens have put forward a suite of recommendations to strengthen the EIAC and ensure we have the best chance of an effective and independent advisory body.

Membership of the EIAC

1.5Nowhere in the bill is there a requirement for someone with direct and contemporary experience of economic exclusion to be a member of the EIAC. Many submissions to the inquiry raised this as a key issue and most witnesses urged for the bill to be amended to ensure at least one person with direct experience be included in the membership of the EIAC.

1.6In their submission and testimonies, multiple social service organisations advocating and working with people experiencing disadvantage and economic exclusion highlighted the importance of representation in the EIAC rather than just consultation.[2] As Dr Goldie from the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) explained during the public hearing in Canberra:

I want to reiterate that, in our general experience, the way in which people discuss the issues is fundamentally different when people who are living that reality right now are leading the discussion or at least are in the room. It's very powerful the way that that transforms the discussion and brings a focus to the work. I think it's also very important for the integrity of the committee to have that kind of custodianship of its function in the hands of people who can highlight what is urgent, what is high priority and what that reality is like. We live in a country where inequality is very significant. Many people may not have any direct experience of what it's currently like to be living that reality. Finding the right balance in the committee in terms of the range of expertise is very important.[3]

1.7Anglicare Australia similarly noted in their submission:

… economic and social policy advisory bodies have tended to exclude these perspectives altogether or co-opt the past experiences of representatives who have been substantially appointed for other reasons (for example, sector representatives or academics with past experience, but who lack current connections to lived experience groups). The absence of a meaningful lived experience perspective undermines both the EIAC and the quality of the advice being given to Government.[4]

1.8The need for membership of people with direct experience of economic inclusion was also a focus of unemployed advocates and people experiencing disadvantage. For example, Mr Coonan from Antipoverty Centre said at the hearing:

When we talk about direct experience, we're talking about people who are impacted by the material conditions of poverty providing experience of and their knowledge of advocating for themselves in the Centrelink processes and so forth. Having them on the committee will provide necessary detailed insights into the material conditions of people in poverty in order to make those changes which—a lot of people who do advocacy in this space aren't subjected to the material conditions for which they advocate change. That's the distinction we make and why we believe that's the importance of having these groups and individuals represented on this committee.[5]

1.9Angela Finch, a single parent and board member of Single Mother Families Australia, also noted:

Evidence has shown that policy is best informed by the lived experience, particularly if we think about recent big policy and what Terese and Single Mother Families Australia and all our allies have been through to get the policy change. They're like advocates in the space, but what drove the advocates and the policymakers through that were the lived experience stories. There's a nuance and a respect we don't give to lived experience … I wanted to work in this advocacy space, and motherhood, particularly single motherhood, has locked me out of that traditional method for me to get in there. Now I'm trying to make an actual living and get economic security in this space for my family while also working a low-paid job and not receiving child support. That is a full-time job in itself. It's ridiculous. I can understand and have great respect for all the work that goes on making sure we get this policy change and get it correct. But at the same time there is, quite frankly, a disrespect for the people living it from all sides, whether it be government, policy advisers or even advocates in the sector. Having that lived experienced is a no-brainer, isn't it? It seems like a stupid question. I love a stupid question, but, at the same time, isn't there a point in time where we get beyond stupid questions?[6]

1.10As the bill currently stands, it also fails to require membership of a disabled person or people. Disabled people currently experience high levels of disadvantage compared to those without disabilities. For example, as People with Disability Australia (PWDA) notes in their submission, working age people with disability are more than twice as likely to be in financial stress compared to those without disability.[7] As a result of the ongoing disproportionate impact of disadvantage on disabled people, PWDA, Inclusion Australia and the Antipoverty Centre all recommended in their submissions that a clause be added in the bill to require at least one EIAC member to be a disabled person and argued that this representation is critical to the successful operation of the body.[8]

1.11Another key issue raised by participants in the inquiry with regard to membership was the provision in the bill explicitly stating that members of the EIAC will not be remunerated for their work. It was noted how lack of remuneration would create a barrier to participation in the EIAC, particularly for people with direct experience of economic disadvantage. As Mr Coonan from the Antipoverty Centre explained at the hearing:

Obviously, people who are impacted or directly affected by poverty are living in poverty, so, if they are going to participate in the committee, they need to be remunerated for their work and contributions to the committee. There are a lot of people in this space who do advocacy in their communities who would be eligible, or should be eligible, to sit on the committee to feed in their direct experience of working in the community. Therefore that work and that contribution and working with people in the community should be remunerated like any form of work, because labour should not be unpaid.[9]

1.12The Australian Greens are of the firm view that the EIAC membership should be representative of the people most impacted by the issues it seeks to investigate. We, therefore, recommend that membership of the EIAC must include at least one person with direct and contemporary experience of economic exclusion as well as a disabled person.

