Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have a series of questions which I would like to ask fairly quickly. I don't intend to hold up the chamber, but I'm wondering if we could address those and then move to deal with the amendments? Okay. Thank you. I presume the government will be circulating some amendments. Can I ask when?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, we will. That should be imminent—in the next few minutes. I explained what the amendments would do in my summing-up speech. I'm happy to go through that again. The key is that the amendments will provide an expanded regulation-making power to the minister to address the issues that we indicated we would address. Specifically, we are in a position to flag very clearly that the minister intends to use this power imminently to make student payments—for Abstudy, Austudy and youth allowance (student)—and to make changes to the partner income test to make sure that they are captured by the coronavirus supplement arrangements.

There are some other things that these amendments will enable us to do. Essentially, they will increase the flexibility for us to deal with a whole range of things—from payment rates to means-testing arrangements, eligibility criteria, waiting periods and residency requirements—to respond to things in a flexible, measured and timely manner. The amendments themselves don't make the change; they give us the power to make the change.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for that response. There are some specific issues in both the existing provisions in the bill and the new ones that you're going to circulate through the amendment. At the moment, the supplement is $550. I understand that the minister has the capacity to vary that after six months. That's already there. Can the rate of that supplement payment be varied before the six months is up?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it could be, which is consistent with one of our principles, as we are approaching this, to make this thing scalable.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the government was of a mind to, for example, at least bring the disability support pension up to the same rate that jobseekers will now receive, could that be done?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That could be done. But I've got to say that that is not our intention as I stand here today, the reason being that we have focused on targeting the income support very specifically on those who've been impacted by a significant change in circumstance. We can have an argument about the level of income support across different income categories, but one cannot argue that there has been a dramatic change in circumstance in the level of income before and after the coronavirus hit in relation to, for example, disability support pensions. What we have done is made a decision for a second $750 payment that goes to all those that are not eligible for the coronavirus supplement.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I've had contact with—and I'm sure many of my colleagues across the chamber have had contact with—disabled people that are on DSP who believe and very strongly argue that they will have additional costs because of their disability. I put that on the record, and we'll be coming back to the government about that, but I'm asking specifically about people on the disability support pension who work, who lose their jobs. I gave an example in my second reading contribution where somebody is in a circumstance where they're continuing to work when they probably shouldn't be, because they're worried about the economic impact of having to stop work. This supplement is not going to be available to them. If they're a parent, they're on DSP and they have to give up their job because of the health threat—because they've got disabilities—how can they make up that additional money that they're losing?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Anyone who is on DSP will get access to the two $750 payments. At this stage there is no other plan.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for making that clear. We will obviously continue to advocate on this particular issue. Will new income support recipients living in cashless debit card trial areas be put on the cashless debit card?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Senator Siewert.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Has the government done an estimate of the number of people that will now lose their jobs and go onto the jobseeker payment that will be going onto the cashless debit card?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I don't have that figure before me.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could I ask that that be taken on notice, please. In addition, has there been any consideration given to, and can the government tells us, how much longer people will have to wait to get access to jobseeker payment if they are having to go on the Indue card?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might seek further clarification on the question you have just asked me; I'm not sure I understand what you are requesting.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is extra administration for someone to go on the cashless debit card. They have to get the Indue card. To be clear, 80 per cent of someone's jobseeker allowance is now going to be quarantined if they lose their job in a CDC trial area. I'm asking how long it will be before someone actually gets access to the payment because they have to get processed through the CDC process and the Indue process.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Siewert; I now understand what you are asking. We have applied an absolute maximum amount of resources across the entire social security system so that we can supercharge the speed with which we are able to process payments across the entire range of either changes or existing payments that have been increased so that people are able to get access to this money as quickly as possible. In terms of giving an exact time, I'll have to take that on notice.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Minister. You have given a commitment to, in some instances, five days. I find it hard to believe that you can get your income support payment, jobseeker payment and Indue card in that length of time. Could you also take on notice, please, what length of time you calculate it will take.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have addressed that on a number of occasions now. Firstly, the Prime Minister was right. Youth allowance (other), as it's called, has been part of the coronavirus supplement payment arrangements from the outset. But, as we have indicated, the government has decided to move an amendment, which I will move now, given I'm on my feet. I move government amendment (1) on sheet ZA510:

(1) Schedule 11, Part 1, page 66 (after line 9), at the end of the Part, add:

40A Modifications of qualifications and payments under the social security law

(1) For any provision of the social security law relating to the qualification of persons for a social security payment, or to the rate of a social security payment, the Minister may by, legislative instrument, determine:

(a) for a provision that relates to the qualification of persons for a social security payment:

(i) that the provision is varied as specified in the determination; or

(ii) that the provision does not apply; or

(iii) that the provision does not apply and that another provision specified in the determination applies instead; or

(b) for a provision that relates to the rate of a social security payment:

(i) that the provision is varied as specified in the determination; or

(ii) that the provision does not apply and that a rate of payment specified in the determination applies instead.

(2) The Minister must be satisfied that the determination is in response to circumstances relating to the coronavirus known as COVID-19.

(3) A determination under this item has effect accordingly.

(4) In this item:

social security law has the same meaning as in the Social Security Act 1991 .

social security payment has the same meaning as in the Social Security Act 1991 .

That amendment gives the Minister for Families and Social Services the regulation-making power to alter settings associated with payment rates, means-testing arrangements, eligibility criteria, waiting periods and residency requirements to respond to the evolving situation in a scalable, measured and timely manner. What the government and the minister have made clear is that we intend to use this power immediately on passage of this legislation, and after royal assent has been received, to make student payments—Abstudy, Austudy and youth allowance (student)—eligible for the coronavirus supplement on the same basis as the other jobseeker payment. Sorry, I thought I'd made that clear before.

The CHAIR: It is moved, but it hasn't yet been circulated. Senator Siewert, I think you were seeking the call.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The point I was just going to make is that we haven't seen it yet, so it's hard to debate it. But I understand that Senator Faruqi has some other questions.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Subject to the passage of this suite of bills, the access criteria will be largely dependent on the income test. If the individual meets the income test and can demonstrate that they have had a loss of income that takes them below that threshold, they will be eligible for the payment. We will be waiving a number of things and that will expand the eligibility. That includes: the one-week waiting period; the liquid assets waiting period, which relates to the $5,500 cash limit; and also the assets test, which is focused on sole traders and small businesses so that they are able to retain the assets of their business in the hope that, once they get through this crisis, they will be able to return to their businesses.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We would be expecting people who have access to leave entitlements to use those leave entitlements or sick leave before they seek support from the taxpayer at this point in time.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have been advised that I will be making an instrument. So they are subordinate legislation.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's currently being drafted.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm happy to take some legal advice in relation to the specific legal meaning of what you are referring to. But what I would say is that the purpose of these regulations is to make sure that anybody who was in employment who has lost their employment or had a substantial diminution in the money they are earning will be able to get access to welfare support payments, including the coronavirus supplement, so that they are able to make ends meet between now and when this crisis is over in the hope that they will be able to return to their existing employment. Apart from the income test that will still apply, there are really very few other requirements that we will expect an employee who has lost their job to meet in order for them to be eligible to receive payment over the next six-month period.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously, Senator Faruqi, imminently—because we need to make sure that these regulations come into effect as soon as possible so that we can give people who find themselves in this difficult position access to payment as soon as possible.

