On Wednesday both Labor and the Liberals voted in favour of a bill which will make new migrants wait longer to access social security. Under the proposed legislation, which has been moved to a third reading, migrants must wait up to four years before accessing various benefits such as Newstart.
Though the bill drew fierce condemnation from Labor MPs, the opposition reluctantly agreed to vote in favour after extracting some concessions (other payments such as parental leave pay and family tax benefits will be accessible after one or two years).
Greens MPs have slammed Labor’s support for their bill as an indictment of their weak progressive credentials — all the more notable in a week where the government’s majority is particularly threadbare. So, why did they do it?
The bill explained
First proposed late last year, the government’s bill was initially justified as a means of producing $1.3 billion worth of savings. But even if passed in its amended form, the bill could cause considerable stress to vulnerable migrants. Earlier this year, Senate estimates heard that the proposal could affect 110,000 children.
The Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs received numerous submissions from migrant organisations condemning the bill. The Multicultural Youth Affairs Network stressed that the bill “would make migrant young people more susceptible to financial hardship”, and the Migrant Council Australia said “the proposal is likely to have a disproportionate impact on women as they are most often the victims in situations of power imbalance and dependency”.
Labor MPs expressed similar concerns. Backbencher Mike Freelander, whose South West Sydney electorate of Macarthur is one of the most migrant-heavy in the country, said the “the government should be ashamed of itself for trying to introduce the legislation in its original form”.
“I’m very concerned about families who have young children with disabilities, and how they are going to cope with these draconian waiting periods,” he said.
If passed, Australia’s regime would become stricter than comparable countries. The UK currently imposes a wait-time of three months for EU nationals and two years for other migrants hoping to access Jobseeker’s Allowance. New Zealand also requires two years of residence before migrants access various welfare benefits.
According to Labor MPs, the amendments will soften the impact of the bill. NSW MP Linda Burney stressed that 49,000 families and 107,000 children would now be shielded from the new waiting periods for family tax benefits under Labor’s amendments.
The amendments drew praise from the Federation of Ethnic Communities’ Councils of Australia chairperson Mary Patetsos, who stressed that they would “help protect the most vulnerable new arrivals and their families from the new four-year waiting period for benefits”.
But why the concession?
With the government’s majority hanging by a thread, the final parliamentary sitting week of the year could have been an opportunity for Labor to flex its progressive muscle and put a serious dent in the Coalition’s legislative agenda.
Greens MP Adam Bandt argued that the ALP instead “cooked up” a “dirty deal” with the Liberals to rush through the bill with little consultation:
This bill will create an underclass of migrants in this society and will result in second-class citizens who will now have to wait longer to get the kind of support that most people — other people in this country — are entitled to.
Meanwhile, Greens Senator Nick McKim attacked Labor for “boasting of their progressiveness” while voting for the bill. McKim also pointed out of the party’s refusal to commit to Independent MP Kerryn Phelps’ proposal to get children of Nauru.
However, despite repeatedly stressing they did not support increasing waiting periods at all, Labor MPs argued that pushing through an amended version was the only responsible course of action. Even though control of the chamber slipped further out of the government’s grasp this week, Labor would have likely fallen short of the 76 votes needed to oppose the bill, even with help from an expanded crossbench.
“We have been pragmatic, because the alternative was to leave the entirety of this proposal in the hands of the Senate crossbench, and of course, the One Nation Party,” Labor MP Ross Hart said.
But this morning, SBS reported that the Senate would likely have blocked the bill in its original form.
Labor’s approach is understandable given the volatility of the Senate crossbench. Still, their cautious pragmatism has ultimately led them to vote for a bill they virulently oppose, and garner the praise of Pauline Hanson:
I’m so proud of the Labor Party that you’re actually now going to support this because you can see some common sense. Don’t take notice of the Greens or anyone else in this place calling you racist.
Another alp “peace for our time” moment.
Every time the media criticises the ALP for being gun-shy and being cautious rather than ideologically pure, may I point them to the way the media has reported on ALP policies when they’ve done otherwise, ESPECIALLY on anything connected to border protection?
The ALP has to get into government first. This is not the hill for the ALP to die on. It’s that simple.
Exactly! Well said Arky…Labor can do NOTHING on these contentious issues until it resumes government.
And what of this ‘wonderful’ enlarged crossbench? Most of them have promised the government supply and confidence. If they were serious about issues like those contained in this bill, they would help Labor to chuck out this putrid government NOW!!!!
How many times do we have to hear that pathetic justification of the ALP’s ingrained cynical opportunism? I’d had enough of it by the time the Tampa appeared.
The coalition is bursting apart at the seams, fragments flying everywhere, and still ALP cowards are too scared to do anything to upset them. What exactly is the point of such a party? Enjoy your victory by default next year, you useless bastards.
And, before you accuse me of being a green or some shit like that, I do not vote green, I vote ALP or I do not vote. Guess which option I have been taking lately and will take into the foreseeable future, mate.
I’m not ashamed to say I’ve been voting green for some time. I know the preferences usually go to Labor (in my rural area), but the higher the Greens vote, the more they’ll realise that the status quo is not acceptable.
Migrants if not refugees should be self sufficient.
Am in full agreement with both Arky and NgGJB on this. The main aim now is not to scare the horses, but just ride the favourite all the way to the winning post in May.
Why? Does leaving them more vulnerable to shonkies like 7/11 help anyone but employers? Good shit from the LABOUR party. Pfft, permanent resident working class voters, who fucking needs them! *shuffles historically low primary vote and workplace organization under the sofa*
No they can stay home and improve their own country, it is after all their own culture.
There is no sound reason to import welfare recipients, Improving your economic position is not a reasonable claim for migration.
There is of course a chance that a gun shy ALP which has been whipped about the head by the MSM for near on a decade, may miss any change in mood of the electorate where it comes to welfare and migrant issues.
The need to act in lockstep on security issues, for fear of an actual attack, is bound to have had a negative impact on the ALP’s own view of the electorate.
I would suggest that they have their heads up their own arses and don’t have any idea what the public even wants. Both parties are unpopular, both parties are acting in lockstep. Maybe the big brained political geniuses can figure this one out.
Important detail lacking. Why did Mary Patetsos, stress that they would “help protect the most vulnerable new arrivals and their families from the new four-year waiting period for benefits”.
New non refugee migrants should be subjected to welfare restrictions. The article describes “up to” a four year wait for various benefits such as Newstart. Up to can mean lots of things which should have been explained in the available word limit rather than blathering in about the Greens’ and Hanson’s reactions.