That the Senate—
(a) notes that the Morrison Government has abandoned people in lockdown on income support payments; and
(b) calls on the Government to re-instate the Coronavirus Supplement, to ensure people are supported to stay safe at home.
I've moved this motion to ensure that this place debates and understands that 90 per cent of people on income support in those areas currently in lockdown in New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT are not receiving any additional payments. The Greens believe that that is simply unfair, unconscionable and contrary to sensible public health decision-making in that, if people can't get enough financial support to be able to put food on the table and to pay for a roof over their head and essential medications, they are going to go out to try to find work, which often will be frontline work, and that could expose them to unhealthy situations, particularly if they have to keep going out searching for that work. They would not be staying home, which they are being asked to do. They would be forced to go out in unsafe situations—potentially bringing COVID home to their families—because they are not receiving an income that is adequate for them to live above the poverty line and put food on the table.
I'd like to quote Jay Coonan and Kristin O'Connell from the Antipoverty Centre and Jeremy Poxon, who volunteers with the Australian Unemployed Workers Union. These people have deep lived experience of trying to survive on income support and of working and advocating for people on income support. They have lived experience of being unemployed, trying to look for work and dealing with mutual obligations while on a payment that is below the poverty line.
They made the point in an article in the Guardianyesterday:
It's now abundantly clear shutting down the economy hurts the poorest most. Lockdowns are necessary, but the social crises they create are optional.
I couldn't agree more, because those people on the low payment of JobSeeker, for example, of just $44 a day are living way below the poverty line and they are not getting a cent of support if they were unlucky enough to only be able to find less than eight hours of work. I will point out that people who have lost over 20 hours of work get $750 a week as a disaster payment, yet somebody who has not been able to find work—remembering that structural unemployment is, at heart, the basis on which our economy works and operates—is left to try and live on $315 a week. Can you see the inequality there, straight up? Can you see why they are saying that the COVID crisis is deepening inequality?
The government thinks that it is okay for billionaires and big businesses who have claimed the JobKeeper payment and made huge profits to say: 'Oh, we calculated wrongly when we put in our application! We got lots of money and paid dividends to our shareholders and bonuses to our executives. They've done a good job. They got us JobKeeper.' The government thinks it is okay for them to keep the millions and millions that they have been paid out of JobKeeper. But the government then chases people who were on income support and may have received JobKeeper as well. They chase them for debts but do not chase the billionaires for the money they claimed that turned out to be a mistake.
Just as bad as that is what we see now is a deliberate choice by government to let those rich people keep the money they got from the system, but they won't support people who are trying to survive in lockdown. They will not pay them an additional payment to help them keep safe and as part of a public health message. They're saying: No, you're staying on $315 per week. You try and make ends meet. You try and keep a roof over your head.' What do you think's going to happen when people lose their accommodation or they are forced to share other accommodation, which is also extremely unhealthy in the current lockdown circumstances? 'Oh, no, we are not giving those people any support,' they say. Ninety per cent of those people were struggling already under normal circumstances. We know that people are living in poverty and cannot survive on $44 a day.
During lockdown it is more expensive. As the article from the Unemployed Workers Union and the Antipoverty Centre points out, it is much harder during lockdown because all the cheap brands go, for example. As for home delivery, for people trying to survive on $44 a day—believe me—every single cent counts. So they can't afford to get groceries delivered. They don't have any savings they can use. They have nothing, because you can't save when you are trying to survive on $44 a day. Now they're in lockdown and not being able to afford to get groceries delivered. They're having to go out and find groceries and are again exposing themselves to unhealthy situations. It's no wonder we are seeing the demand on and phone calls to emergency food services escalate dramatically. It's the charities that are picking up the pieces, because the government would prefer that the billionaires and millionaires and big business keep the money that they mistakenly claimed through JobKeeper than to actually put money in and bring back the coronavirus supplement.
The government know that the coronavirus supplement helped so many people during the initial lockdown. They know very well, and ACOSS has pointed it out very clearly, because they talk to their members' members—because ACOSS is a peak organisation. I've read out here in this place on numerous times what the coronavirus supplement meant to people. It meant they did not have to go out in a difficult situation. It meant that they could in fact—surprise, surprise!—eat three meals a day, that they could pay their utility bills, that they could keep a roof over their head, that they could buy the medication that they need. It made them much safer and helped us to get through the initial lockdown.
How are those people going to survive now? We know that in New South Wales and Victoria they've just extended the lockdown and we know it's going to take quite a number of months, and they're still going to be struggling to survive in lockdown in unsafe situations, under the poverty line. The government has made a choice—and I've said this before. They've made a political choice to keep people in poverty. You can take no alternative view. They made a choice that people who are trying to survive on JobSeeker should be kept below the poverty line, should be made to struggle even more in difficult circumstances.