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, will the amendment that has been circulated in your name include a sunset provision?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The sunset for the arrangement will be in the regulations.

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister Cormann, I flag that the opposition would prefer—in fact, requests—that the sunset provision be put in the legislation. Are you prepared to accept an amendment that would seek to do that?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our policy intent is very clear. We're obviously now drafting this reasonably quickly. I'm happy to take this back for a moment, to address that and have a proper sunset clause.

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On that last point, Minister Cormann, I believe that, in your speech, you indicated that the sunset provision would be the end of 2020. I flag that we would be supportive of that if it can be included in the legislation.

The CHAIR: It's my intention to postpone the amendment moved by Senator Cormann until we get the amendments as spoken about in the Senate.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the government still processing Centrelink debts, including robodebts?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator, I'm going to take that on notice to give you an exact answer, but I can tell you that over the last few days every resource that has been available within Centrelink and all external resources that we have been able to access have been moved into the processing of the new payments that are coming online. So, whilst I'm not going to absolutely say no, I think the answer is no, but I will confirm that for you, because over the coming months our only focus is going to be making sure that we apply every resource that is at our disposal to process new applications as quickly as we can.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask because, as recently as Friday, somebody got phone calls about when they were going to start repaying their debts, hence my question.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, to you and everybody else in the chamber and anybody listening, if people find themselves in the situation that you just outlined, can you please bring it to our attention because that certainly is not our intention for the application of resources over the coming weeks.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that clarification, Minister. I certainly will be taking you up on that if I hear of any more. In terms, then, of reviewing robodebts for income averaging, is that ongoing or has that been suspended as well?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Once again, I'm going to take that on notice, because I'm actually not sure. There have been so many changes because of the rapid escalation of need as a result of the virus, for other purposes, that I couldn't actually answer that question. But I'll certainly take it on notice.

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While we are waiting for the amendment to come back, I might take this opportunity just to clarify to the Minister for Families and Social Services that the provisions that are moved in this amendment would permit you, through legislative instrument, to apply or vary the rules around temporary visa holders and their access to income support. Is that correct?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I could do that, but I already have the power to do that as it is—for temporary visa holders in relation to the special benefit. As opposed to that, the changes that are enabled by the amendment would actually allow changes for temporary visa holders outside of the scope of the existing measures that are contained in the special benefit.

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to clarify, then—and I thank the minister for that answer—the special benefit, as I understand it, applies to people with a residency requirement of two or four years. So what this amendment would do is allow people who have not been here for that period of time to perhaps, if you make a regulation, to access income support? Is that one of the ways this is varied?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the primary legislation, the capacity exists to enable a waiving or a suspension of the new arrival waiting period for those people that are residents and on the pathway to becoming Australian citizens that are currently undertaking their waiting period so they are able to get access to the jobseeker payment, and everything that goes with it, in the same way as any other jobseeker. That exists in the primary legislation. This regulation will enable changes to be made outside of that. So that actually is contained in the primary legislation already.

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Maybe I wasn't clear. So people who are not currently eligible at all for the special benefit could potentially be eligible under the changes that you are moving tonight. That is what I should have said more clearly.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just clarify another use of that particular provision, and that is: can it be used to vary Commonwealth Rent Assistance?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it could.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to follow up with, probably, Minister Cormann on the matter that Senator Keneally was just asking about, which is the large number of people in Australia who are on temporary visas. It's about 1.6 million people, as I understand it. Could you first confirm, Minister, that there is the capacity under the amendments that you have just tabled for support to be provided to people who are in Australia and on temporary protection visas and for various reasons are not able to leave the country or who actually live in the country but do not have access to income supports. So, firstly, does that capacity exist under this amendment? Secondly, is it the government's policy intent to provide those people, many of whom are seeking asylum, many of whom are New Zealanders living in Australia and many of whom are new permanent residents and various other working holiday visa holders, a level of income support?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I indicated in the chamber earlier today, our income support system is residency based. The government is indeed introducing a coronavirus supplement of $550 per fortnight where the eligibility is driven by a residency-in-Australia requirement. Access to jobseeker payment and youth allowance, however, is available to people residing in Australia who are Australian citizens and permanent residents, assuming all other eligibility criteria are met. It will not be available to people in Australia on temporary visas, other than some people in limited circumstances on special category visas.

Australia's social security system is a non-contributory, residents based system. It is primarily designed to support Australian citizens and permanent residents. In order to enhance access to these payments for permanent residents we are temporarily waiving the newly arrived residents waiting period in order to assist permanent residents to get access to jobseeker payments. Generally residency requirements still apply, and most temporary visa holders do not qualify for jobseeker payments and other forms of income support.

In relation to temporary visa holders, special benefit is available to specified temporary visa holders. Classes of temporary visa holders eligible for special benefit are specified in the legislative instrument and currently include temporary partner visas, temporary humanitarian visas and bridging visas for victims of human trafficking.

The Minister for Families and Social Services has the ability to declare new visa types to be eligible for special benefits, so that is not a function of this amendment; that is a power that the minister already has. Visa types such as temporary resident, other employment and temporary resident skilled employment will be included by the minister in the near future. Special benefit is paid at the same rate as jobseeker payment—previously Newstart allowance—for those aged 22 years and older or youth allowance for those aged under 22 years. To qualify for special benefit people must be in financial hardship and unable to earn a sufficient livelihood for themselves and any dependents. Claims must meet a hardship test based on their liquid assets. Those who're expected to only need payment for less than 13 weeks must have liquid assets of less than two weeks worth of payment, $565.70 for a single person with no children aged 22 years or older. To access the special benefit, in addition to meeting the hardship test, they must have experienced a substantial change in circumstances. Special benefit has a stronger income test than other payments. Any income or income support—for example, free accommodation—is deducted dollar for dollar. Other payments have a tapered income test.

