Category: welfare

What do you mean I’m disappointed in Jim’s Election Budget? I thought I’d given up hoping for better from Labor by now.

I went to Canberra last week, it was fun, tiring and good to spend time with the people who I work with every day, but in person. It was to mark 5 years since the Covid supplement was introduced, but it was also to get our own stuff in the media before the Budget this week and the inventible election being called (today).

Nothing about us without us

I felt a bit like a “cosplay lobbyist” to co-opt an insult (cosplay socialist I think?) wandering the halls of Parliament House. I was even on the radio Thursday morning and in the paper this week.

My quote for the Antipoverty Centre Budget media release:

With politicians themselves this year reminding us that budgets are about choices – it’s infuriating, but not unexpected, that Labor have chosen to keep millions in poverty by refusing to raise welfare above the poverty line. Instead, they give cash to power companies and pretend that it’s responsible to give short term bill cuts rather than plan ambitiously for the future.

I have “thoughts” on the budget but here’s a couple:

Chalmers says jobseeker rate not raised because it is indexed The treasurer, Jim Chalmers, was asked on RN Breakfast why the government hadn't lifted the rate of jobseeker, and instead chose to cut taxes. Chalmers said jobseeker is indexed (which means it automatically goes up every year - though advocates have said it's by not nearly enough), while taxes are not. He also argues that other measures for health and education have helped those on jobseeker payments. "The single rate of jobseeker, I think from memory, is $138 higher than when we came to office. And part of that, but not all of that, is that we gave a permanent increase to jobseeker in one of our budgets, we found room to do that from budget to budget, you use a different combination of ways to help with the cost of living in this budget, tax cuts for every taxpayer, strengthening Medicare, because more bulk billing means less pressure on families. Cheaper medicines, cutting student debt and the energy rebates as well."

They could have raised the tax free threshold rather than giving a percentage tax cut. This would have helped everyone, but it would have helped those at the bottom the most – those on JobSeeker whose every dollar earned is taxed and then starts to eat into their payments because the tax free threshold is less than the single jobseeker payment and your JS started to reduce when you earn $150 a fortnight.

I’d argue for the tax free threshold to be above the poverty line. You should certainly let people get to poverty level earnings before you start taxing them, particularly if you’re not giving them enough to live off to start with through welfare.

Welfare support While the surprise of tax cuts sweetened the budget news for many, those on income support payments were overlooked. In particular were those on jobseeker payments, which remain on levels below the poverty line. The government's own Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee released its 2025 report earlier in March recommending the jobseeker rate be increased to 90% of the aged pension. But despite a number of advocacy groups pushing for a boost to the payments, it was nowhere to be seen in Tuesday's release. Rental relief Another area hurting the bottom lines of many Australians is housing - whether they're renting or buying. Unlike last year's budget, this one did not raise the commonwealth rent assistance rates, which helped shave off about 1.3% in rental increases across the country.

OMG stop asking for welfare BELOW the poverty line. I’m looking at ACOSS and any other organisations that claim to speak for welfare recipients because they know what’s best for us. Pensions are below the poverty line, and people are struggling on them. Your cite them all the time saying how people are struggling on pensions and yet you ask for LESS for others. Well done.

“Mutual” obligations aren’t really a part of the budget but I hear Labor are cutting Social Services staff – maybe you can keep current service levels that have improved a bit since you came in if you also remove mutual obligations. They’re turning out to be looking pretty illegal on top of their well known cruelty.

Indexation came in – I’m going to be getting more rental relief from May 19 when I don’t have to pay thee $1.50 a fortnight for the direct debit of my rent anymore than the 80c from rent assistance indexation :/

I also got to relive some feels – my food blogging days were mostly in Canberra, so got my “nooooo you can’t eat that til I take a photo” back on!

Dinner at Thai Cornar:

Fried Tofu
Beef Massumum
Dim Sims
Curry Puffs
Pad Thai

Wasn’t going to bother with brekkie at the hotel, but then I had to hang back a bit later to do the phone interview (travel all the way to Canberra just to talk to ABC Newcastle – but they asked for a Hunter person if there was one and that was me!) SO I got the $12 breakfast pack at the hotel and had it with my instant coffee….

