29 April 2025

Seventy-four crossbench candidates call for next government to increase safety net payments

| Chris Johnson
Join the conversation
64
David Pocock with three supporters holding `Raise the Rate for Good' signs

Independent Senator David Pocock has signed a joint statement calling for increased safety net payments. Photo: DavidPocock.com.au.

David Pocock has joined 73 other independent candidates contesting the federal election in calling for the next government to substantially increase income support for Australia’s poorest.

The independent Senator for the ACT said raising safety net payments would go a long way towards tackling the current cost-of-living crisis and help lift people out of poverty.

With a minority government a possible outcome of the election, crossbenchers have signed a joint statement with the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) and representatives from the community sector declaring that raising the rate is “the most important thing the next government could do to address the cost-of-living crisis”.

The joint statement says the current rates of JobSeeker at $56 a day and Youth Allowance at $48 a day force Australians to go without food, healthcare and a safe place to call home.

It has been signed by 74 independent and minor party crossbench candidates, including the Greens and incumbent MPs and senators seeking re-election, including Senator Pocock.

“Australians are proud to live in a country that has a safety net and they want to ensure it enables people to live above the poverty line,” Senator Pocock said.

“So getting the Albanese Government to legislate an independent committee to provide expert advice on the adequacy of support payments is something I am proud of from this term of parliament.

“If returned, next term I will keep pushing the government to implement the committee’s advice in full and raise the rate of safety net payments above the poverty line and increase the rate of Commonwealth Rent Assistance as the most powerful thing we can do to end chronic intergenerational disadvantage in our community.”

READ ALSO Has Labor now jumped the shark over public service jobs?

Prominent economists Chris Richardson, Nicki Hutley, Jeff Borland, Nicholas Gruen and community group leaders including Mental Health Australia CEO Carolyn Nikoloski and Chief Executive Women CEO Lisa Annese have also signed the statement.

ACOSS chief executive officer Cassandra Goldie said the statement delivered a strong message to whichever party formed the next federal government that the crossbench would be pushing hard for cost-of-living relief for those Australians on the lowest incomes.

“The message to the next government is loud and clear. It’s time to finally raise the rate,” Dr Goldie said.

“Australia is in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, yet our income support system continues to trap people in poverty.

“It’s a disgrace that in one of the world’s wealthiest countries, our government continues to ignore the expert advice about the most important action needed to tackle poverty, raising the rate of income supports.

“People are being forced to skip meals, go without critical medication or sleep in their cars because they receive just $56 a day.”

Dr Goldie said Australians could not look for paid work, stay healthy or care for their families if they couldn’t afford the basics.

“The next government must act fast and lift these deeply inadequate social security payments as its first order of business in the next Federal Parliament.”

READ ALSO Dutton promises big increase in defence spending if elected

The independent Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, which the government established in 2023 on the urging of Senator Pocock, handed down its third report in March just ahead of the Federal Budget being delivered.

It listed recommendations for lifting the economic circumstances of the disadvantaged.

The committee had commissioned new research that made the case for increasing safety net payments and Commonwealth Rent Assistance.

Undertaken by the University of NSW, the research assessed income support payments against the amount of money a family needed to purchase the goods and services for a reasonable standard of living.

It found indexing JobSeeker payments and related income supports only in line with the Consumer Price Index resulted in their relative base rates falling “significantly below existing benchmarks such as the age pension” and these payments continued to be “seriously inadequate relative to all accepted poverty measures, creating sometimes severe hardship for our neediest citizens”.

The report also recommended lifting the remote area allowance, which is non-indexed and has not been increased for a quarter of a century.

Free Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? We package the most-read Canberra stories and send them to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.
Loading
By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.

Join the conversation

64
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Don’t worry so much if you don’t want funding by the likes of Hancock you can just fall back on the government. They will save you every time.

The welfare lobby is on par with the renewables lobby as the biggest rent seekers in the community. Constantly with their hands out for more but they offer nothing in return. CPI is an appropriate way to index payments. If they think they deserve more then they might want to make a business case as to why.

The top 10% of taxpayers pay over 50% of all income tax, an astonishingly high number. 36% of our national budget – paid for by those taxes – is spent on welfare. That’s what one might call inequality.

@Penfold
Why do you need to use perjoratives like ‘rent seekers’ as your opening salvo? Do you think insulting the subject of your argument, some how strengthens your case?

Nevertheless, while CPI is an indicator of inflation, the ‘basket of goods’ measure, does not take into account the spending patterns of individuals – particularly those on welfare payments and low income earners. This cohort will spend most, probably all of their income, on the essentials of life – rent, utilities, transport and food, leaving little room for the many discretionary/luxury items which, you and I happily consume, and are also included in that CPI ‘basket of goods’. Simply put, people on welfare payments, despite rent assistance, are still spending a significantly higher proportion of their ‘income’ on rent, than those on the median salary (approx $67,000pa) or better – because, they are still competing for access to the same market-priced rental accommodation.

“The top 10% of taxpayers pay over 50% of all income tax”
It’s also worth noting that the top 1% of income earners, pay approx. 20% of all income tax. So what?
As, renowned former US justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, once said “Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized (sic) society.” So, as we are a civilised society in Australia, it means we have adopted a progressive income tax system, which simply means the more one earns, the more tax one pays. What the figures, you and I have quoted, tell me, is that the people in those various “brackets” are making a sh*tload of money, compared to those around the median.