The short answer is that we are not proposing to extend those arrangements to visa holders beyond newly arrived residents with permanent residency still serving their newly arrived residents waiting period and those who are temporary resident, other employment and temporary resident skilled employment visa holders. They are the ones that will be covered by this supplement beyond youth allowance, jobseeker payments, recipients of parenting payment, recipients of partner and single farm household allowance, and special benefit recipients.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do thank the minister for that clarification. Minister, the simple fact remains that your government cut many thousands of people seeking asylum off the Status Resolution Support Services program, which left them with no income support at all from government. What I'm hearing from you this evening is that you have no intention of providing income support for those people. They're losing their jobs too. What are they supposed to do? They are going to lose their homes. Do you expect them to be thrown out on the street? It's beyond belief, having cut them off the SRSS a few years ago and effectively forcing them into work—whatever they could get. Are they now to be left with no income at all and face homelessness and destitution, as well as their families and their children? It's cruel and callous, and quite frankly it beggars belief.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to take this opportunity, while we're still asking questions, to put this on the record and ask a question of the minister. My Tasmanian colleague and Greens federal small business portfolio holder Senator Peter Whish-Wilson is obviously not here this evening. We already explained that a number of our senators were not able to come to participate in this extraordinary session. He and his team have been working round the clock to make sure that they are listening to the needs and desires of small businesses, including many microbusinesses like sole traders. Sole traders include many farmers, stay-at-home entrepreneurs—whether they be in the arts and creative space or in various health fields—tourism operators and musicians. Much like in my home state of South Australia, these people are the backbone of the small business community in our smaller states and smaller economies.

I want to ask the minister exactly what they are going to do to make sure that these people have everything they need to not have to fold their business. As you would know, in many of these small towns, being already on such a tight margin is hard enough. If these businesses fold, the cascading effect throughout regional areas and towns is going to be huge. The question to the minister is: why won't you do what Boris Johnson is doing, making sure there is a proper jobs and wages guarantee that underpins people's salaries and allows these small and microbusinesses to keep people employed in such a way that the money is still flowing through those local communities? I know that Senator Whish-Wilson, if he were here tonight, would be asking some very direct questions of you. I hope that we can have some short answers this evening.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On Sunday there was an extensive package that we are legislating for today.

Senator Hanson-Young interjecting—

I'll take your interjection, because sole traders were helped in that package significantly. In fact, they were helped on both sides of the package. One part of the package was focused on those people who either have lost their jobs or have had a substantial reduction in their income. That's where we have given sole traders access to jobseeker payment without the mutual obligations that would normally require them to give up their businesses. The sole trader has immediately got access to welfare payments, including the coronavirus supplement, and at the same time can continue working in their sole trading or their small business. That will be considered as part of their mutual obligation, because we want those people to stay in their businesses. We want them to stay there, and we want those businesses to continue to be in place when we get to the other side of the coronavirus crisis.

On the other side, on making sure that businesses can continue to be in business and continue to employ people, Senator Cash put a raft of small business initiatives in place for small and medium sized businesses with a turnover of under $50 million. They included a range of things, including grants of up to $100,000 for businesses based on payroll, with a minimum amount of $20,000 available to a business. This is payable on their payroll and their pay-as-you-go returns for April, if we are talking about businesses that make their returns quarterly. In addition, a range of different regulatory relief is available to these small businesses. There are a number of broader initiatives that have been contained in the package. Senator Hanson-Young, it may be useful to suggest to your colleague Senator Whish-Wilson that there is a lot of information on the government website about the specific details of benefits that are being made available to small businesses, sole traders and employees to get them through this particular period.

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When it comes to various groups of temporary visa holders, can the minister advise if the following groups will be eligible for the coronavirus supplement or the jobseeker payment or the special benefit or something else?

Let me try it this way: working holiday-makers in the Seasonal Worker Program and the Pacific Labour Scheme—will those temporary visa holders be eligible for the coronavirus supplement, jobseeker payment, special benefit or something else? If it's something else, do you have something else in mind?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The provisions that are in the regulation that is before us provide broad powers so that we can monitor the situation as it moves forward. As we sit here today, I think most of the visa categories that you have outlined are not priority visa categories for us to be providing a welfare safety net for. However, in a technical sense the regulation that is before you provides the power to do so if circumstances change in the future.

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Noting that after 30 March it will be very difficult if not impossible for temporary visa holders to leave the country, many of them will be without income because their jobs in hospitality and other areas will be lost. They will be forced to either seek work or keep seeking work. They will lack the capacity to self-isolate, if they are so directed, unless they can access some form of support. I encourage the government to consider what steps it's going to take after 30 March for those people who will essentially be trapped within Australian borders, unable to leave the country.

My other question, similar to the one I have just asked, is: can the minister advise if temporary protection visa holders and safe haven enterprise visa holders will be eligible for the coronavirus supplement, the jobseeker payment, the special benefit or some other kind of support?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The answer is exactly the same as the answer to the previous question. The capacity exists, because we're seeking to build flexibility going forward so that we can continue to monitor the situation. I am not making any announcements tonight about what's in and what's out in relation to temporary visa holders, but we have given you the advice about the changes that we are intending to make immediately. Senator Cormann outlined that when he spoke to his amendment in the first place. I reiterate: the capacity exists, through this regulation, for us to be quick and flexible in making changes if the situation changes such that we should choose to do so.

Kristina Keneally (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the minister for that answer. It does provide some clarity. I would like to encourage the government to remember that the status resolution support services payment, which is available to temporary protection visa holder and safe haven enterprise visa holders, was cut by the government. Many people were cut off that payment and told to go out and work. It was already a precarious situation for those people to get jobs because they had a temporary visa and were living in precarious circumstances. It is now even more difficult for them to maintain employment. I am aware, from asylum seeker services in both New South Wales and Victoria, that many of these people are living below the poverty line, noting that the SRSS payment was below Newstart levels—below $40 a day—so these were people already living on the extreme margins of poverty, many of them already forced into homelessness and having to live off the charity of non-government organisations.

So I encourage the government to use the power that, I anticipate, the Senate is about to provide to those opposite to consider how it can best support them from a public health perspective, because it is in the interests of all Australians that people living in the country, citizens or not, are able to access health testing, coronavirus testing and income support so they can self-isolate or continue to live at home, as we are directing them to do, if they are unable to work. I encourage the government to remember that it is in the interests of all Australians. A virus does not discriminate; it does not check your visa status before it infects you. If people are trapped here in this country, after 30 March in particular, it is in the interests of every single one of us in this country that every single one of us, citizen or not, has access to health care and income support if we are required to self-isolate.