Coffee at Parliament House with macadamia cheesecake:

Got the see the carpark the CEO Vinnies sleepout was in last year. 

Post presser lunch at the Kingston Hotel – giant parmi!

And my bewbs made this really good Crikey article from press conference day:

‘We call that social murder’: Five years on from COVID supplement payments, more of us live in poverty

Get the poster by donating to the artist fund or wait til they go on sale soon (there will be ones available for those who can’t afford to pay)

Get the tee from Mel’s redbubble shop.

Support The Antipoverty Centre and The Australian Unemployed Workers’ Union (AUWU) so they can continue to send welfare recipients to events to represent ourselves in political discourse.

Support my personal endeavours by sending cash or buying me treats off my wishlists.

Five years since the Covid supplement – ‘member?

My notes for today:

We’re here today to remember the absolute relief people felt when the Covid supplement was announced.
The coronavirus supplement in 2020 showed that governments can choose to lift people out of poverty overnight. With the supplement, people were happier and healthier – able to buy fresh fruit and vegetables and the medications they needed. Many were able to actually find work in this time without the added survival pressures of poverty. Keeping people in poverty is unnecessary, and subsidies are no substitute to giving people cash to support themselves.
It shouldn’t take a crisis for governments to support their people to thrive. Current rates for all welfare payments are currently under the poverty line leaving millions struggling to feed and house themselves, let alone have the health, money and energy to participate in their community.
As we approach a budget and an election, we implore the current and prospective governments to commit to raising the rate of all welfare payments above the poverty line immediately. If Labor wanted to they could pass it next week.
To a likely crossbench with the balance of power – what can you ask for for your communities that will lift standards of living across the board? Welfare above the poverty line for all – jobseekers, students, youth, parents, seniors, disabled people. None of them deserve poverty. Nobody Deserves Poverty.

The fabulous artwork commissioned from Judy Kuo to march 5 years since the Covid supplement. If you’d like to contribute to the fee for the commission this is the link. If you donate $25+ you’ll get a free poster of the piece.
Today I’m in Canberra for a press conference marking five years since the introduction of the “Covid Supplement” – $550 a fortnight added to welfare payments for some months in 2020 while the initial lockdowns were in effect. 99% of the reason for doing it had to be Morrison and co seeing the lines snaking out of Centrelink offices as casual and other workers were set aside. Personally, I was on a 20 hr/week contract, but usually working full time hours, but when disability respites and day programs shut down – the places where all my work was – I was cut back to 20 max, and took hours from others working above their contracted hours in group homes.
I went back onto JobSeeker at that time, able to receive the supplement only some weeks, other weeks topped up by the base payment depending on my hours and how many were at penalty rates for weekends and the like. It kept me ticking along, knowing that bills were covered. And when I did lose my job, JobSeeker was still higher than it is now, and easier to survive on (oh and rent was way less).

I was able to keep seeing my private psych occupational therapist who got me started on dialectical behavioural therapy while I was on the waitlist, again, for the centre for psychotherapy. She’s the one who got me over the line for my dsp application in the end so money well spent. I was helped by family to keep seeing her after the supplement went and before I got back into public psych. Many don’t have that though and would have just bounced around trying to make do.

Not everyone got the supplement though – for example those on DSP didn’t get the supplement and there were some seriously considering transferring to JobSeeker at that time to be able to actually have more money coming in (a terrible option for them which I hope very few took up and were able to get back onto DSP if they did). International students are other non-citizen workers were also left without any support while being limited in their options to work or leave the country.
Unlike JobKeeper which was giving to business under the pretense they’d keep workers on when in reality many just boosted their bottom lines with it – the supplement and also the cash stimulus payments went directly to the people, who were then able to spend it how they chose to survive and make their lives better in that time. Yes, this wound up back in the shop tils. But that’s win-win. People get things they need and want and businesses get to tick along.
Raising welfare permanently above the poverty line would do that too – people would be able to spend their money on the things they need to survive and thrive. That could be groceries or healthcare, but it can also be things to bring joy and peace, like art supplies, or seeing friends occasionally for a coffee (we all know the importance of coffee shops in the economy and media and therefor our lives) or whatever little things spark joy. People deserve joy.