1.13The Australian Greens also believe any barriers for people with direct experience of disadvantage should be removed and they should be adequately compensated for their expertise and time.

1.14The bill be amended to ensure the EIAC includes at least one full-status member who has direct contemporary experience with low incomes and economic exclusion.

1.15The bill be amended to ensure that at least one of the members of the EIAC has a disability. This may include members from an organisation that does not specifically advocate for disability issues.

1.16The bill be amended to ensure that anyone with direct experience with economic exclusion and low incomes is compensated for the time and expertise they contribute to the EIAC.

Focus and Remit of the EIAC

1.17Disappointingly, the bill currently makes no explicit reference to eradicating poverty in the EIAC’s function. Numerous submitters and witnesses raised this as an issue and recommended that poverty be included within the EIAC’s remit.

1.18For example, in their joint submission, Associate Professor Elise Klein OAM, Associate Professor Ben Spies-Butcher and Dr Troy Henderson recommended ‘The inclusion of an explicit reference to ending poverty and ensuring the right not to live in poverty.’[10]

1.19When asked about EIAC having a poverty focus at the hearing, Ms Beverly Baker from the National Older Women's Network told the committee:

Poverty is a choice, and it is a choice that has been made by government, not by the individuals. Poor people are seen as a burden and as something that should be controlled. The government puts in punitive measures to deal with them, rather than having a look at the issues of a capitalist economy that is neoliberal, that is absolutely supporting, encouraging and using huge carrots for people with wealth and that is using huge sticks for people who are without. This committee must be able to address the inequities that we see within a market economy and to absolutely address the issues of poverty. Poverty doesn't just destroy the generation that is suffering; it destroys the generations that follow. It is absolutely unconscionable to burden children who are yet to be born with a life of poverty over which they have no control.[11]

1.20Another deficiency of the bill highlighted by submitters and witnesses, was the absence of any requirement for the EIAC to develop a national measure or measures of poverty as part of their work.

1.21During the hearing, Dr Goldie from ACOSS explained the importance of a national measure of poverty. She said:

It is very important—the fact that Australia does not have a national definition of poverty. Just again for the record, I would remind you that we do have an international obligation to do that. We have signed up to the sustainable development goals, and it is a requirement of state parties to have a national definition of poverty. Australia has done very important work on defining homelessness … We have a national definition of homelessness. It was developed through a process by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. We are now into a very different era with homelessness where we no longer debate what it is, but we're all working hard to end it, and we really encourage government and everybody to make the goal of defining poverty in Australia and the targets to end it as one of the most important things we can do when we all talk about the cost of living.[12]

1.22This was reiterated by Ms Nolan from the Brotherhood of St Laurence, who told the committee:

Legislated measures for poverty reduction would give Australia clarity on how we measure our progress in reducing poverty and establish greater accountability and momentum for poverty reduction in Australia. These measures would ideally extend beyond just income measures to also include multidimensional assessment of poverty and would be connected into the Measuring What Matters framework. Experiences from New Zealand and Canada, which have both adopted legislated measures for poverty reduction, are that these legislated measures are an effective mechanism to drive policy change and momentum around poverty reduction … So, this bill could specify the measures themselves or, more realistically, could specify accountability and a process for developing those measures.[13]

1.23The Australian Greens have long called for the government to develop a national measure of poverty and support the calls of ACOSS, the Brotherhood of St Laurence and all other participants of the inquiry who have called for the EIAC to develop this. We also believe that the eradication of poverty should be a core focus of the EIAC, and omitting poverty from the text of this bill is a huge error.

1.24The bill be amended to include the eradication of poverty as an explicit focus of the EIAC’s investigation and work.

1.25The bill be amended to include a requirement for the EIAC to develop a national poverty measure or measures and national poverty targets.

Independence and Transparency of the EIAC

1.26A large number of submitters and witnesses raised concerns about the bill with regard to the transparency and independence of the EIAC.

1.27Overwhelmingly, witnesses raised issues with a provision in the bill that allows the Joint Ministers to direct the EIAC to work on certain matters and cautioned that this would infringe on the independence of the committee.

1.28In the hearing, Ms Kirkaldy from the Salvation Army explained:

Unamended, the bill provides significant latitude to the government to give directions and make terms and conditions, but there's no requirement that those conditions be made public. We have recommended that any directions or conditions be made public and that there are limitations placed on the removal of members.[14]

1.29Similarly, Dr Goldie from ACOSS stressed:

We share the concern of others that the draft legislation currently empowers ministers to dictate what can be in the reports and what must be excluded. We understand that this may not have been the intention of the legislation provisions that have been presented to you, but it clearly is the effect of the way that has been worded. It is so vital that the committee, which is meant to be of deep expertise, is able to act at arm's length from government to focus on the priority issues that it sees need to be worked on in order for us to end economic exclusion and to end poverty.[15]

1.30Additionally, many participants of the inquiry called for increased transparency around the EIAC’s processes particularly with regard to the appointment of members and the publication of their report.

