2.1
This chapter examines the key issues raised during the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee’s (committee) inquiry into provisions of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Consistent Waiting Periods for New Migrants) Bill 2021 (bill).
2.2
The key issues raised by submitters and witnesses included:
the policy principles of the bill and newly arrived resident’s waiting period (NARWP);
the potential impacts of the proposed changes on migrants and their families;
the time migrants spend in Australia on temporary visas; and
the exemption provisions to the NARWP.
Policy principles
2.3
The proposed changes in the bill reflect two policy principles relating to the NARWP; consistency across social security payments and the expectation of financial self-sufficiency for newly arrived migrants.
2.4
The current NARWP varies from one to four years depending on the payment. According to the bill’s explanatory materials, the proposed changes align the NARWP across social security payments and make the system simpler and easier for newly arrived migrants to understand.
2.5
The NARWP is designed to reflect the ‘reasonable expectation’ that skilled and family migrants who chose to permanently settle in Australia will be financially self-sufficient and the proposed changes in the bill further entrench this expectation.
2.6
The NARWP is also indicative of broader principles of Australia’s social security system which is based on residency and need.
2.7
The committee received an array of opinions on these principles.
2.8
Some submitters argued that there is no evidence to support the claim that newly arrived migrants find the current system complex and difficult to navigate and that while it may be reasonable to expect a degree of self‑sufficiency, an increase to a four-year NARWP is unreasonable. The committee heard that migrants arrive in Australia with the intention to be self‑sufficient and support their families and that the welfare system should be available to these migrants when unexpected circumstances arise.
2.9
For example, Ms Sandra Elhelw-Wright, Chief Executive Officer, Settlement Council of Australia (SCA), stated that:
I think when people make the decision to migrate to Australia it's not necessarily that they're thinking that they will need a safety net in that first four years. I think most people come to Australia expecting that they will be independent and self-sufficient and, in fact, are for a long period of time, because a lot of people come through on a temporary migration pathway anyway. But I think it's more the messaging that underlines that around if something were to happen to you, if something were to go wrong, you would be alone—remembering that a lot of people come to Australia leaving family and social networks behind and other safety nets that they might've had in place. It's not necessarily that they're anticipating using income support in that four years, but that they're highly aware of their vulnerability if something doesn't go to plan.
2.10
Others agreed with the proposition that a consistent NARWP is an improvement to the current system and will be easier for migrants to understand, and that is reasonable to expect those on the skilled and family visa streams to be self‑sufficient upon arrival in Australia.
2.11
Other issues raised by submitters and witnesses relating to the underlying principles of the bill and Australia's social security system, including the potential impacts on migrants, the time migrants spend in Australia on temporary visas and the exemption provisions. These issues are discussed below.
Impact on migrants
2.12
The majority of evidence received by the committee from submitters and witnesses focussed on the potential impact of the proposed changes in the bill on newly arrived migrants, particularly on employment outcomes for newly arrived migrants and the disproportionate impact on women and child migrants.
Employment outcomes
2.13
Skills mismatch occurs when an individual is employed in a position that is below their skill and qualification level. Several submitters and witnesses raised concerns that the NARWP could lead to skills mismatch in migrants.
2.14
Submitters argued that due to the lack of government support in the first few years of settlement migrants will often take the first job available to them regardless of whether the job matches their skills and qualifications.
2.15
The Migration Council of Australia (MCA) noted that nearly one quarter of permanent skilled migrants in Australia are working in a job that is below their skill level.
2.16
The MCA and the SCA further stated that the estimated cost to the economy as a result of skills mismatch among new migrants is approximately $1.25 billion.
2.17
Other submitters noted that a lack of government support is an impediment to migrants finding employment and that newly arrived migrants face several barriers which lead to adverse employment outcomes, including skills mismatch. Such factors include structural barriers, varying levels of language skills, non-recognition of overseas qualifications or experience gained overseas, lack of knowledge of employment safeguards and a lack of networks with employers.
2.18
Submitters and witnesses further raised concerns that the increase to the NARWP could act as a disincentive for skilled workers migrating to Australia.