Join us (a group of people from antipoverty organisations) on Monday night to reminisce about what having welfare payments above the poverty line actually did for people. It’s the day before Jim’s Election Budget, so have a think about what you would want him to put in it to make life livable for people on welfare payments.

What will YOU spend your $3 indexation on?

Mudgeting tin from the 50s

It’s here guys! After the webpage being embargoed for what seemed like forever, the March 20 indexation of welfare payments has finally come out, and are you ready to spend up?

Let’s start with the pension rates, since that’s what I get and what they claimed to have increased…

PensionsAdult Pension Rates Single* Previous Amount 20 Mar 2025 Increase Base $1,047.10 $1,051.30 $4.20 pf Supplement $83.20 $83.60 $0.40 pf Energy Supplement $14.10 $14.10 - pf Total $1,144.40 $1,149.00 $4.60 pf Partnered (each) Base $789.30 $792.50 $3.20 pf Supplement $62.70 $63.00 $0.30 pf Energy Supplement $10.60 $10.60 - pf Total $862.60 $866.10 $3.50 pf
Pensions indexation

On my partner rate pension, I’ll be getting $3.50 “extra” a fortnight in my bank account. Looking at yesterday’s Aldi receipt, that’s worth about 600g of tomatoes or 3 tins of tuna or 2 UHT milks.

Let’s add in that 80c rent assistance “boost” and the $4.30 a fortnight covers a couple tins of dog food. And you know that’s where I spend my money first before anything for us lol Fortunately my rent only went up $10 a week last year so I’m not as behind as some who’ll lose out from this, especially if the thresholds mean their rent assistance goes down this year :/ Looking to my Aldi receipt there is nothing under 80c on there, even my mineral water is 89c a bottle.

Rent Assistance - for payments under the Social Security ActMaximum Payment Family Situation Previous Amount 20 Mar 2025 Increase Single $211.20 $212.00 $0.80 pf Single, sharer $140.80 $141.33 $0.53 pf Couple $199.00 $199.80 $0.80 pf Partnered, illness-separated $211.20 $212.00 $0.80 pf Partnered, temporarily separated $199.00 $199.80 $0.80 pf Rent Threshold Family Situation Previous Amount 20 Mar 2025 Increase Single $149.00 $149.60 $0.60 pf Single, sharer $149.00 $149.60 $0.60 pf Couple $241.40 $242.40 $1.00 pf Partnered, illness-separated $149.00 $149.60 $0.60 pf Partnered, temporarily separated $149.00 $149.60 $0.60 pf Rent Ceiling Family Situation Previous Amount 20 Mar 2025 Increase Single $430.60 $432.27 $1.67 pf Single, sharer $336.74 $338.05 $1.31 pf Couple $506.74 $508.80 $2.06 pf Partnered, illness-separated $430.60 $432.27 $1.67 pf Partnered, temporarily separated $414.34 $416.00 $1.66 pf
Rent assistance indexation

For those on jobseeker, $3.10 a fortnight will find its way to your account. And the supplements aren’t going up any of course.

AllowancesAllowance Rates (JobSeeker Payment, Special Benefit) Family Situation Previous Amount 20 Mar 2025 Increase Single, 22 or over, no children $778.00 $781.10 $3.10 pf Single, 22 or over, with children $833.20 $836.50 $3.30 pf Single, 55 or over, after 9 months $833.20 $836.50 $3.30 pf Single, 22 or over, partial capacity to work (0-14 hours) $833.20 $836.50 $3.30 pf Partnered (each) $712.30 $715.10 $2.80 pf Single, principal carer of child, exempt from activity test* $1,007.50 $1,011.50 $4.00 pf * Rate includes amount of Basic Pension Supplement (for under Age Pension age recipients). Energy Supplement (JobSeeker Payment, Special Benefit)* Family Situation - under Age Pension age Previous Amount 20 Mar 2025 Increase Single, 22 or over, no children $8.80 $8.80 - pf Single, 22 or over, with children $9.50 $9.50 - pf Single, 55 or over, after 9 months $9.50 $9.50 - pf Single, 22 or over, partial capacity to work (0-14 hours) - $9.50 - pf Partnered (each) $7.90 $7.90 - pf Single, principal carer of child, exempt from activity test $12.00 $12.00 - pf Family Situation - over Age Pension age Previous Amount 20 Mar 2025 Increase Single $14.10 $14.10 - pf Partnered (each) $10.60 $10.60 - pf
JobSeeker indexation

They better not dare use us as election fodder. We will kick back.