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I advise the Senate that we are just waiting for Senator Cormann's amended amendment.

Senator Cormann interjecting—

They haven't moved them.

Senator Cormann interjecting—

Sure, I'm just advising senators that, when that one is circulated, we will go back to it.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will shortly move the amendment in my name, but I just want to tie up the matter that Senator Keneally and I have been exploring. I find it extraordinary that this is appears to be the first that this has come to the government's attention. Has Home Affairs not been involved in the drafting of the government's response to coronavirus? Seriously, there are people here who will be destitute, who will be unable to self-isolate, because your government completely cut them off the SRSS and basically threw them out on the streets at the mercy of the whims of fate to rely on organisations in the non-government sector and in the charitable sector for their very survival. I urge the government to come to grips with a looming humanitarian and health disaster. I want to be very clear: that is what we are facing here, and I urge Minister Ruston, Minister Cormann and Minister Dutton—if he is at work or whoever is doing his job at the moment—to come to grips with this issue.

While we are on visas I also want to bring to the government's attention the fact that we at any time in Australia have a significant number of temporary visa holders, some of whom are in the categories that Senator Keneally and I have been raising in the debate in the last half an hour, whose visas will soon expire. There needs to be a mechanism that provides for the extension of the expiry dates of temporary protection visas that would expire during the period of the coronavirus crisis. This is not rocket science; this is actually government 101. I'm appalled and disappointed that these matters have not been addressed by government and apparently are yet to even be considered by government.

There are the two issues. One is income support for people who are on temporary protection visas. Two is that a number of people whose temporary protection visas will expire during the coronavirus crisis and who, through no fault of their own, won't able to leave the country, need to have their visas extended, otherwise you know what is going to happen? You're going to chuck them all into immigration detention, which you so much love for people who have overstayed visas in this country. By the way, while you are at it, you can free low-risk people who have spent more than one week in immigration detention, because, if the coronavirus gets into immigration detention centres—and already at least one guard of an onshore immigration detention facility in Australia has tested positive to COVID-19—it will spread like wildfire, people will die and their blood will be on your hands.

My colleagues and I have spoken in our second reading—I'm sorry, Chair, if I could just ask for guidance: did you wish to go to Senator Cormann's amendment now?

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it still hasn't been circulated.

Senator Keneally interjecting—

We'll do yours.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

(1) Clause 5, page 3 (after line 19), after subclause (3), insert:

(3A) The legislative rules must require that the terms of any loan subject to a guarantee granted to a financial institution under subsection (1) include a requirement that a SME entity to which a loan is to be made not make any employee of the SME redundant for the duration of any guarantee granted to the financial institution under that subsection.

This goes to the point that the Australian Greens have consistently been making today: whether it relates to big corporates or to SMEs, the government should be getting some quid pro quo here rather than just handing over cash willy-nilly with no guarantees in regard to employment. Qantas were given a significant share of the $715 million that was given to airlines, and within days they had sacked 20,000 people. We keep privatising the obscene profits and socialising the significant losses. We need to make sure that doesn't continue.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting this amendment. This amendment will make recipients of all health care cards eligible for the two economic support payments. Low-income health care cards are not traditionally eligible for one-off payments, and the government has maintained its approach in this instance. In order to facilitate the timely delivery of the supplement—

The CHAIR: Senator Cormann, we are dealing with 8196 revised.

As I was saying, we are not supporting this amendment. In order to facilitate the timely delivery of the supplement, the economic support payments are targeted towards those on primary income support payments, DVA payment recipients and holders of health care cards who have received one-off payments in the past.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think this is the amendment around linking retention of employees with business assistance. Labor won't be supporting this amendment. We have consistently raised concerns about the design of some measures in the stimulus package, such as the cash-flow boost not being linked specifically with the retention of employees. We have made it very clear that we have concerns around that. While we appreciate the intent of this amendment, there could be unintended effects. We already know that small businesses are reluctant to take on more debt, particularly in uncertain times. We saw that with the loans offered in response to the bushfires. This proposed requirement, whilst also being hard to enforce, could heighten the reluctance of struggling businesses to take on more debt, choose to end the business completely or retrench any remaining staff completely, which would be an even more diabolical situation.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are opposing this. The purpose of this guarantee is to help businesses survive. We need to have flexibility in any approach to ensure that we are not ruling companies out as a result of legislative criteria. By being prescriptive, we may actually make it harder for companies that should get access to the money and they might miss out. The banks will have skin in the game by sharing the risk; and, as they assess the loans, they will be looking to support companies to be able to get through the impact of the virus. Given how fast the circumstances are changing, we need to ensure there is flexibility in the legislative instrument that may need to be amended to deal with those circumstances. Ultimately every business will need to be looked at on an individual basis and that is why we are getting the banks and non-bank lenders to decide on this as they know their customers better than the government.

The CHAIR: The question is that Greens amendment (1) on sheet 8916 revised be agreed to. I believe the noes have it. Senator McKim.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The noes have it, Chair. In lieu of a division, could I just ask that the position of the Australian Greens be recorded in Hansard.

The CHAIR: Yes, we can record your support for this amendment despite it being rejected.

Question negatived.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to replace the amendment that I've previously moved with the revised sheet ZA510 that's been circulated in the chamber.

Honourable Senator:

An honourable senator interjecting—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might just—

The CHAIR: Minister, I believe it has been circulated. Indeed, I have a copy.

An honourable senator: You have a copy?

The CHAIR: Yes.

I thought it had been circulated. I've spoken on a number of occasions now about the purpose of this amendment in giving the minister the flexibility and the regulation-making power to deal with the various items that are listed in the amendment that deal with payment rates, means-testing arrangements, eligibility criteria, waiting periods and residency requirements to respond in a scalable, measured and timely manner. This power will cease at the end of 2020. You will be able to see paragraphs (5) and (6) which provide that an instrument made under this item has no operation after 31 December 2020 and the power that it provides to the minister is repealed on 31 December 2020. I move:

(1) Schedule 11, Part 1, page 66 (after line 9), at the end of the Part, add:

40A Modifications of qualifications and payments under the social security law

(1) For any provision of the social security law relating to the qualification of persons for a social security payment, or to the rate of a social security payment, the Minister may by, legislative instrument, determine:

(a) for a provision that relates to the qualification of persons for a social security payment:

  (i) that the provision is varied as specified in the determination; or

  (ii) that the provision does not apply; or

  (iii) that the provision does not apply and that another provision specified in the determination applies instead; or

(b) for a provision that relates to the rate of a social security payment:

  (i) that the provision is varied as specified in the determination; or

  (ii) that the provision does not apply and that a rate of payment specified in the determination applies instead.