It is a very well-known fact, and we hear it every day, that lockdown impacts on people's mental health. We know that living in poverty impacts on people's mental health. If you're lucky enough to find a mental health specialist or worker or carer, that costs you money. We already know that the mental health professionals are booked out months and months ahead and that people are struggling to find mental health support. So, if people are dealing with lockdown and people are living in poverty, what do you think that does to people's mental health? It is having very significant impacts on their mental health, and they cannot afford to find mental health support, and this government is escalating the mental health crisis in this country for those who are currently on income support and living in poverty. Shame on this government!
The coronavirus supplement helped people enormously. It was the right thing to do. It showed that the government understood that you can't live in poverty in lockdown. So what the government have done now is they've chosen to give some people additional money so that they're not living in poverty during lockdown, but they haven't given the people who are already condemned to poverty additional support so they do not have to live in poverty. We now have two systems here: we have the system where we'll reward and we'll support, quite rightly, people who were working before, to keep them out of poverty, but we won't actually support those who cannot find work. We will keep them living in poverty, hence the Greens' very strong assertion that the government's approach will escalate inequality in this country.
The Antipoverty Centre, in an article published yesterday, made the point:
With cheap goods flying off supermarket shelves, more of us are confronted with the choice of skipping meals, falling behind on bills or paying rent.
Surviving on jobseeker is not Covid-safe. Buying the essentials forces us to leave home. Wealthy people get groceries delivered and poor people get Covid exposure. The nightmare scenario is transmission at a food bank.
As we battle Delta, we need payments that ensure everyone – especially unemployed people – can afford to stay home safely, even as living costs go up. We need to make sure families feeling the pressure of being cooped up together don't experience unnecessary financial stress—
They also point out that that can contribute to further domestic and family violence because you're creating a pressure cooker for these families. The article continues:
Poverty also traps us in unemployment, even the frontline workers we most need as our health system struggles.
As Covid spreads further into our communities, so does inequality. To solve both problems, we need to protect everyone.
I absolutely agree. That is why we need additional payments to those people on income support. We need to bring back the coronavirus supplement so that, in fact, we are again all in this together, because, at the moment, we are not.
]]>That the Senate take note of the document.
I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
]]>The fracking is proposed to take place over seven years, but if they get a foothold they could be fracking thousands of wells for decades to come. The current plan is to drill and frack 20 wells, but this is just the beginning. Black Mountain have said they want to produce 900 terajoules of gas. To do this would require thousands of wells on land surrounding Mount Hardman Creek and Mount Wynne Creek, which flow into the magnificent Mardoowarra—the Fitzroy River. This is a terrible decision that Premier McGowan has made for the Kimberley. While First Nations peoples and farmers have veto rights over fracking, we know that as soon as a Liberal government gets in they will empower open slather and rights will be binned. We have had experience of that in the past. I commend the work of Environs Kimberley, who are working closely with First Nations peoples to highlight the dangers of this fracking and to oppose it. We say: no fracking in the Kimberley.
]]>Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
]]>As I said, the Greens see these amendments as a down payment. It is the first step towards implementing the second anniversary review, the Robin Creyke review, which contained many, many important amendments that the community and survivors and care leavers have been calling for for a long time. A lot of the problems with the bill were evident even before the scheme started. I am actually pleased that there are moves to pass this first round of amendments, so that some of these important changes can be made.
First off, the advance payments are particularly important for those ageing and ill survivors. We support advance payments. We think they're a very good idea and have in fact been supporting them for a long time. Turning to the issues around indexation, this is a major bone of contention with the scheme. It has been ever since the scheme started. I remember standing—at that seat over there, I think it was—and trying to move amendments to fix the indexation issue, because it is simply not fair. Survivors have been complaining and raising their concerns about this. Now, while this change is a small step in the right direction, it does not address the concerns of survivors. It does not go far enough, and I'm disappointed that we are still having that debate here. Another point that has been raised many times, including with the joint committee on the redress scheme, relates to extending review and acceptance periods. The removal of statutory declaration requirements for applications has also been raised many times, as has the payment of instalments been raised—many, many times, in fact. So we are supporting those amendments.
But there are many things that still need to be addressed. One of those—as the minister knows, because I have raised it repeatedly—relates to funders of last resort. I will say that Minister Ruston has acknowledged this and has made some changes on funders of last resort. This was a major issue when the scheme was proposed and we were debating the first bill. It was blatantly obvious that the funder of last resort provisions in that bill would not work. And, as we see, that has proven to be the case. We need to make sure that people who were in institutions that are now defunct—institutions that no longer function—are able to get redress payments. It is my belief that, if the application is processed by the department and it is found that redress is due, governments should pay it, and then argue with the institution. Governments, state and federal, should be the backstop in terms of funders of last resort. I don't want to let institutions off, by any stretch of the imagination. Institutions should pay their due for the damage they have caused to generations of survivors and care leavers. That is an area that the Greens will continue to follow. Institutions should pay their dues for the damage they have caused to generations of survivors and care leavers. That is an area that the Greens will continue to follow.