If you appreciate my posts, please subscribe to get them free in your email as soon as I hit publish. Please also consider supporting me or buying me a present if you have the spare cash (welfare recipients please DO NOT BUY)

To election season!

All apologies, no action – Mutual Obligations must go NOW

Been doing some reminiscing of sorts in preparations for the 5th anniversary or the COVID supplement and the long pause of “mutual” obligations. I was NOT in a good place back then, but I was getting the covid supplement after my hours got dramatically cut after disability respites and day programs closed down and we got cut to minimum contracted hours wherever they could place us in residential settings. I was then still getting it when I did eventually lose my job, and was looking at my bank statements shocked to see my total Newstart payment (single) including rent assistance was only $90 less than my (partner) DSP and rent assistance now – $970 vs $1061.60.

We’re getting the “boost” of, I’m told, 0.4% thanks to low inflation from March $20, which’ll take it to around $1065, give or take. Thanks Labor!

The best part of getting DSP was the removal of mutual obligations. It left me free to participate in therapy, do my little advocacy stuff, help family and friends, and just exist peacefully as possible. I’ve actually been doing a small amount of paid work in the past year, mostly online, but also exam supervision and before that election work. Stuff I can do when I have the energy and mental capacity and things that take my interest. I’ve had people approach me about applying for (social) media work with more hours, and I’m not up for that yet consistently but yeah, I’m starting to see more how that could work for me, and for them, and the knowledge that I might actually be a useful engine is nice. It’s also great to know that I do have the DSP to back me up, even if I am working, if I need to step back there’s that.

Being on DSP and my own timetable means I can also torture myself by watching Senate estimates, such as the session last week with DEWR Secretary Natalie James and Minister Murray Watt.

Don’t know Ms James? Well there’s a helpful puff piece in The Mandarin today (out of paywall), hoping top humanise her after the session.

What I got from the session was that the department is not confident that people aren’t being suspended due to errors with their system. What they have done is stopped cancellations at this point, more due to the recent discovery that their guidelines say they’re not meant to cut off anyone who doesn’t have any money saved (which is basically everyone) – but that doesn’t mean they can’t just keep suspending people, which is effectively the same since you have no money if you’re not getting your welfare payment.

So the department doesn’t know if they’re cutting people off incorrectly (let alone illegally) and they seem to be happy to continue with enforcing mutual obligations. They’re happy with how it’s going, and seem more concerned about “provider viability” than whether people are being left without any money to feed and house themselves, about whether they’re putting people in danger of suicide or other misadventure.

They also don’t know how the 10, mostly Indigenous, people who died after being cut off due to a “bug” did die. And when pressed they stated that since the families didn’t contact Services Australia to inform them of a suicide or other cause of death they don’t know and haven’t investigated.

And that’s just those ten. We know others who are still owed money from being cut off incorrectly or illegally who haven’t received repayment, so there’s likely more out there who aren’t doing so well.

It’s a mess. And that’s without even getting to the well known issues people have with their providers cutting them off because they weren’t marked present for a meeting, or demanding people complete phone meetings in a cyclone when mutual obligations have been stopped in preparation for a disaster.

A screenshot from an email by 'Help' a Disability Employment Service owned by IntoWork says the following: "As you may be aware, Cyclone Alfred has intensified to a Category 2 system and is expected to make landfall between Brisbane, the Gold Coast, and the Sunshine Coast later this week. As the safety of our staff, customers, clients, and participants is our top priority all Help Employment offices will be closed on Thursday, 6 March, and Friday, 7 March. What does this mean for you? Employment Services: Our offices will be closed, but telephone appointments will continue as normal. Face-to-Face Appointments: Any scheduled in-person appointments will be rescheduled or changed to phone appointments. Your consultant will be in touch with further details. Please follow local emergency services' advice and stay safe during this time."

(I’m also concerned for the staff who are presumably at home preparing themselves and being made to make unnecessary phone calls to people)

I haven’t heard if the pause has even gone through to people on the Workforce Australia app or by SMS, but wouldn’t be surprised if people are notified after the fact like during the rolling pause at the start of the year.

