Tag: media

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

Aftercare in Activism

At the Anglicare panel, we were asked advice about supporting people with lived experience to participate in awareness, activism, PR and so forth. I referred to a couple of concepts borrowed from other spheres – looking after your “talent” and “Aftercare”.

As the tellers of our stories, we own them, we are the ones that went through the childhood, the illness, the trauma, racism, that a not-for-profit, or a politician, or other person or group promising to do good with this is looking to use to push forward their agenda. Of course it’s often not nefarious – some people are genuinely doing good or at least believing they are. And so, like you would if you were using a famous child star, puppy or washed up celeb to promote your brand of toilet paper, you need to treat the talent right.

The talent also needs to know they are the talent. They can’t be being talked into doing promotion for your cause out of guilt or sense of obligation because they have received some help in their time of need. It needs to be mutually beneficial, that might be a simple as paying your talent – giving them payment for the photo shoot, paying them for the article written about how awesome being supported by your organisation was. Because they are giving over more of themselves in this instance. They are selling their image, their story, their trauma, for you to promote your cause or service or product or scheme.

Us talent understand that different places have different budgets, but there are too many out there making way more from us than we’ll ever feel or be helped by them. Be the bigger party and start offering it. Start offerings stipends upfront for your clients to speak at your events about how awesome your are. This isn’t just for their time, it’s for their skill, and for them giving their story over to the audience and any trauma that comes from reliving that for your morning tea fundraiser.

The other concept I brought up, with a giggle, was Aftercare. A concept from kink communities, but very relevant when someone with lived experience is engaged for that lived experience. Not to say all kink is traumatic, but the kink side at least brings up discussing boundaries, setting limits, hell even safe words. On the panel I was on, I knew the other panelist and the facilitator and could tap out of the conversation if it got too tricky at the moment. But it’s discussing that before hand. Running through boundaries and questions and topics beforehand. What if you freeze in the kink play scene or speaking onstage. Who knows the signs to look out for. Is your talent someone with known mental health difficulties, diagnosed anxiety, or not diagnosed, and may know when they are getting past what they’re comfortable with. Ask if they need a support person with them, or who to call on.

After the event, what does your talent need? Are they able to stay on and chat with others or will they need time to regroup, duck to the loo, have a cold drink and then get back to it. Or is that it for the day, call them tomorrow to check in?

I’m still new to all this, but just know that your person with their lived experience, the talent, is vulnerable. You often have a lot of power in their relationship, particularly if you are or have been a service provider for them. People may not feel safe to back out if the situation goes beyond their comfort, but you need to make sure it doesn’t. You need to look after your talent, and make sure they are safe before, during and after. You want them having a great experience, and wanting to come back to do more, to let their peers know you’re safe to work with. That you’re one of the good ones.

Support my work: phonakins.com/support