2.19
For example, Rachel Reilly, Manager, Social Policy and Advocacy, Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW), noted the diversity within the Australian community and social work profession and argued that Australia ‘must have policies that attract diversity rather than deter it’. She also highlighted that 36 per cent of all students enrolled in social work courses during 2020 were international students and that the care workforce is ‘delivered largely from migrant populations’.
2.20
Ms Alexi Boyd, Chief Executive Officer, Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, commented on the complexity of the NARWP for both new migrants and small business owners and stated that:
… I can tell you that what the small business community values the most is migrants and skilled and unskilled workers coming into the country who want to remain and who see themselves as having a long-term future in Australia and having the ability to remain beyond the length of their visa…I think this is an opportunity to examine migration issues and I just want to highlight how complex and difficult it is for small businesses to meet all the requirements of the acts to make sure they can hire a migrant worker. It is very onerous, it's expensive and it's complex.
2.21
A number of witnesses expressed similar views, noting that skilled migrants may chose to settle in other countries, such as Canada, that do not have waiting periods to access social security payments.
2.22
In response to this concern, the Department of Social Services (DSS) noted that ‘there are a range of factors that lead to somebody applying for residency in this country’ and that the proposed changes in the bill, and waiting periods generally, are not expected to affect the number of skilled migrants who seek to settle permanently in Australia.
Women and children
2.23
The committee heard that the payments affected by the bill, including Parental Leave Pay, Carer Payment and Carer Allowance, and Family Tax Benefit, are viewed as targeting those who provide care. Additionally, that the proposed changes could disproportionately affect migrant women as they are the primary cohort which receives these social security payments.
2.24
This concern was raised specifically in regards to the increase in the NARWP for Family Tax Benefit Part A, the introduction of a four year NARWP for Family Tax Benefit Part B and the changes to Parental Leave Pay and Dad and Partner Pay.
2.25
Submitters and witnesses stated that the Family Tax Benefit provides an important safety net that assists low income families with the costs of childcare and that that the increased waiting periods for these payments could lead to children experiencing poverty.
2.26
For example, Ms Corinne Dobson, Senior Analyst, UnitingCare Australia (UCA), stated that:
Those family tax benefits are a really important part of our social security system that is about supporting families raising children and ensuring children can grow up in households where they can have their basic needs met, can participate in society and are not living in desperate poverty. The removal of those payments is going to result in many of those families facing huge difficulties in meeting everyday bills, being in financial distress, and supporting their children to participate in educational activities and other community activities, placing them in housing stress and potentially homelessness.
2.27
Submitters and witnesses also commented on how the proposed changes will affect family planning decisions among migrants as the bill would increase the NARWP to four years for Parental Leave Pay and Dad and Partner Pay.
2.28
For example, the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia (FECCA) noted that many migrants work for small businesses that do not have the means to pay maternity leave and as a result migrants could have to make decisions about family planning based on their eligibility for government funded parental leave.
2.29
Ms Elhelw-Wright, SCA, also stated that the proposed changes will have several effects, including on family planning decisions, population growth, and the impact of women’s participation in the workforce.
2.30
Similarly, Ms Jana Favero, Director Advocacy and Campaigns, Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, expanded on this point and stated that:
There is a reason paid parental leave was introduced federally as a provision for women—because of all of those barriers around workforce participation, around decisions about how long women may have been on leave or how women try to return to the workforce after having a baby. They're all what would be applied here.
2.31
Other witnesses also discussed the critical nature of the first few weeks and months of a child’s life and how the rights of families are impacted by the extension of the NARWP for Parental Leave Pay and Dad and Partner Pay.
2.32
The AASW provided an example of a migrant impacted by the ineligibility to receive Parental Leave Pay:
I came to Australia as a PhD student in 2016 with my family and we have been dedicated people, working hard and paying taxes to government. Nine months ago when I decided to have my child, I was informed that I am not eligible to access any benefits, including paid parental leave from government, because despite the five years I have spent in Australia, policy-wise, I am regarded as newly arrived migrant because I was only granted permanent residency a year ago. Without access to any parental leave, I have been forced to take my baby of only 12 weeks old to day care because I cannot be afforded at least the 18 weeks other women are given to stay home and care for their babies. If a fair and non-discriminatory system was in place, the five-year period I have been in Australia before attaining permanent residence would have been put into consideration for me to be eligible for parental leave. For me, like many other women who have to make heart-breaking decisions of prematurely leaving their babies to go back to work, waiting period and residence requirements are simply a punishment.
