Is the Coalition currently more radical than Labor on welfare? JobSeeker payment debate confounds public

By ROBBIE MASON

A Labor bill seeking to increase welfare payments is likely to pass, despite receiving hostility from both sides of the political spectrum. The Federal Government announced the $40-a-fortnight increase in the May budget, and the bill was under review in parliament yesterday.

The Coalition want to increase the cut-off point for benefits rather than increase working age and student Centrelink payments by $40 as Labor has proposed.

Shadow Social Services Minister Michael Sukkar framed the Coalition suggestion as simultaneously a cost-cutting measure and an effective one, which would help a wider pool of welfare recipients. He stated that raising the eligibility threshold would save the budget $2.9 billion over the next four years.

“Increasing the income-free area before benefits are reduced incentivises those on working age payments to take up employment opportunities,” he said.

But the Coalition appears to have adopted a pragmatic approach. Opposition leader Peter Dutton told reports at Parliament House that the Coalition will support the $40 rise in welfare payments if their amendment to increase the income free area for welfare recipients is voted down.

When asked if he would repeal the welfare increase should the opposition win the next election, Mr Dutton replied: “no”.

Under the Coalition’s proposal, JobSeeker recipients would be able to earn up to $300 per fortnight from a job while still receiving the full JobSeeker payment. Current Jobseeker recipients lose access to the payment if they earn over $150 per fortnight.

Social Services Minister Amanda Rishworth said that the Coalition’s amendment would add 50,000 people to the ranks of JobSeeker recipients.

She stated, “This measure could actually encourage a longer-term reliance on casual work and JobSeeker rather than a transition into the workforce.”

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, meanwhile, labelled the Coalition amendment a “shocker” and described their proposal as a “disincentive to work”.

The Greens, meanwhile, have criticised the inadequacy of the $40 boost and suggested a raft of their own changes to Labor’s safety net bill.

Labelling the JobSeeker increase “woefully inadequate”, Senator Janet Rice, Greens spokesperson for Social Services, said, “$4 a day is not going to cut it for people who tell me they’re only showering once a week because they can’t afford the hot water. It’s not going to cut it for people who are only eating one meal a day. And it’s not going to cut it for people who are living in tents or in cars rather than being able to afford a roof over their head.”

“Labor managed to find room in the budget for $9000 a year in Stage 3 tax cuts for every billionaire and politician in the country, but can’t raise Centrelink above the poverty line for struggling Australians,” she continued.

NSW Greens MP Jenny Leong also condemned Labor’s bill, telling City Hub that poverty is a “political choice” and a result of poor governance.

She said, “nobody should be forced to live below the poverty line and an increase of $4 a day will do nothing for people struggling to make rent, pay their bills, and put food on the table.”

Senator Rice also took aim at the Coalition’s proposed alterations.

“It is outrageous the Liberals’ won’t even support this paltry increase and want to leave many of the most vulnerable recipients, including those with serious health issues who can’t work, living in poverty with no increase at all. An income free area alone is not enough.”

When a 2.2 percent increase in indexation and interest is taken into account, the welfare rise adds up to $56. The increase is scheduled for 20 September this year. This depends on the safety net bill passing, which appears likely.

Welfare activists divided

The approaches of the two major parties has sparked debate among activists and welfare advocates.

The Antipoverty Centre, an advocacy group comprised of social security recipients, radical but unaligned politically, wants to see the Coalition amendment accepted. The group perceives the  extension of the ceiling for the income free threshold as a vital first step in correcting historical wrongs.

The Antipoverty Centre has called for the income free area for JobSeeker to be increased in numerous parliamentary submissions. In May this year, the organisation sent a letter to the treasurer and social services ministers demanding that the threshold of allowable work income for Youth Allowance and Austudy – $480 per week – be applied to all welfare payments.

Antipoverty Centre spokesperson and DSP recipient Kristin O’Connell said, “the real ‘shocker’ is that the prime minister thinks it’s ok to kick people off income support when they aren’t earning enough to live.”

“We are in a cost of living crisis. More and more people are doing insecure and underpaid jobs,” she continued.

“People in low paid work are currently losing up to 79 cents in the dollar after they earn $150 in a fortnight.”

When the budgetary measure to increase welfare payments was announced in May, the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) condemned the miniscule increase at the time. The welfare advocacy organisation suggested a “bolder vision” for the budget was needed to provide an adequate safety net.

ACOSS CEO Dr Cassandra Goldie said, “the real increases to base rates of JobSeeker, Youth Allowance and Rent Assistance will still leave more than one million people in poverty, unable to afford three meals a day and a roof over their head.”

Twitter was alight overnight with suggestions that Labor is failing those most in need. Many pointed out that both Labor and Liberal politicians were framing the debate in terms of finding the solution which encourages welfare recipients to work the most, rather than finding the solution which helps them the most.

The Australian Unemployed Workers Union (AUWU) tweeted that “40+% of JobSeeker recipients are disabled” and that the Prime Minister’s dismissal of safety net increases as a disincentive to work full-time is “eugenics, cut-and-dried”.

40+% of JobSeeker recipients are disabled.

There is no question about it, @AlboMP's dismissal of safety net increases to JobSeeker as a "disincentive to full time work" is eugenics, cut-and-dried. https://t.co/ZmfDQJkFWo

— AUWU (@AusUnemployment) July 31, 2023

Academic philosopher and writer Hiero Badge tweeted “can’t emphasise enough that Labor is *to the right* of the LNP on the income threshold for JobSeeker… Labor isn’t progressive and it is barely even a centrist party anymore.”