1.31A key function of the EIAC will be to produce a report providing recommendations to the government. As the bill currently stands, it stipulates that the Minister must publish the report on the department’s website but does not stipulate a timeline for publication nor does it require the government to respond. Participants of the inquiry felt that this compromised the EIAC’s transparency and effectiveness and urged the bill to be amended to include a provision requiring the report to be published ahead of the Federal Budget.

1.32As Ms Kirkaldy from the Salvation Army explained:

The bill provides that the EIAC report will be published, but it doesn't guarantee when. There's also no requirement that the government make a formal response to the recommendations of the EIAC. We believe that, to be a truly effective mechanism, the report must be published at least two weeks before the federal budget to which it relates and that ministers must be required to give a response to those recommendations at least two weeks before the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook following that budget. We believe the EIAC has considerable potential, and we are very pleased to see it legislated, but we believe that there are some amendments that are necessary so that the EIAC can achieve that potential. Thank you, again, and we hope to be of assistance to the committee.[16]

1.33The importance of a government response to the EIAC’s report was also highlighted by Ms O’Connell from the Antipoverty Centre at the hearing. She said:

What's more important is what's actually required when a report is handed over. What does the government need to do in response to that report? It should have to provide a formal response, it should have to justify itself when it chooses to ignore its recommendations and it should have to provide a pathway to implementing those recommendations as well.[17]

1.34Some inquiry participants also raised concerns about the lack of transparency surrounding appointments to EIAC membership. ACOSS suggested that appointments be selected through an open and competitive process where positions are publicly advertised.[18]While the Antipoverty Centre called for a ‘far more transparent and merits-based system in the expansion of appointments being made, and that any appointments that are made to the committee can be reviewed.’[19]

1.35The Australian Greens recognise and agree with the concerns raised throughout the inquiry process around issues with transparency and independence of the EIAC. Without changes to this bill, we do not believe that the EIAC will be able to effectively function as an independent and robust advisory body to the government. We urge the Labor government to consider and adopt our recommendations.

1.36The bill be amended to remove subclause 8(6)(b) allowing the Joint Ministers to direct the EIAC to only look at certain matters.

1.37The bill be amended to specify that the EIAC’s report must be published at least two weeks ahead of the Federal Budget.

1.38The bill be amended to include a requirement for the government to formally respond to reports made by the EIAC.

1.39The bill be amended to include a provision where membership to the EIAC be appointed through an independent process.

Senator Janet Rice

Footnotes

[1]Dr Cassandra Goldie, Chief Executive Officer, Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), Committee Hansard, 10th November 2023, p. 9.

[2]See, for example, The Salvation Army, Submission 5, p. 1; The Brotherhood of St Laurence, Submission 7, p. 2; Uniting Care Australia, Submission 4, p. 3.

[3]Dr Cassandra Goldie, Chief Executive Officer, ACOSS, Committee Hansard, 10 November 2023, p. 12.

[4]Anglicare Australia, Submission 6, p. 1.

[5]Mr Jay Coonan, Research and Policy, Antipoverty Centre, Committee Hansard, 10 November 2023, p. 5.

[6]Ms Angela Finch, Board Member, Single Mother Families Australia, Committee Hansard, 13 November 2023, p. 3.

[7]People with Disability Australia, Submission 8, p. 2.

[8]People with Disability Australia, Submission 8, p. 1; Inclusion Australia, Submission 3, p. 2; Antipoverty Centre, Submission 2, p. 6.

[9]Mr Jay Coonan, Research and Policy, Antipoverty Centre, Committee Hansard, 10 November 2023, p. 3.

[10]Associate Professor Elsie Klein, Associate Professor Ben Spies-Butcher & Dr Troy Henderson, Submission 12, p. 4.

[11]Beverly Baker, President, National Older Women’s Network, Committee Hansard, 13 November 2023, p. 5.

[12]Dr Cassandra Goldie, Chief Executive Officer, ACOSS, Committee Hansard, 10 November 2023, p. 12.

[13]Ms Cara Nolan, Senior Advisory, Brotherhood of St Laurence, Committee Hansard, 10 November 2023, p. 8.

[14]Ms Jennifer Kirkaldy, General Manager Policy and Advocacy, Salvation Army, Committee Hansard, 10 November 2023, p. 2.

[15]Dr Cassandra Goldie, Chief Executive Officer, ACOSS, Committee Hansard, 10 November 2023, p. 9.

[16]Ms Jennifer Kirkaldy, General Manager Policy and Advocacy, Salvation Army, Committee Hansard, 10 November 2023, p. 2.

[17]Ms Kristin O’Connell, Research and Policy, Antipoverty Centre, Committee Hansard, 10 November 2023, p. 4.

[18]ACOSS, Submission 14, p. 3.

[19]Antipoverty Centre, Submission 2, p. 6.