2.33
In contrast, the National Council of Women Australia submitted that:
Migrant families will continue to have immediate access to childcare subsidies when they are working or studying or undertaking approved activities. Some family payments will continue without a waiting period including stillborn baby payment. Low income families will still be able to access concessional benefits under Medicare, the PBS and access to the low income healthcare card.
2.34
DSS further explained that as the proposed changes are a prospective measure, only applying to those granted permanent residency on or after 1 January 2022, potential migrants to Australia will be well aware of the new requirements and that it is difficult to see a direct link between the proposed changes that apply in the future and the potential risks outlined by witnesses for migrants currently in Australia who have a different NARWP requirement.
Previous time in Australia
2.35
Inquiry participants commented that the bill (and the NARWP) does not consider the time migrants spend in Australia on temporary visas prior to being granted permanent residency. These submitters and witnesses stated that the term ‘newly arrived’ migrants may not be appropriate given the number of years migrants spend in Australia on temporary visas.
2.36
This concern relates to the core principles of Australia’s social security system which is based on residency and need. Only Australian permanent residents and citizens and special category visa holders are eligible to access social security payments and income support.
2.37
According to the bill’s explanatory materials, implementing a NARWP encourages migrants to be financially self-sufficient when they first permanently settle in Australia. Self-sufficiency is viewed as a ‘reasonable’ requirement for migrants who chose to settle permanently in Australia as ‘most other permanent skilled or family migrants – those who have come to Australia to work or be with family – are well placed to be self-reliant during their four-year waiting period’ and it ensures the long-term sustainability of Australia’s social security system.
2.38
However, concerns were raised about the length of time it takes for migrants to receive permanent residency.
2.39
For example, the Australian Council of Social Service stated that:
Many migrants have lived and worked here for years before obtaining permanent residency. Waiting times for the processing of permanent visas are 12 months to two years or more. This means that people often live and work in Australia for several years before they get permanent residency, from which point onwards the Newly Arrived Resident’s Waiting period starts. For some, this Bill could mean it would be almost a decade before they could access any kind of income support.
2.40
Similarly, the SCA, submitted that:
… those who are subject to these changes are not necessarily ‘newly arrived’. A significant proportion of Australia’s permanent residents take a temporary visa pathway, meaning they have often already resided in Australia and paid tax for several years. After doing so, and then becoming a permanent resident, these migrants will then be subject to a further four-year waiting period.
2.41
Additionally, it was highlighted that during the temporary period many migrants will be contributing to the economic and social life of their communities, including paying taxes, and enforcing waiting periods can lead to disruptions in social cohesion as the system is based on ‘arbitrary’ waiting periods rather than individual need.
2.42
The Tasmanian Council of Social Service described the NARWP as ‘distinctly unfair’ as it denies migrants access to ‘the basic supports provided to other Australians’ after they have already spent years contributing to the social and economic life of the nation.
2.43
The St Vincent de Paul Society echoed these concerns, submitting that the proposed changes treat ‘new migrants differently to other Australians who qualify for income support payments’.
2.44
In response to these concerns, submitters and witnesses recommended that any waiting period requirement should take into consideration the time migrants spend in Australia on temporary visas.
2.45
DSS explained that there was a distinct policy rationale for not including the time migrants spend on temporary visas towards the NARWP. DSS noted that some migrants who arrive in Australia on a temporary visa, such as a skilled visa, may not necessarily be seeking permanent residency in Australia.
2.46
DDS also noted that the time a migrant spends in Australia on a temporary visa counts towards the NARWP in the following circumstances:
Temporary partner visas (subclasses 309 and 820) for the Special Benefit, Parental Leave Pay, Dad and Partner Pay, Family Tax Benefit Part A and Part B the Low Income Health Care Card; and
New Zealand citizens on a Special Category Visa (subclass 444) for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card and the Low Income Health Card.