(2) The Minister must be satisfied that the determination is in response to circumstances relating to the coronavirus known as COVID-19.

(3) A determination under this item has effect accordingly.

(4) In this item:

social security law has the same meaning as in the Social Security Act 1991.

social security payment has the same meaning as in the Social Security Act 1991.

(5) An instrument made under this item has no operation after 31 December 2020.

(6) This item is repealed on 31 December 2020.

The CHAIR: I just draw to the attention of the committee that we are dealing with the amended amendment ZA510, which has got 9.06 pm at the bottom of the document.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Leader of the Government in the Senate for responding to the concerns about the original amendment. This is an important amendment, and we acknowledge that it gives unprecedentedly broad powers to the minister to change arrangements for a whole range of social security payments. It is unprecedented, but we think that flexibility is going to be required and it goes to a number of the issues we've raised about gaps and potential gaps and increasing pressure for some of those people to be eligible for certain payments over the next few months, but also those who might not have been included in the first and second of the stimulus packages. We did believe that this needed an expiry date because of the significant powers that are being delegated from legislation to regulation at the executive's own discretion, so that has been rolled in.

Essentially this responds to concerns that Labor has been raising. The concerns were raised directly by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Albanese, with the Prime Minister and the Treasurer today. We don't want to delay the passage of this legislation. We've made that clear. We want to support the government where we can. We think there are gaps. We think there are issues that will be coming to everyone's electorate office and every senator's office about people who might not be getting the help they need, and this will give the government the power and ability to respond to that without the parliament sitting. It is unprecedented. Broad powers like these would never, in any normal situation, be given to the executive, but this is a very unusual world that we are living in now, and we acknowledge that the government will have to respond and will have to respond at different times and in different ways over the next few months.

We thank the government for working with us and listening to our very genuine suggestions that this matter needed to be dealt with. It is outlined in the amendment, and I seek other senators' support for this, noting that it expires on 31 December. We genuinely hope this amendment gives the government the power to do good for people who are going to be suffering significant hardship over the next few months as this crisis unfolds. Perhaps we can't even predict the position that some will be in at the moment, and that's why the Senate and the parliament will give this power to the minister to be used wisely, carefully and in response to the desperation and anxiety that many in the community are feeling about their own personal circumstances and those of their families over the next few months.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to ask a few questions about the operation of this as opposed to the operation of the other provisions in the bill which, Minister—through you, Chair—give you the capacity, after the six months, to roll over the stimulus package and to also apply the supplement to other payment types. My understanding of those clauses is that they give the minister the capacity to do it at three-month intervals. Is that correct? I understand that hasn't got a sunset clause.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The entire clause sunsets on 31 December, so there is no further capacity for me to make regulation under this regulation past that.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, I'm talking about the existing bill. There's not a sunset clause on those particular clauses, is there?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The provisions within the substantial legislation that make changes to the act, as opposed to these regulations that we're talking about, are for a period of six months. Because they are related to provisions directly as a result of the impact of coronavirus, my capacity to extend only relates to as long and in so much as the continuing requirement is as a result of the impact of coronavirus. I can't make any further determinations if the crisis is over.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's what I was trying to clarify. That is as long as it is determined that the crisis is in operation. Heaven forbid that it goes past this date. The point I'm making is that, while I agree with the need to curtail or sunset this for the reasons that have just been articulated, I'm concerned. We've just had a very positive move in terms of being told that students on youth allowance, for example, will get the supplement through this mechanism. My deep concern is that, if we are in a situation where there is a need for the other supplement payments to continue, anybody granted payments under this provision will then automatically drop off those payments. That is my concern. So I'm seeking some assurance that, if we accept the sunset clause, the government will then act to address that particular issue. I'm looking at the worst case scenario, I know, but the government has looked at the worst case scenario by enabling the minister to make these rolling payments in the event that the crisis isn't over.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In relation to the primary legislation that we're dealing with today, I am required to come back to this place in order for me to go past the six months of the provisions that are contained within it. Sorry, it's three months at a time by instrument. I can come back three months at a time by instrument. This sunsets on 31 December. We would imagine that between now and 31 December this place would require to make a further determination if we decided that we needed to extend these provisions past 31 December 2020. As you say, it is something that is too horrid to think about. However, this place would need to make a determination to enable me to go past 31 December with the provisions contained in these regulations.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand that, and I will be quiet in a minute. I do understand that. The problem is that we have to come back for this particular provision but not the other provisions, because they're delegated instruments. So what I'm seeking is an assurance that, in the worst-case scenario, if the other payments are continuing, the government will act to make sure that students aren't dropped off when nobody else is dropped off. Again, I'm looking at the worst-case scenarios here. You've clearly done that with the provisions that you've put in place, which is good. It's not a criticism. It's good. But I want to make sure that young people are also protected through the mechanisms that you're setting in place through this particular provision.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I completely understand the issue and the point you're trying to make here, but I absolutely assure you that the Prime Minister has been very, very clear with the Australian public, as he has with all of us here, that we as a government are absolutely committed to do what it takes to get every Australian from here to the other side, whenever and wherever that may be. If there is a circumstance where we are required to have things in place past 30 December 2020, we would come back to this place, in whatever format that had to take, and seek the agreement of this place to continue the provisions that are contained in this regulation. Because of the nature of the way the regulation is written, we chose to sunset it on 30 December to give us the three months past the end of the six-month period, which is the second of the rolling three-month periods that we have in the primary legislation. But I assure you, I assure this place and I assure anybody that's listening that the government will be supporting Australians in every way it possibly can to get them from here to the other side of this crisis.

The CHAIR: The question is that the motion as moved by Minister Cormann, ZA501, as amended and republished at 9.06 pm, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (8) on sheet 8911 together:

(1) Schedule 4, item 1, page 17 (before line 10), before the definition of first 2020 economic support payment , insert:

families 2020 economic support payment means a payment to which an individual is entitled under Division 2A of Part 9.

(2) Schedule 4, item 2, page 19 (after line 20), after Division 2, insert:

Division 2A — Families 2020 economic support payment

115A When is an individual entitled to a families 2020 economic support payment?

An individual is entitled to a families 2020 economic support payment if subsection 117(2) and subsection 117(3), (4) or (5) applies to the individual on a day in the period:

(a) starting on 12 March 2020; and

(b) ending on 13 April 2020.

115B What is the amount of the payment?

The amount of an individual's families 2020 economic support payment under this Division is $750 per FTB child.

