Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Hansard source

I'd like to make a short statement about my position on this proposed legislation from the Greens, the Fair Work Amendment (COVID-19) Bill 2020. We can't ask people to take leave if it means that they're going to lose everything. A global pandemic is forcing people to not turn up to shifts. People who want to work aren't able to do it, out of a commitment to public safety. We're asking them to go broke so the rest of us don't get sick. If you've been in contact with someone with COVID-19 and you are required to self-isolate, you're losing money by not turning up for your shifts. If you've got leave saved up, that's what it is there for. What if you don't have any leave? You're on your own. You have to hope you have some savings put away for a rainy day, because I can tell you now that it is pouring and it's not going to stop for two straight weeks.

The Fair Work Amendment (COVID-19) Bill 2020 starts from the same place I do. It is all about helping people who are going broke to keep strangers safe from harm. If you're asked to self-isolate, it's not for your own benefit; it's to keep people safe—people you may never meet but whose lives depend on what you are doing and what decisions you are making. Those who are doing the right thing are going broke for our benefit and to keep us safe. If there's something we can do to help them out, then I want to be able to help them. My problem is that, in order to help them, this bill throws a blank cheque at everybody.

In its current form this bill pays too much to the wrong people. We have no idea how much more it's going to cost our grandchildren to repay in the future. There are better ways to stop people from going to work sick. This bill will force the government to cover the cost of a person's wages when they have time off work because of COVID. People who earn more would get more. People with a steady job, annual leave and sick days would actually get more. The Commonwealth would end up paying thousands and thousands of dollars to already well-off people just so they don't have to dip into their leave or sick days when they take time off because of COVID. That doesn't make any sense to me. Why should we pay the wages of a wealthy banker just so they can use their annual leave on a few days at their beach house? Why should we chip in so that a management consultant can still afford to chuck a sickie now and then? Why should we be paying for that? I reckon those people can look after themselves.

The PM keeps saying that we're all in this together. The lucky people in Australia who have a steady job right now can afford to do their bit. They're going to have to do some heavy lifting—we all are—because we're going to have to cover the others. They have the choice to do the right thing. They should give up a little on their end when it's good for the community and their country. Sometimes you just have to do that. I know it sucks, but guess what? That's life and that's just how it is right now under the circumstances we're all living in.

The other thing that scares me about this bill in its current form is that the Greens don't know how much it will cost. They're asking me to sign a blank cheque. I can't do that in good conscience. I will never, ever do that. We could run up some big numbers pretty quickly. In Australia about 12 million people have a job at the moment. It would cost the Commonwealth over $16 billion if half of them took two weeks off at the average wage. There are a lot of people out there who could use that kind of support from the government.

People on JobSeeker are facing a cut to their payments next month. People on JobKeeper will get that too. We're running into the Christmas period. I don't want that to happen. It is not right. Victoria right now is in the middle of the second wave and is still in lockdown. We don't know how long that's going to continue. Why would we cut hundreds of dollars out of JobSeeker when right now some states are in a worse position than they have ever been in? Why would we cut JobKeeper when small businesses are on their knees? Things have changed since the government announced those cuts.

There is not a soul in this parliament that thinks we're all going to be hunky-dory four weeks from now. If you do, you are delusional and you probably shouldn't be sitting in parliament. Those support payments have to be extended till after Christmas. We can't be cutting people off from $1,500 a fortnight when everybody is saying that we're yet to break the back of the economic depression we are in. That's where my priorities are right now. That's where we should be spending our money. We shouldn't be paying billions of dollars just to take away the inconvenience of COVID restrictions for people who have a job and earn good money. They're going to have to start doing the heavy lifting. Someone warn them. This is the problem. I don't think we've thought this through enough and I don't think we've weighed the trade-offs.

I am on board with the idea that casual workers without leave entitlements or a high income need more help. I agree that there should be government support in place for people who could lose their job or have to skip rent payments because they need to self-isolate. That's why I suggested to the Greens that we cap the payments at a sensible level. If you want something done in this place, you've got to compromise. The way I see it, we should set the cap at $1,500 a fortnight—that's the same amount as the current rate of JobKeeper—and maybe we can negotiate with the government at the same time to keep jobseeker and JobKeeper at the rates they are now until after Christmas. Wouldn't that be a better way to do politics in this place? That way, it's a win-win for everybody.

A rate of $1,500 has been broadly accepted as enough to get people through when their income has taken a hit because of this virus. The beauty of it is that people on lower incomes would still get their whole wage. We know they're the ones that will have the most trouble staying home if they're sick because they can't afford to go without a penny. That's where we're at. They would get the help that they need to stop that from happening. People earning more than that could top up their payments with their annual leave, sick leave or savings. Like I said, we're all having to do the heavy lifting—tough, suck it up; these are unprecedented times. It's a much fairer model. It's better targeted to people who need the most help. It also happens to be very similar to the model brought in by the Victorian government at the height of the second wave. It's working there, and it should be expanded to other states before any new outbreaks get out of hand. We need to get one step ahead. We need to start telling people what's coming down if the second or third waves hit, and you should be up to that by now as a coalition. You've now had the second wave in Victoria. There are no excuses anymore for having things in place when outbreaks happen in other states.

I want to give money out to the Australians who need it most. I want to stop people from having to choose between going to work sick or paying their rent. I know how hard that choice would be. Unfortunately, this bill in its current form gives more to people who need less help, and it isn't fair or sensible. So I propose a compromise. The Greens don't want to set the rate of COVID leave at any amount. They think it should be whatever you were earning before what you get now. I think it should be set at the rate of JobKeeper for everybody—except those on jobseeker, for obvious reasons. One of the biggest problems is that it's all getting cut off way too soon, and we need to balance fixing that against fixing this. So I've proposed to the Greens an amendment that I think strikes a reasonable balance.

The Greens don't want it set at JobKeeper, but I don't want it set at an infinite amount where people like Clive Palmer and Twiggy Forrest can be forced to self-isolate—and you think Western Australia is having problems right now—and be given 15 million bucks for the fortnight. Come on! This bill is not being done very well. So let's say that it should be capped at something reasonable, and let's say that that cap should be set by the only ones in this debate able to say what the cost of each level of the cap should be. My proposal is that the government be required to set a cap on the amount a person can receive for COVID paid leave. My amendment doesn't say what the cap should be, it just says, 'You've got to draw the line somewhere, so let's draw a line.'

What I'm proposing is fairer, goes further, is more affordable and should be supported by the Senate. If it's more reasonable and supported then maybe you could look at extending jobseeker and JobKeeper at the current arrangement until after Christmas. That would be a win-win for everybody. This is not something that we saw going on when you set that amount two or three months ago when you decided you were going to change it. Things have not got better, and things will not get better tomorrow. We need to think forward, and we need to think on our feet a little bit quicker than what we've been doing. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.