Senate debates

Wednesday, 8 April 2020

Bills

Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Bill 2020, Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus (Measures No. 2) Bill 2020, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2019-2020, Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2019-2020; Second Reading

7:41 pm

Photo of Murray WattMurray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Bill 2020 and the related bills. As has been acknowledged by pretty much every speaker in this debate, Australia and the entire world currently face a massive crisis—a health crisis and an economic crisis, and, indeed, a social crisis—as more and more people are affected by COVID-19.

As at today's date, over 6,000 Australians have been diagnosed with coronavirus, and sadly this has caused the death of 50 Australians. Try as we might, and despite what we might want to think, these numbers are likely to rise. I want to thank the essential workers who have played their role in fighting both this disease and the economic ramifications it has caused: the health workers; the aged-care workers; the retail and transport workers, who have kept our supermarkets stocked; the farm workers, who have continued producing produce for Australians to consume; and so many others on the front line, helping all of us through this.

From the very beginning, Labor has adopted a bipartisan approach in the way it has approached this crisis. We haven't used this as an opportunity to pointscore and we won't do so in this debate again tonight. We have supported pretty much everything that the government has put up to deal with both the health and economic ramifications of coronavirus. That doesn't mean, though, that we will just agree to every single thing the government wants. That's not a democracy, and there is a role for the opposition and other parties here to put up constructive suggestions about how the government's approach can be improved.

We have made, and we will continue to make, constructive suggestions to make sure that Australia comes through this in the best way possible. In fact, the bills that we are here debating tonight arise from one of the constructive suggestions that Labor has made. Labor supports the JobKeeper wage subsidy that these bills put into place. We have always supported it—in fact, we called for it, alongside working people, the union movement and many business groups. It's worth remembering that initially the Prime Minister opposed this idea when it was first called for by Labor. In fact, he and his colleagues said that Labor was playing politics. We weren't; we were just making constructive suggestions to ensure that Australians were cared for in these times. I and Labor are pleased that the Prime Minister did eventually agree that this was a good thing to do. We wouldn't be here today if he hadn't done so. I congratulate him for listening to Labor on this suggestion. Whatever happens here tonight, whatever amendments are moved, Labor will deliver this JobKeeper wage subsidy. But we do want it to be better. We think it can be better and we want it to be better. The reason is that millions of Australians are depending on us to make this JobKeeper wage subsidy better.

I think pretty much every single senator and every House of Representatives member has had an incredible influx of calls, emails and inquiries to their offices over the last few weeks from Australians in incredible distress, whether because of the health consequences or the economic consequences of coronavirus. I will give you a couple of examples of people who my office and I have assisted.

There is a mid-20s woman from North Queensland. Her husband is a tradie, and he earns just too much for the new income test applied to jobseeker payments. She's a casual health worker. She has now lost her job, and she misses out on meeting the government's requirement that a casual worker has worked for 12 months in that job. She has missed out by three days. She is three days short of working for 12 months and, as a result, under the government's rules, she won't qualify for the JobKeeper payment. She's recently married, and they're saving to start a family and to buy a house. She's genuinely worried. After this last pay cheque runs out she doesn't know what she and her partner are going to do. They have loans to pay. They're worried that, even when movement restrictions are lifted, business will take some time to start up again and employ her.

Another example is a Gold Coast scaffolder who has worked crew to crew, company to company, many times in the industry for almost 13 years—and, sadly, we see that too much in the construction industry and many other industries where people are only engaged on a casual basis. He has been with his current employer as a casual since September, so again he doesn't meet the 12-month rule that the government has imposed for the JobKeeper payment. Now, admittedly, it looks like he will qualify for the jobseeker payment, the old Newstart, but he and his wife have five kids. They'll be getting $550 a week with five kids to feed and a rental cost of $425 per week. It's just not going to cut it. I could give example after example, but the bottom line is that the government's rules as they currently stand for this JobKeeper payment exclude short-term casuals, migrant workers who cannot return home—no matter what the government says about them needing to return home—council workers, workers in the arts and entertainment industries, university staff and casual teachers, and workers for many charities.