(3) Schedule 4, item 2, page 19 (line 22) after " for ", insert " first and second ".

(4) Schedule 4, item 2, page 20 (after line 23), after section 116, insert:

117 Eligibility for families 2020 economic support payment

(1) This section applies for the purposes of section 115A.

(2) Subject to subsection (6) of this section, this subsection applies to an individual on a day if, in relation to that day, the person receives a social security benefit.

(3) Subject to subsection (6) of this section, this subsection applies to an individual on a day if:

(a) in relation to that day, a determination under section 16 of the Family Assistance Administration Act is in force in respect of the individual as a claimant; and

(b) the rate of family tax benefit payable under the determination in relation to that day consists of or includes a Part A rate greater than nil.

(4) Subject to subsection (6) of this section, this subsection applies to an individual on a day if:

(a) in relation to that day, a determination under section 17 of the Family Assistance Administration Act is in force in respect of the individual as a claimant; and

(b) the rate of family tax benefit payable under the determination in relation to that day consists of or includes a Part A rate greater than nil; and

(c) the determination is made as a result of a claim made in:

(i) the income year in which that day occurs; or

(ii) either of the next 2 income years.

(5) Subject to subsection (6) of this section, this subsection applies to an individual on a day if:

(a) in relation to that day, a determination under section 18 of the Family Assistance Administration Act is in force in respect of the individual as a claimant; and

(b) the rate of family tax benefit payable under the determination in relation to that day consists of or includes a Part A rate greater than nil; and

(c) the determination is made as a result of a claim made in:

(i) the income year in which that day occurs; or

(ii) a later income year.

Residence requirement

(6) Subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5) does not apply to an individual on a day if the individual does not reside in Australia on that day.

(5) Schedule 4, item 3, page 21 (after line 22), after section 65JB, insert:

65JC Payment of families 2020 economic support payment

(1) If an individual is entitled to a families 2020 economic support payment, the Secretary must, subject to subsection (2), pay the payment to the individual in a single lump sum:

(a) on the date that the Secretary considers the earliest date on which it is reasonably practicable for the payment to be paid; and

(b) in such manner as the Secretary considers appropriate.

Note: The individual does not have to make a claim for the payment.

(2) The Secretary must not pay the payment on or after 1 July 2022 if the individual is entitled to the payment because subsection 117(3) or (5) of the Family Assistance Act applies to the individual on a day.

[additional payment to FTB Part A families]

(6) Schedule 4, item 6, page 22 (lines 2 to 5), omit subsection 72(1), substitute:

(1) This section applies in relation to an individual who has been paid a 2020 economic support payment because the following subsections of the Family Assistance Act applied to the individual on a day:

(a) subsection 116(2), (3) or (4);

(b) subsection 117(2) and subsection 117(3), (4) or (5).

[additional payment to FTB Part A families]

(7) Schedule 4, item 12, page 23 (line 8), after "payment,", insert "families,".

[additional payment to FTB Part A families]

(8) Schedule 4, item 22, page 25 (lines 7 and 8), omit the item, substitute:

Omit "or ETR payment", substitute ", ETR payment, families 2020 economic support payment, first 2020 economic support payment or second 2020 economic support payment".

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendments (2) and (4)

Amendments (2) and (4) are framed as requests because they would amend Schedule 4 of the bill in a way that would increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 233 of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999.

The effect of the amendments would be to create an additional economic support payment for families who meet certain eligibility criteria. As such, the amendments would expand the 2020 economic support payment and would therefore increase the amount of expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 233 of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999.

Amendments (1), (3), (5) to (7) and (8)

Amendments (1), (3), (5) to (7) and (8) are consequential on amendments (2) and (4).

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendments (2) and (4)

If the effect of the amendments is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 233 of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.

Amendments (1), (3), (5) to (7) and (8)

These amendments are consequential on the request. It is the practice of the Senate that amendments that are consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as requests.

These relate to—and I touched on this in my second reading contribution—an additional $750 for families that have children, because it's absolutely inevitable that families with children need extra support for those children during this time of crisis. I've articulated that during my second reading speech. I know that people want to deal with this expeditiously, so, other than urging the government and the opposition to look at the impact this crisis is having on families and to make sure that they are supported, as the minister said, to get to the other side of this crisis, I'll leave my comments at that.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the Prime Minister has clearly outlined, the safety net provisions announced on Sunday were to make sure that we continue to support all Australians. Every Australian who is eligible to receive the first $750 under the stimulus will be eligible to receive this second $750 stimulus whilst of course at the same time continuing to get access to the family tax benefit that they currently are able to access.

Stirling Griff (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the request for amendments be agreed to.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I ask that the Greens' support for those amendments be recorded?

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Yes, that will be recorded.

Question negatived.

by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 8910 together:

(1) Schedule 4, item 26, page 26 (line 6), omit "or (4)", substitute ", (4) or (4A)".

[extend eligibility to health care card holders]

(2) Schedule 4, item 26, page 27 (line 6), omit "or (4)", substitute ", (4) or (4A)".

[extend eligibility to health care card holders]

(3) Schedule 4, item 26, page 29 (after line 4), after subsection 308(4), insert:

Qualified for low income health care card

(4A) Subject to subsection (5) of this section, this subsection applies to a person on a day if the person is qualified for a health care card on that day under section 1061ZO.

[extend eligibility to health care card holders]

(4) Schedule 4, item 26, page 29 (line 6), omit "or (4)", substitute ", (4) or (4A)".

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (3)

Amendment (3) is framed as a request because it would amend Schedule 4 of the bill in a way that would increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 .

The effect of the amendment would be to extend the economic support payment to persons qualified for a health care card under section 1061ZO of the Social Security Act 1991 . As such, the amendments would expand eligibility for the economic support payment and would therefore increase the amount of expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 .

Amendments (1), (2) and (4)

Amendments (1), (2), and (4) are consequential on amendment (3).

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (3)

If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.

Amendments (1), (2) and (4)

These amendments are consequential on the request. It is the practice of the Senate that amendments that are consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as requests.

This is about giving people that are on the low-income healthcare card access to the $750 payment. I have a question for the minister, and that is: why were low-income healthcare cardholders left out of the bonus of $750? Given it's a low-income healthcare card and, by its very nature, it's for people who are on low incomes, why were they left out when people holding seniors healthcare cards were included?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I made the point before that we'll be opposing these amendments. Recipients of this payment have not traditionally been included in these types of supplement arrangements and we are not proposing to do it now.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You yourselves and many speakers today have articulated how these are unprecedented times. Quite frankly, I don't care if they didn't get it before. They probably should have got it before. They certainly should get it now. Quite frankly, it's unprecedented that you would double the jobseeker payment—not that I'm opposing that. As you know, I'm strongly supportive of it. But, for heaven's sake, these are people of low income. They should be supported. They should get access to those additional resources. If anybody needs it, it's those on low incomes.

