NEWS  |  Politics

First Act of Parliament to Impact Vulnerable Australians

Monday, 22nd August 2016 at 12:21 pm
Ellie Cooper, Journalist
A coalition of welfare organisations has condemned the government’s proposed cut to social security payments, which is said to be the first order of business for the new Parliament.

Monday, 22nd August 2016
at 12:21 pm
Ellie Cooper, Journalist



First Act of Parliament to Impact Vulnerable Australians
Monday, 22nd August 2016 at 12:21 pm

A coalition of welfare organisations has condemned the government’s proposed cut to social security payments, which is said to be the first order of business for the new Parliament.

Poor groceries supermarket

The group, including the Australian Council of Social Service, along with Australian Unemployed Workers’ Union, Australian Youth Affairs Coalition, Carers Australia, Jobs Australia, People with Disability and the Welfare Rights Centre, said removing the energy supplement would impact vulnerable Australians.

In jointly-written letters, they called on Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten to keep the supplement, which is included in a $6.5 billion budget savings bill to be introduced after Parliament resumes on 30 August.

ACOSS CEO Cassandra Goldie told Pro Bono Australia News the government’s budget approach was one sided and “deeply unfair”.

“We’re deeply concerned that the way that the government’s approaching its first weeks of the new Parliament, it looks very much like the way that the previous government approached its federal budget in 2014,” Goldie said.

“We’ve got a proposal by the federal government to cut the incomes of people who are on the very lowest incomes in Australia, people who are on the unemployment payment, carers, people with disability, single parents… by the removal of the energy supplement.

“At the same time… the government is wanting to provide tax breaks for people on higher incomes and… pursuing a comprehensive cut to the company tax rate.

“We are again seeing a very uneven, deeply unfair, and, in our view at this point, unconscionable approach to the government aspirations of us being able to return to a balanced budget.”

In its letters to the leaders, the group said people who were unemployed and on benefits such as Newstart, living on $38 per day, faced losing a minimum of $4.40 a week, while someone earning $200,000 would receive $6 a week in personal income tax cuts.

“How can this possibly be argued to be a fair, responsible approach to addressing the budget challenges that we do have,” Goldie said.

“It would be an extraordinary turning of the back on people who are on the lowest incomes for us to allow the Parliament to pass a real cut in the level in the unemployment payment at a time when we need to… properly increase it.”

She said organisations needed to maintain the pressure on politicians.

“We’ve not had any response from either party… I think it is up to the community… to ensure that we are absolutely providing clear advice to the parliamentarians about where budget savings can appropriately be made,” she said.

“There are a large number of areas where we believe that reform would both help to address revenue and also be good policy, but it does not include cutting the income level of people who are the poorest in Australia.

“ACOSS and many others, including the business community, the union movement and commentators have been expressing concern about the deeply inadequate level of the unemployment payment.”

While the Coalition called on Labor and the crossbench to support the $6.5 billion budget savings, it appears that Shorten will not make a deal with the government.

During the election campaign Shorten accepted the cuts, but last week changed his stance.

“Obviously we wait to see what happens, there is a high level of speculation about what the leader of the opposition will do,” Goldie said.

“We are ensuring that the leader of the opposition is well aware of what the deep concerns will be. We, and many others across the community… will do everything we can to prevent this kind of cut.

“We shouldn’t even be contemplating this kind of approach. We had thought that – with the recognition growing globally… that the biggest risk to having a good, stable economic environment is… inequality – this is not the kind of approach that we would see.

“However, here we are, with a government that is bringing to Parliament both bills to cut the level of income support for people on the lowest incomes, at the same time as providing tax cuts for people on higher incomes.”

Ellie Cooper  |  Journalist  |  @ProBonoNews

Ellie Cooper is a journalist covering the social sector.

Got a story to share?

Got a news tip or article idea for Pro Bono News? Or perhaps you would like to write an article and join a growing community of sector leaders sharing their thoughts and analysis with Pro Bono News readers?

Get in touch at

Get more stories like this



Social Sector Calls for Action as Homelessness Rises by 14 Per Cent

Luke Michael

Wednesday, 14th March 2018 at 5:56 pm

Calls for Collective Action on SDGs To Avoid Legacy of Inequality

Wendy Williams

Wednesday, 14th March 2018 at 5:32 pm

Charities and NFPs to be Exempt from Labor’s Tax System Reforms

Luke Michael

Tuesday, 13th March 2018 at 5:03 pm

Victoria and NSW Commit to Child Sexual Abuse Redress Scheme

Luke Michael

Friday, 9th March 2018 at 4:39 pm


Mental Illness a Leading Cause of Disability for Australian Women

Luke Michael

Friday, 9th March 2018 at 12:43 pm

Mergers Are A Viable Option, But Not Without Their Risks

Wendy Williams

Thursday, 8th March 2018 at 8:20 am

Social Impact Measurement Startup Wins US$100K Pitch Comp

Luke Michael

Thursday, 8th March 2018 at 4:36 pm

Handling A Narcissist in Your Organisation

Adam Blanch

Tuesday, 6th March 2018 at 8:41 am


  • J.J. says:

    Just how many more of these Abbott/Hockey like budgets are we going to be subjected to before they get it, and rule for all and not just the rich ??

  • The government made it clear before the election that it see’s tax cuts for the rich and business as a higher priority than additional support for the most vulnerable. It also conformed their belief in neoliberal / Trickle down economic which have been exposed international by various reports including one from IMF, showing that these policies contribute to greater inequality. Clearly efforts by the Labor Party, the Greens, Get-up, Social Service and Pro Bono members and supporters did not work prior to the election. What are those apposed to these policies going to do differently to ensure the public is better informed and the argument and campaign is more persuasive? Lives are at stake!

Write a Reply or Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

pba inverse logo
Subscribe Twitter Facebook

Get the social sector's most essential news coverage. Delivered free to your inbox every Tuesday and Thursday morning.

You have Successfully Subscribed!