2.47
It was further explained that ‘[d]ata on the total number people for whom time on the above temporary visas counts towards the NARWP is not available, as the period of NARWP will only be determined if a claim for payment is made’.
Exemption provisions
2.48
Submitters and witnesses acknowledged that the bill maintains existing exemptions that act as an important safeguard for migrants who experience a change of circumstance or hardship; however, several concerns were raised regarding the accessibility and adequacy of the exemption provisions.
Accessibility of exemptions
2.49
Several submitters and witnesses raised concerns that the current exemptions in the relevant Acts are limited in scope, difficult to obtain and have onerous requirements on migrants seeking support.
2.50
There are two broad categories of exemptions within the current social security system. First, if a person becomes a single parent they are eligible for other payments such as JobSeeker and Youth Allowance and may be exempt from the NARWP for the Carer Allowance, Family Tax Benefit and Parental Leave Pay and Dad and Partner Pay. Second, if a person ‘suffers an uncontrollable change of circumstances’ and they qualify for the Special Benefit payment, then the NARWP will not apply to the Carer Allowance, Family Tax Benefit and Parental Leave Pay and Dad and Partner Pay.
2.51
The Law Council of Australia (LCA) highlighted that according to these rules, that persons subject to a NARWP are required to meet the criteria of two social security payments, which is an additional requirement for migrants.
2.52
The LCA further commented on the inconsistency of the exemptions, noting that the Carer Payment is not subject to an exemption from the NARWP due to a person becoming a lone parent or suffering from a change of circumstances –even if they are receiving another social security payment. They submitted:
It is not clear why all of the family and carer related payments affected by this Bill are not subject to their own stand-alone exemptions from NARWP which apply when, due to circumstances outside of their control, a person is no longer reasonably able to be self-sufficient.
2.53
Additionally, Social Security Rights Victoria (SSRV) discussed that the Social Security Guide, which provides information for decision makers on what factors warrant granting an exemption, does not give adequate guidance and could lead to excluding vulnerable people from receiving support payments.
2.54
Moreover, submitters and witnesses were particularly concerned about the accessibility of support for newly arrived migrants who are the victims of domestic and family violence. Considerable attention was given to the inconsistent application of exemptions and that the requirements for victims in cases of family and domestic violence to apply for exemptions are contrary to best practice.
2.55
The Victorian Department of Families, Fairness and Housing submitted that:
…migrant women wanting to leave a violent relationship are likely to face multiple barriers to obtaining support due to a number of intersecting factors, including but not limited to, language barriers, limited understanding of Australia’s legal and social security setting, cultural expectations and lack of economic autonomy. The requirement to produce evidence of change in circumstances for women who have experienced violence prior to the start of the waiting period, result in these victim-survivors being ineligible for the exemption, despite experiencing family violence. The proposed amendments will make it more difficult for women to leave such circumstances and not return.
2.56
UCA highlighted that new residents who arrive on a family visa are often highly dependent on their sponsors, which can lead to an increased risk of abuse and neglect. UCA further noted that the limited access to the Special Benefit payment ‘does not alleviate these concerns’ given the applicant ‘must demonstrate they have made every effort to get adequate support from their sponsor before being granted Special Benefit’.
2.57
Similarly, SSRV submitted that the application criteria for the Special Benefit payment requires victim-survivors to:
disclose the family or domestic violence they are experiencing;
be safe to disclose the family or domestic violence to Centrelink without an abusive partner or family member knowing; and
be able to receive the payment, in the sense that they are able to have a bank account separate from that of an abusive partner or family member.
2.58
SSRV and other submitters noted that many victim-survivors of family and domestic violence, particularly from migrant backgrounds, are unable to fulfil these requirements due to structural barriers.
2.59
In response to the specific concerns regarding the Special Benefit payment and exemptions from the NARWP available to victims of family and domestic violence, DSS stated that the ‘Australian government acknowledges the rates of violence against women and children remains unacceptably high and is committed to ending family and domestic violence’.