Question negatived.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 8914:

(1) Schedule 7, page 48 (after line 9), at the end of the Schedule, add:

Part 3 — Conditions on assistance to aviation sector

Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997

3 At the end of section 2A

Add:

This Act also imposes conditions on the provision of financial assistance to Australian airlines to assist with the impact of the coronavirus known as COVID-19.

4 After Part 2

Insert:

Part 2A — Providing financial assistance to Australian airlines during the COVID-19 crisis

42 Application of this Part

This Part applies if:

(a) the Commonwealth proposes to make, vary or administer (whether under a power provided for by this Act or otherwise):

(i) an arrangement under which relevant money or other CRF money is, or may become, payable by the Commonwealth to an Australian airline; or

(ii) a grant of financial assistance to an Australian airline; and

(b) the arrangement or grant is for the purposes of assisting the Australian airline with the impact of the coronavirus known as COVID-19.

43 Terms and conditions for financial assistance to Australian airlines

(1) The terms and conditions on which an arrangement or grant of financial assistance referred to in section 42 is made or granted must:

(a) be set out in a written agreement between the Commonwealth and the recipient; and

(b) include the terms and conditions in subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of this section.

Equity stake

(2) The provision of the financial assistance by the Commonwealth is subject to the Australian airline giving to the Commonwealth an equity stake in the Australian airline.

(3) The following apply in relation to the equity stake referred to in subsection (2):

(a) the equity stake must be proportional to the amount of financial assistance provided by the Commonwealth;

(b) the equity stake must be given by the issue to the Commonwealth of shares in the Australian airline;

(c) the shares must be priced at no higher than the most recent share price transacted on the Australian Stock Exchange or another relevant market (however the shares may be priced lower than that price by agreement between the Minister and the Australian airline).

Board representation

(4) The provision of the financial assistance by the Commonwealth is subject to the Australian airline providing for the following representation on the Board of the Australian airline:

(a) one member of the Board representing the workers of the Australian airline;

(b) at least one member of the Board representing the Commonwealth, with additional members of the Board as appropriate to reflect the proportion of the Commonwealth's equity stake in the Australian airline.

Retention of existing workers

(5) The provision of the financial assistance by the Commonwealth is subject to the Australian airline retaining until at least 30 June 2021 all workers employed by the Australian airline at the start of 2020.

44 Definitions

In this Part:

Australian airline means:

(a) an Australian international airline; or

(b) Qantas; or

(c) an air transport enterprise offering or operating an air service solely within Australian territory.

Australian international airline means an international airline (other than Qantas) that may be permitted to carry passengers or freight, or both passengers and freight, under a bilateral arrangement as an airline designated by Australia to operate a scheduled international air service.

international airline means an air transport enterprise offering or operating an international air service.

Qantas means Qantas Airways Limited, as the company exists from time to time (even if its name is later changed).

These amendments relate to support for the aviation industry and Australian airlines during the coronavirus crisis. We know that the government's already been in significant conversations and discussions with airlines. These amendments ensure appropriate protections for workers and taxpayers in any airline bailout. We think it is absolutely essential that, if the Australian people and taxpayers are going to participate in these types of bailouts, they get something in return. We need to make sure, as these amendments insist, that they require any bailout to take place via an equity stake rather than just handing over the cash to these big corporations. It beggars belief that we'd just do this and not take the opportunity to ensure that the Australian people are indeed represented at the table. We need to make sure workers keep their jobs and that protections for their jobs are ongoing, at the very least in the medium term, when the whole point of this type of extraordinary support from government is to ensure that the people working for these corporations actually get looked after and get to keep their jobs.

We have heard referenced many times in this place and the other place today the extraordinary situation where, after being given significant support from the government, Qantas stood down 20,000 staff members in one day. We know that the industry has effectively been grounded. We get that. But we need to make sure that, if we're going to be putting up big loads of cash for these corporations, the workers themselves are the ones that these benefits flow to.

I was listening to a report in the evening following that decision by Qantas that numerous households around the country had just lost both incomes because there were couples—living together, sharing household costs and bills, and who have families—who were both employed by Qantas. Both, on the same day, lost their jobs. This is the type of protection, for people like those families and others, that we need to insist on if we're going to stump up this large amount of money. What this amendment does is gives protection for workers but also ensures that the Australian people are represented. We would like to see a requirement that board seats are put aside for the Australian taxpayer, represented by the government, and for workers. It is the very least that can happen at an extraordinary time like this, and I urge the opposition to support this amendment.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government is going to oppose this amendment. The Commonwealth has provided initial support to our airline industry through relief on a range of taxes and government charges, estimated to be up to $715 million. The government will consider further support for our aviation sector through an unprecedented period of disruption to international and domestic air travel. The proposed amendments would require the Commonwealth to take an equity stake in an airline as a condition for providing any future financial support. The Commonwealth will consider any further support according to the sound principles we have already set out, but the proposed amendments would unnecessarily constrain the government's ability to tailor any future support according to the needs of the sector and the interests of the nation.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor won't be supporting this amendment. While we agree that further support will be needed for the aviation sector, this should be part of the next fully costed economic support package. This would ensure full understanding of the impacts on the sector and allow for consultation with companies, unions, staff and other stakeholders.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye. Those against, say no. I believe the noes have it.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We request that it's recorded in the Hansard and in the Journals that it was the Australian Greens who supported this amendment.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: So ordered.

Question negatived.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move Greens' amendment 1 and 2 on sheet 8904, which opposes items 34 and 35 of schedule 4:

(1) Schedule 4, item 34, page 33 (line 29) to page 34 (line 16), to be opposed .

[exclude payment from income management]

(2) Schedule 4, item 35, page 34 (lines 17 to 31), to be opposed .

[exclude payment from cashless debit card]

This relates to the fact that the government wants to put the $750 through income management, so it excludes the payment from that and also excludes the same payments from the cashless debit card. In other words, it makes sure that this money isn't put on the cashless debit card, because we don't think that is appropriate, and also, the community, judging by the response that people have had, don't think it's a good idea.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Siewert, do you seek leave to move them together?

Yes, although the grey doesn't say I had to seek leave there, but I will.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will be opposing this amendment. The coronavirus supplement should be subject to the same income management or cashless debit card arrangements as the person's base payment. This is consistent with government policy.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that items 34 and 35 of schedule 4 stand as printed. Those of that opinion say aye. Those against, say no. I believe the ayes have it.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The noes have it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Siewert, you would like it to be recorded in the Hansard and the Journals that the Australian Greens supported that amendment?

