Additional Comments from Senator David Pocock

1.1I thank the committee for the opportunity to provide additional comments on the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee Bill 2023.

1.2This bill gives effect to an agreement I made with the Prime Minister last year and the legislation needs to reflect the detail of that at a minimum. My additional comments address these matters. But this bill is also an opportunity to further enhance the concept by incorporating constructive suggestions from advocates and experts in the sector.

1.3I am disappointed that such little time has been afforded to this inquiry. The social security sector and those that advocate for people who are unemployed and living in poverty are currently struggling under the weight of increased demand for social services. These groups, and the individuals they support and advocate for, require more time than has been given to scrutinise policy proposals and bring forward the considered views of their communities on how those proposals could be improved.

1.4While I acknowledge the efforts of the Chair in accommodating as many witnesses as possible at the public hearing, I am disappointed that more time - and more notice - was not given to the community to have their say on this important piece of legislation.

1.5That being said, I thank all the submitters to the inquiry for their considered and constructive submissions and recognise the precious time they have diverted to look at how this bill could be improved for the benefit of those doing it the toughest in our communities.

1.6The EIAC will become an important part of social policy infrastructure in Australia, supporting transparent, expert, high quality analysis and advice delivered to the Australian Government as it formulates each Budget, elevating matters of social policy to a prime position in the government’s agenda - and that of future governments.

1.7The opportunity with this bill is to ensure EIAC is set up to best deliver for Australians who are facing economic exclusion, living in poverty and requiring assistance overcoming barriers to suitable, safe and secure paid work.

Transparency

1.8As many submitters and witnesses have pointed out, subclause 8(6)(b) provides that the Joint Ministers may direct the Committee to address only a specified matter mentioned in subsection (2) - and no other matters.

1.9While it may not have been the intention of the drafters, I agree with submitters that this could have the effect of stifling the independence of EIAC; a group of experts drawn from across the economy who are well-equipped to advise on the most pressing issues impacting those living on low incomes and experiencing exclusion from the economy.

1.10However, I am also conscious of the need for the Joint Ministers to be able to draw on the expertise of EIAC to help deliver on areas of the government’s agenda in social services and social security, if that is what they choose to do.

1.11I believe a balance can be struck; allowing the government to request, rather than direct EIAC to consider certain matters in their reports. However, it should remain the discretion of the EIAC whether those matters are considered.

1.12This is a model that is present in the recently established office of the Inspector-General of Aged Care, a statutory office charged with monitoring, investigating and reporting on the Commonwealth’s administration of the aged care system.

1.13Within the enabling legislation is a requirement for the Inspector-General to establish an annual work plan and to consult with the Minister in the development of that work plan - but with no requirement to accept any directions. This is a fair balance that preserves the independence of that role, while allowing the Minister to express what the government may like to see addressed in the aged care system.

1.14Adopting this model for EIAC would help strike the right balance; requiring EIAC to develop an annual work plan and providing an opportunity for the joint ministers to express what they may like to see addressed by the Committee.

1.15I also suggest that publishing the annual work plan would also promote greater transparency in the operation of EIAC, as would the ability of EIAC to issue communiques on meeting outcomes, while also respecting the confidentiality of certain matters as part of feeding into ERC and cabinet processes. I agree with submitters that this is a basic level of transparency that should be present in any Committee.

1.16The bill be amended to require EIAC to develop an annual work plan for each financial year and to consult the joint ministers on that work plan.

1.17The bill be amended to remove the ability of the Joint Ministers to direct EIAC to not consider - or only consider - certain matters.

1.18The bill be amended to require EIAC to publish its annual work plan and to provide authority for EIAC to issue communiques on meeting outcomes.

1.19A key component of my agreement with the Prime Minister is that the report of EIAC be released publicly, with the timing agreed between the Chair of EIAC and the joint ministers, but no later than 14 calendar days prior to each Federal Budget being handed down.

1.20The bill be amended to require that the final report of EIAC be released no later than 14 calendar days prior to the release of the Federal Budget.

1.21As has been pointed out by many submitters, the bill contains no formal obligation for the government to respond to recommendations of the Committee.

1.22While it may be argued that the Budget represents the formal response to the report, the Budget papers don’t contain enough information to identify which recommendations have been accepted, accepted in part or rejected by the Government.

1.23For example, the interim EIAC made recommendations on legislated measures and targets on economic inclusion and poverty reduction. It is still unclear whether these recommendations have been accepted or rejected by the government, with this information unable to be readily identified anywhere in the Budget papers.