We moved a number of amendments in the House to try to rectify these gaps, and I was very disappointed to see the government vote against every single one of those amendments. That's why we're taking the opportunity here in the Senate to again move amendments, and there still is an opportunity for the government to vote with us and fix these gaps to make sure that these casual workers, migrant workers, council workers, and arts and entertainment industry workers actually receive the JobKeeper payment that many other Australians will receive, because the bottom line is that no worker should be left behind.

I don't want to take too much longer, but I do just want to also reject the suggestion from the government that people who miss out on JobKeeper payments will be fine because they'll qualify for the jobseeker allowance, what was called Newstart. In many cases that is just not true. It's not just a matter of people missing out on one form of payment and getting another. For starters, even if they do get the jobseeker allowance, that's significantly less income than what they would get under the JobKeeper payment. But there are many people who won't qualify for the jobseeker payment either because their partner earns a little bit more than $78,000 a year—the income test—or, when we're talking about places like the Gold Coast, with a large New Zealand population, they may not have lived in Australia long enough to be able to qualify for the jobseeker payment.

Again, I'll give you one example of people we've heard from in our office over the last few days—a 35-year-old woman from the Gold Coast with two kids under six years of age. She has lost her casual job in a restaurant. Her husband earns just over the new income test of $78,000 a year, so she won't qualify for the jobseeker payment. As she says: 'After you pay rent of $450 a week, there's not much left. We pay our taxes and get nothing. Why do they think I go to work five nights a week after looking after the kids all day? Why would I do that if we didn't have to? We have no assets, no savings, nothing to fall back on. We have $50 until Saturday.' These are the people who are going to miss out from both the JobKeeper payment and, in this woman's case, the jobseeker payment. I am genuinely concerned about how these people are going to survive over the next few months until we see economic conditions recover.

In conclusion, I support the amendments that have been moved by my colleagues to try to fix these gaps. These are gaps that will affect the real lives of real Australians and their families in this time. We have heard many politicians across all sides of politics talking about this as a time for us to pull together. I wholeheartedly agree with that, and I encourage the government to think about that view of the world once we come out of this crisis. There are benefits in us sticking together. There are benefits in us thinking of ourselves as a community, as a collective, and not just as a series of individuals in some survival of the fittest.

There is going to be a time for us to think about the economic structure of our community—about the spiralling rates of casualisation that we're now paying the price for, about this overemphasis on individuals getting ahead rather than thinking about how we work together as a collective. We've got to see an end to the demonisation of those on income support, because we now understand very well that income support is there for a reason. In good times and in bad, it is to support those who need our assistance. We've got to see an end to the disrespect that so many show to those in low-paid work. It is the very low-paid work that we are now depending on—the aged-care workers, the early childhood educators, the transport workers and the disability carers who are out there continuing to help people, no matter the risk to their own health. These people are paid far too little, and we've got to fix those kinds of things as we come out of this crisis. More than anything, we have to reject the idea that small government is always good government. If this crisis has highlighted anything in the way that governments operate, we are now seeing the consequences of too much emphasis on reducing government, on small government, and cutting back on services. We are rightly now seeing massive government spending—I might note, of the kind criticised after the GFC by those who are now legislating for it. We've seen in those incredible Centrelink queues, which we've all seen, the cost of cutting back on government services and continually outsourcing those services.

We must take stock of these issues as we come out of recovery. But right now, tonight, is the time to get this legislation passed. We do hope that the government will back the amendments that Labor is putting forward to fix these gaps, but Labor is not going to hold up this legislation. There is too much riding on it. This is something that we called for for over six million Australian workers. We will be supporting it. We are not going to indulge in games where we make amendments that we know the government aren't going to agree to in the House of Representatives. This is not a time for ping-pong between the Senate and the House of Representatives. We need to get this done and we need to get the money out the door, but we do need to give it to as many people as we possibly can, those who really need it and those who are currently excluded by the government. Again, I encourage the government to think about the amendments that we put forward.

Comments

No comments