So yeah, a sorta apology (“I absolutely and unreservedly apologise on behalf of the department that we cannot have full confidence in this system delivering what it’s intended to deliver”) for a known error but keeping the system that is still possibly illegally cutting people off their tiny subsistence payments while you get it looked into isn’t going to cut it anymore. You can’t just say sorry for a known error that’s killed people, and have related errors still under investigations and needing to be paid back (let alone compensated) and still say you trust in the system and are happy to have it doing this because you aren’t turning your mind to it.

Suspend mutual obligations now, while you get your house in order. But why would you when nothing but promotions and excuses came from Robodebt.

And that’s before we actually talk about how much harm, rather than the expected help, is caused by “providers”.

(Preferably get rid of them altogether and create a voluntary, effective, public job-getting support service that people actually WANT to engage with)

But my updated GTA has downloaded and I’m gonna go cause some chaos.

picture of someone in a hello kitty costume drinking bubble tea in front of a burning house.

Why we get upset with little lines like “They have aggressively increased pensions and benefits”

Aside from it not being true? Or that it was in an article lamenting that Labor and Albanese weren’t getting enough credit for helping people and the economy?

I think it’s that most Labor supporters seems to be okay with Labor’s record this term on welfare. After insisting in opposition that welfare payments weren’t enough, and that they should indeed be above the poverty line. And that the basic doubling of Job Seeker when the initial Covid lockdowns were on was a good thing actually, Labor in government has been a lot different in practice.

When they stopped the Covid supplement, the LNP gave JobSeekers a $50 a fortnight base rate raise. Labor came in and after being advised by their own Economic Inclusion Committee that it needed to be raised to (?)90% of the pension rate, they gave a $40 a fortnight raise. Which, in case you missed it, nowhere near that. As of today, the base rate of Job Seeker is $693.10 a fortnight, less than $350 a week if you prefer to look at it that way.

But people also got a “boost” (hate that term) to their rent assistance, didn’t they? Well, there were two “boosts” outside the usual CPI indexation. When Labor came in, a single person with no dependents could get $145.80 a fortnight rent assistance if living alone and paying $324.60+ rent. Right now, if you pay more than $430.60 a fortnight rent, you’ll get $211.20 a fortnight rent assistance. It’ll index again March 20, right around when we’re expecting an early budget ahead of the election, possible to about $215 if it goes up about 2%, based on an annual 4% inflation rate (which it’ll be less since, you know, Labor fixed overall inflation). With those two boosts, it’s gone up $70/fn or $35 a week in 3 years. If you’re rent’s gone up less than $35/week over the last 3 years that’s great, but very much an outlier.

So yeah, not sure what’s “aggressive” about those lil increases. Pensions – aged, disability, carer’s, single parent – have only had regular indexation, no little $20 sweeteners, I guess because they weren’t so horrific. But they’re still below the poverty line (running with $88/day Henderson poverty line unless we ever get an updated measure, another thing Labor talked to the talk on in opposition and the economic inclusion committee was ignored on), and “allowing” aged pensioners and carers to work more before losing payments is nice for those who can, and can work consistently, but many are on those payments because, due to age, disability,  or caring responsibility, paid work isn’t going to be the best way for them to meet their needs for food, healthcare and shelter, which of course all cost more with a disability.

So, we get upset when people who supposedly want Labor to raise welfare recipients out of poverty say that Labor have a good record on it and they’ve done great / done their best. When the numbers don’t say that. The numbers have 10,000 more homeless a month, 50,000+ households on energy hardship plans since they took power (I know! even with the energy rebates that kept inflation down and thus the increases to welfare indexation!) and  1500 homeless people dying prematurely each year.

So, help me understand what you mean by aggressive, mmkay?

In a document provided to a senate inquiry into the cost of living, Origin provided the following figures showing a 69 per cent increase in customers on a hardship plan over the past two years.8 FY22 FY23 Increase FY24 Increase Customers on a hardship plan 58,000 71,000 22% 98,000 38% The number of people in hardship was also higher than pre-COVID figures. In its FY24 annual report, AGL published figures showing there were 27,741 customers on a hardship program, a 45 per cent increase on the previous year. Total average debt for all customers (including those who are not on a hardship program) increased by 7 per cent.9