2.60
DSS stated that there is a broad range of services available to assist women and children who have experienced family and domestic violence, including access to the Special Benefit payment. DSS reiterated that once a person becomes eligible for Special Benefit, they are automatically exempt from the NARWP for Family Tax Benefit and Carer Allowance, they may be eligible to receive a Crisis Payment, and they are referred to a Services Australia social worker for additional support.
Adequacy of exemptions
2.61
Many submitters and witnesses commented on the current payment rates and stated the payments provide insufficient support to those newly arrived migrants who are experiencing financial hardship and increases the risk of migrants falling into poverty.
2.62
In discussing the requirements to receive an exemption and the rates of support payments, UCA submitted that:
Ultimately, people’s circumstances should not have to degenerate to a situation of severe hardship and destitution before they qualify for a payment. It is cruel and futile to wait until a person’s deterioration in health or material circumstances is severe enough to be deemed substantial. Yet even if people are experiencing such hardship, this Bill does not guarantee they will be able to access financial support, nor is the level of support provided under the proposed exemptions sufficient to lift them out of a state of destitution.
2.63
The committee also received comments regarding recommendations to increase the breadth of exemptions to individuals from refugee-like backgrounds and to carers.
Refugee-like backgrounds
2.64
The Multicultural Youth Advocacy Network (MYAN) and FECCA raised particular concerns regarding young migrants from refugee-like backgrounds. MYAN noted that many young migrants will arrive in Australia through the family stream of the migration program to reunite with family members who have arrived on humanitarian visas.
2.65
MYAN explained that this cohort of young migrants is particularly vulnerable as their families may not be in a position to support them. Furthermore, they arrive in Australia from the same country of origin as those arrivals through the humanitarian stream of the migration program and may have experienced the same levels of trauma as humanitarian entrants.
2.66
MYAN recommended that this group of migrants be exempt from the NARWP.
Carers
2.67
Several submitters and witnesses argued in favour of exempting the Carer Payment and Carer Allowance from the NARWP.
2.68
EJA stated when the NARWP was extended to four years for other payments, the NARWP for Carer Payment and Carer Allowance remained at two years and one year respectively. EJA submitted that ‘the rationale for this exemption remains a compelling one’ and that a four year NARWP for these payments will ‘mean that fewer Australian families will be able to provide high-level care in the home for loved ones’.
2.69
Submitters highlighted that becoming a carer is often an unexpected event. For example, Carers Australia stated that:
Anyone can become a carer at any time. Migrants seeking to make Australia their home are not anticipating that this will happen to them. It may come about as a result of a serious accident to a family member or the diagnosis of a serious illness; possibly affecting the major income earner of the family. It may occur through the birth of a child with a disability. In many cases it may result in the loss of the carer’s own employment due to providing increasing or constant care. At the same time, it will involve the necessity to meet a range of additional costs, including medical costs.
2.70
Submitters and witnesses discussed that migrants who unexpectedly become carers while serving the NARWP may be subject to further financial hardship as they may be unable to engage in full time employment due to caring responsibilities. While it was noted that these migrants may be able to access other support mechanisms, such mechanisms do not provide financial or income support.
2.71
These submitters recommended that the Carer Payment and Carer Allowance be exempt from the NARWP.
Committee view
2.72
The NARWP has been a requirement of Australia’s social security system since 1993. The proposed changes in the bill apply to a small number of payments and align the NARWP for these payments with other social security payments and income supports.
2.73
The committee supports the proposed extension of the NARWP to four years across the relevant social security payments. This proposed extension of the NARWP will standardise the waiting periods across the relevant social security payments, making it simpler and easier for new migrants to understand.
2.74
The committee acknowledges the concerns raised by submitters and witnesses and notes that there are a broad range of exemptions available to newly arrived migrants should they experience a change of circumstance or hardship.
2.75
The exemptions within the social security system for newly arrived migrants ensures that should a person find themselves in the unfortunate position of experiencing a significant change in circumstance beyond their control that they are able to receive an appropriate level of support.
2.76
The committee recommends that the bill be passed.
Chair