1.24I recognise the pressures on the government to deliver the Budget and do not suggest a detailed response to every recommendation be made available at the same time as the Budget. However, I believe it is more than reasonable, and also respectful to the Committee and the community, to expect the government to deliver a response within at least three months, particularly if recommendations are accepted but are bundled in a single measure expressed in the Budget.

1.25This should be considered a bare minimum for any report that is delivered to the government.

1.26The bill be amended to require the Joint Ministers to formally respond to the recommendations within a report of EIAC within three months of their publication.

Scope

1.27In reading the first report of the interim EIAC, it is clear that we do not have the measures to clearly view the nature and extent of poverty present in our communities. With no national targets and no national measures, we are also unable to measure the impact of policies and programs in reducing poverty and promoting economic inclusion over time.

1.28As was articulated in the first report of EIAC, New Zealand and Canada have charted the way in this area, with both jurisdictions establishing measures of poverty that have been used to evaluate poverty reduction strategies over years. The net impact has been that both jurisdictions have seen a reduction in levels of poverty in certain cohorts.

1.29The government has already made moves to better evaluate the net impact of its policies on wellbeing through the Measuring What Matters framework. I agree with submitters that the establishment of new sophisticated measures that define and spotlight the pervasiveness of poverty in our communities could only work to complement the framework and assist the government in understanding whether current approaches - and current investments - are working to reduce poverty and promote economic inclusion.

1.30I suggest that EIAC is well placed to advise on the development, maintenance and ongoing interpretation of these measures, given that both the Treasurer and the Social Services Minister are jointly responsible for the Committee.

1.31The bill be amended to provide EIAC a formal role in developing and maintaining sophisticated national measures of poverty.

1.32Homelessness is clearly one of the greatest barriers to economic inclusion.

1.33Given the complexity of homelessness, its connection to the social security system and to the labour market, I agree with Homelessness Australia’s suggestion that EIAC should be able to consider the structural drivers of homelessness in its reports to the Government.

1.34The bill be amended to allow EIAC to provide advice on measures to end homelessness in their reports to joint ministers.

Membership

1.35People living in poverty, or advocacy organisations composed of people living in poverty are well-equipped to advise on what’s not working in current systems and on the solutions that would make tangible differences in their own lives, and that of their peers.

1.36This is not about one person or one group representing the experiences of all Australians who experience poverty or economic exclusion - it is about recognising the expertise of people who engage with these systems on a daily basis and valuing their insights.

1.37The bill be amended to provide that the Committee must comprise at least one member with contemporary experience of engaging with the social security system or a representative of an organisation led by people who experience disproportionate rates of economic exclusion.

1.38As outlined in the submission by People with Disability Australia, people with disability face complex and extensive barriers to economic inclusion. According to the Australian Institute of Health Welfare, some 48% of households with a person with disability have a low level of household weekly income - compared to 18% of households without a person with disability.

1.39The bill already provides that at least one committee member must be an Indigenous person to recognise the complex intersectionality present here. The inclusion of people with disability will ensure the committee better reflects the population of people in Australia that may be living in poverty and experience barriers to work.

1.40The bill be amended to require that at least one committee member is a person with disability.

1.41Another key component of my agreement with the Prime Minister is that the Treasurer and Social Services Minister attend at least one meeting of EIAC each over the course of their deliberations and development of the report to the government.

1.42I negotiated this requirement to ensure that the government, at the highest levels, could interact with the work of EIAC and to see how the recommendations were taking shape ahead of any Budget discussions.

1.43The bill be amended to make clear that the Treasurer and the Social Services Minister must attend at least one meeting of the EIAC over the course of a financial year.

1.44Finally, I note that in the bill, the Minister may at any time terminate the appointment of a member of the Committee. There appear to be no limitations on this power. There may be legitimate reasons to remove a member from the Committee, however I would suggest this power is so broad that it could be subject to misuse and political interference from governments who disagree with how recommendations from the Committee are shaping up.

1.45I suggest that reasons for termination must be codified in the legislation to prevent the misuse of this power and also subsequently made public.

1.46The bill be amended to limit the powers of the Minister to terminate the appointment of a Committee member.

Concluding remarks

1.47I wish to thank the interim Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee (EIAC) for their work in delivering the first report of the Committee earlier in the year. The report provided an excellent and overdue analysis on the adequacy of income support payments, which ultimately led to a greater, albeit modest, investment in the social security system in the May Budget.

1.48EIAC has great potential to unlock much needed progress on alleviating economic inequality in our society, while delivering reforms necessary to lift people out of poverty and into work.

1.49That the bill be passed subject to the above amendments.

Senator David Pocock