This link provides an interesting diversion –
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/apr/14/how-rich-is-gina-rinehart-and-how-much-will-she-earn-in-the-time-it-takes-to-read-this-article-ntwnfb
… scroll down to dynamically see Gina Rinehart’s earnings, in relation to other salary earners. I don’t feel any sorrow for how much tax she pays – I’m sure it is less than she “should” be paying, if it were not for her very clever team of tax lawyers.

Agree. My wage increase isnt auto indexed to the CPI and is always less.

Sure JS, there’s no problem with a progressive tax system. It’s only fair. But when 50% of the working population pay no net tax there’s a problem. Admittedly this stat is from debate during the 2016 election campaign, but it’s likely to have become worse now with the higher income tax take.

What’s Gina got to do with it ? Some of us have great respect for successful Australians. The stories about her sponsoring so many olympians are legendary. So are some of the Kerry Packer stories. And as for your snipe at her tax accountants, let’s not forget the classic Packer line to a parliamentary committee in 1991:

“I am not evading tax in any way, shape or form. Now of course I am minimising my tax and if anybody in this country doesn’t minimise their tax, they want their heads read because as a government I can tell you you’re not spending it that well that we should be donating extra.”

@Penfold
That’s rich (pardon the pun). On one hand you agree with a progressive tax system, but on the other, when workers really do not earn enough to actually pay tax, you quibble.

And then you laud those who ‘minimise their tax’, which is just a euphemism for avoiding doing what most other hard working Australians do, that’s pay their fair share – and for doing so, you ridicule them by quoting Packer.

As I said, the link to Gina Rinehart’s earnings were merely a interesting diversion. True that Gina Rinehart sponsors Australian olympic swimmers – but far from being altruistic magnanimity, the sponsorship comes with corporate conditions, as Netball Australia found out.

As for Packer? Around the time of making that quote, Packer, the richest individual in Australia, had just paid ZERO income tax on his earnings over the three years between 1990 and 1992. Incredibly, during a legal battle over tax, the ATO offered Packer a settlement, in which he would pay just $2.87 in tax for 1990, $6.56 for 1991 and $21.12 for 1992. Even that was too much for Packer. He refused the offer – the ATO’s offer of $30.55, over that 3-year earning period, was too much of a ‘donation’.

So forgive me if I don’t share your enthusiasm for Kerry Packer as a shining light of our civilised society – he clearly made a mockery of the progressive tax system … unless you want to defend the farce, that Packer didn’t earn enough to pay income tax?

Well that’s quite a number of statements there JS, some of them misconstruing what i said. For a start minimising tax and avoiding tax are completely separate – one is legal, one is not. I claim several donations each year (to worthy causes) so am i avoiding tax by doing so ? Of course not. But i’m minimising tax.

On the other side of the coin there are many people who earn decent money but who pay no net tax – 50% of workers. It hardly seems fair that half the workforce pays for the other 50% who pay nothing. That’s just wrong.

Sounds like you’re an expert on Kerry Packer’s income tax return. Perhaps even his corporate empire’s. Can’t say i am but perhaps he had individual deductions for the millions he gave to NSW Ambulances for fitting out every single ambulance in NSW with a defibrillator in those years. That’s certainly a benchmark of “a shining light of our civilised society”.

As for Netball Australia. Well as they say go woke, go broke. What an own goal that was.

@Penfold
“On the other side of the coin there are many people who earn decent money but who pay no net tax – 50% of workers. It hardly seems fair that half the workforce pays for the other 50% who pay nothing. That’s just wrong.”
Yet you defend Packer, and other ‘successful business people, for their ability to minimise his tax liability to zero! Especially when he happily accepted the kudos for paying half the funds to fit out NSW ambulances with defibrilators, then proceeded to stick the Aussie taxpayer, via ATO, with a substantial portion of his share of the bill. Yeah – a real shining light indeed.

And you are right, Netball Australia did almost go broke, in demonstrating their, as you put it, awareness of racial prejudice and discrimination.

@Penfold
“On the other side of the coin there are many people who earn decent money but who pay no net tax – 50% of workers. It hardly seems fair that half the workforce pays for the other 50% who pay nothing. That’s just wrong.”
Yet you defend Packer, and other successful business people, for their ability to minimise their tax liability to as low as zero! Especially when Packer happily accepted the kudos for paying half the funds to fit out NSW ambulances with defibrilators, then proceeded to stick the Aussie taxpayer, via ATO, with a substantial portion of his share of the bill. Yeah – a real shining light indeed.

And you are right, Netball Australia did almost go broke, in demonstrating their, as you put it, awareness of racial prejudice and discrimination. You call it “an own goal” – I call it ethics in the face of corporate intimidation.

Netball Australia lost their funding because one player got all excited about comments Lang Hancock made 40 years ago. How do you get to calling it “corporate intimidation” ? That’s bizarre JS.

As for Packer and Gina, you seem to have an issue with successful people. They employ tens of thousands of Aussies. And as the great JWH once remarked, the best form of welfare is a job.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Region Canberra stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.