I would also like to just touch very briefly on the issue of Fairbridge. We had another hearing of the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme not that long ago where we heard some conflicting and concerning evidence around how the process is intended to work for those people that went to Fairbridge. I think we need to continue to pursue this issue, because I'm not convinced that this issue has been resolved. It involves the Prince's Trust and Fairbridge Restored. Whether there is going to be a separate scheme or not, survivors have conflicting understandings about the Fairbridge matter, and it needs to be resolved as a matter of urgency. Fairbridge operated homes in a number of places across Australia but particularly in Western Australia, in the south-west of Western Australia, and I am deeply concerned about ensuring that survivors get their due redress and for this matter to not be drawn out any further.
The Greens will be supporting this bill, but there is more work to be done. This is a down payment on addressing the issues that came up during the Kruk inquiry. I'd also like to congratulate Ms Kruk for the work she did in the second anniversary review. It brought out the issues that so many people have had with this scheme and that need to be addressed. Having said that, we will be supporting this bill, but we'll be keeping a very close eye on the next stage of amendments.
]]>While this bill gives the flexibility to flexibly purchase COVID vaccines going forward, it doesn't help the serious and fundamental issues with the current rollout. I am seriously concerned about the rollout, as I have articulated in this place, particularly for First Nations communities, who are supposed to be priorities yet are suffering from the lowest vaccine rates. We are also seriously concerned that, while the government continues to talk about the 70 to 80 per cent targets outlined in the so-called national plan, this does not include children above the age of 12. We believe this is a significant failure given that 70 per cent means that just 60 per cent of the total population is vaccinated, and that potentially has significant consequences for our community.
Premier Berejiklian yesterday said that once New South Wales reaches a 70 per cent vaccination rate then people will be able to go out to get food and drinks and to events. Please do not forget that this means only 56 per cent of the entire population is covered. This is of deep concern. We should not be starting to lift restrictions before we make sure that those at risk in our community are vaccinated and we have specific targets for them. So we need to include in our national targets vaccinations for children and young people between the ages of 12 and 15 and not just use the above-16 rate. ATAGI has now approved Pfizer for this age group, so we need to be vaccinating those young people, those children, and including them in the targets.
I move:
At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) notes that the Morrison Government's vaccination program has failed to protect at risk communities; and
(b) calls on the Government to immediately:
(i) include children and teenagers between 12 to 15 years old in the national vaccination targets, and
(ii) set specific vaccination targets for at risk communities in consultation with experts and communities".
This calls on the government to immediately include children and young people above the age of 12 in the national vaccination targets and to set specific vaccination targets for at-risk communities. We cannot open up before we ensure that those at-risk communities—First Nations peoples, older people above the age of 60 and 70 and disabled people—also have targets met. We know that if we open up and we haven't ensured that we've met certain targets for those groups, on the advice of the experts in this area, that they are at serious risk, which is why they were included in the 1a and 1b categories in the first place.
The government has failed to ensure protection of First Nations communities. In western New South Wales we are obviously seeing an outbreak now, but it's essential that all First Nations communities are able to have the vaccine. This is so important because we know from experience overseas that at-risk groups are at the forefront of the COVID crisis and being impacted by it. I'm sick of the government saying, 'We are going to 70 and 80 per cent,' and just relying on one model and not looking at the fine print but also not looking at the other models.
Just to finish off, the Greens will be supporting this legislation. We think it is really important that the government has the resources to be able to pay for additional vaccines, as I said, consumables, boosters and the things that are needed to address COVID-19. But along with that must go a commitment to targets that will protect our community, will protect young people and will protect at-risk communities. That's why I'm moving our second reading amendment.
]]>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: So we're noting Labor's support, the Greens' support and Senator Patrick's support, and, obviously, Senator Griff's support. There are no other indications. So that amendment is lost.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.
]]>At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) notes that strong, equitable paid parental leave improves the lives of families; and
(b) calls on the Government to strengthen the paid parental leave scheme by:
(i) extending leave entitlements to 26 weeks, with six weeks reserved for fathers or partners to encourage more equitable sharing of care,
(ii) requiring superannuation contributions to be made on paid parental leave, and
(iii) removing income provisions that discriminate against families where the birth mother is the higher income earner".
Question negatived.
by leave—I'd like recorded that we support our amendment.
]]>At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate:
(a) acknowledges the vital role that foster and kinship parents play in raising over 44,000 Australian children in out-of-home care by providing a safe and loving environment;
(b) recognises that the Federal Paid Parental Leave (PPL) scheme excludes kinship and foster parents, representing a significant disservice to vulnerable children in the child protection system who are placed with a new family;
(c) notes that research shows the ages of 0-2 are a developmentally vital time in which a child forms secure or insecure attachment behaviours and PPL assists primary carers to spend valuable bonding time with an infant;
(d) further acknowledges a number of top-tier firms in Australia do not discriminate against foster and kinship parents and include them in the paid parental leave they offer to their employees; and
(e) calls on the Government to extend the Paid Parental Leave scheme to foster and kinship parents of children aged 0-2".
Question negatived.
by leave—Could you record the Greens' support for that amendment, please?
]]>