Yes, please.

Question agreed to.

I'd now like to move Greens' request 1, which is sheet 8915:

(1) Schedule 11, page 55 (after line 23), after item 6, insert:

6A At the end of Division 4 of Part 2.2

Add:

56 COVID-19 supplement

(1) If a person is receiving:

(a) an age pension; and

(b) rent assistance;

the rate of the person's age pension is increased by the amount of the COVID-19 supplement. The increase begins on 27 April 2020.

(2) In this section:

rent assistance means an amount paid or payable under this Act to help cover the cost of rent.

Cessation of supplement

(3) This section ceases to apply at the end of:

(a) the period (the initial period ) of 6 months beginning on the day on which this section commences, unless paragraph (b) applies; or

(b) if a period is extended under subsection (4)—the extended period.

(4) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, extend the initial period (or that period as extended one or more times under this subsection) by a period not exceeding 3 months. The Minister must be satisfied that the extension is in response to circumstances relating to the coronavirus known as COVID-19.

Amount of supplement

(5) For the period beginning on 27 April 2020 and ending at the end of the initial period, the amount of the COVID-19 supplement per fortnight is:

(a) $550, unless paragraph (b) applies; or

(b) if an amount is determined under subsection (6)—that amount.

(6) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine an amount for the purposes of paragraph (5) (b).

(7) For any extension period, the amount of the COVID-19 supplement is to be worked out in accordance with a determination under subsection (8).

(8) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make a determination for the purposes of subsection (7).

(9) Without limiting subsection (8), the determination may provide that the amount of COVID-19 supplement per fortnight is nil for specified persons.

6B At the end of Division 5 of Part 2.3

Add:

121 COVID-19 supplement

(1) If a person is receiving a disability support pension, the rate of the person's disability support pension is increased by the amount of the COVID-19 supplement. The increase begins on 27 April 2020.

Cessation of supplement

(2) This section ceases to apply at the end of:

(a) the period (the initial period ) of 6 months beginning on the day on which this section commences, unless paragraph (b) applies; or

(b) if a period is extended under subsection (3)—the extended period.

(3) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, extend the initial period (or that period as extended one or more times under this subsection) by a period not exceeding 3 months. The Minister must be satisfied that the extension is in response to circumstances relating to the coronavirus known as COVID-19.

Amount of supplement

(4) For the period beginning on 27 April 2020 and ending at the end of the initial period, the amount of the COVID-19 supplement per fortnight is:

(a) $550, unless paragraph (b) applies; or

(b) if an amount is determined under subsection (5)—that amount.

(5) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine an amount for the purposes of paragraph (4) (b).

(6) For any extension period, the amount of the COVID-19 supplement is to be worked out in accordance with a determination under subsection (7).

(7) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make a determination for the purposes of subsection (6).

(8) Without limiting subsection (7), the determination may provide that the amount of COVID-19 supplement per fortnight is nil for specified persons.

6C At the end of Division 4 of Part 2.5

Add:

211 COVID-19 supplement

(1) If a person is receiving carer payment, the rate of the person's carer payment is increased by the amount of the COVID-19 supplement. The increase begins on 27 April 2020.

Cessation of supplement

(2) This section ceases to apply at the end of:

(a) the period (the initial period ) of 6 months beginning on the day on which this section commences, unless paragraph (b) applies; or

(b) if a period is extended under subsection (3)—the extended period.

(3) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, extend the initial period (or that period as extended one or more times under this subsection) by a period not exceeding 3 months. The Minister must be satisfied that the extension is in response to circumstances relating to the coronavirus known as COVID-19.

Amount of supplement

(4) For the period beginning on 27 April 2020 and ending at the end of the initial period, the amount of the COVID-19 supplement per fortnight is:

(a) $550, unless paragraph (b) applies; or

(b) if an amount is determined under subsection (5)—that amount.

(5) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine an amount for the purposes of paragraph (4) (b).

(6) For any extension period, the amount of the COVID-19 supplement is to be worked out in accordance with a determination under subsection (7).

(7) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, make a determination for the purposes of subsection (6).

(8) Without limiting subsection (7), the determination may provide that the amount of COVID-19 supplement per fortnight is nil for specified persons.

[extending eligibility for COVID-19 supplement]

Statement pursuant to the order of

the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (1)

Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it amends Schedule 11 to the bill in a way that would increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 .

The effect of the amendment would be to extend the COVID-19 supplement to persons receiving the disability support pension and carer payment, and persons who receive both the age pension and Commonwealth rent assistance.

The amendment would therefore increase the amount of expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 .

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant

to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendment (1)

If the effect of the amendment is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request.

This relates to people on the disability support pension and the carer payment, but also those on the age pension if they receive Commonwealth rent assistance. This is because, as I highlighted in my second reading contribution, we think these groups of people deserve to get the $550 supplement. We disagree with the government. We think there will be extra costs for these particular groups of people because disabled people will face increased costs in accessing services and basic household goods. Because many of them are very vulnerable to this particular virus, they will need very good personal protection equipment in order to remain healthy. Those that are on carer payments will also be at increased risk and they will also have increased costs.

We know that a lot of older Australians and people on the age pension are living in poverty. And that group living in poverty is very strongly dominated by those that don't own their own home and are paying rent. Let's face it, that particular group of people need to be particularly careful about self-isolating because they are extremely vulnerable to coronavirus. We know that from what's happening globally. That's why we think it's important that these particular groups of people should also get access to the supplement. There are provisions in the bill to enable the minister to make the supplement available to other payments—and we have discussed that. Again, as I highlighted in my second reading contribution, we want to end the uncertainty for people to make sure that they get access to the payment as soon as possible.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will be opposing this amendment. This amendment is unnecessary. The legislation already allows for the government to include additional cohorts of people on income support payments through a legislative instrument if and when required. People receiving other payments are provided income support for other reasons. At this point, the government is focused on providing additional support to jobseekers. The coronavirus supplement is designed to cushion the impact of any downturn in the economy on workers and people looking for work, people on jobseeker payment and youth allowance (other) for the purpose of looking for work. We understand the labour market will likely face, or will be facing, significant challenges over coming months.

In order to assist current income support recipients, people on other payments will be eligible for the first and second economic support payment—$750 each time. We have the ability, under the legislation we're putting to the parliament, to make additional payments eligible for the coronavirus supplement. We will keep a close eye on economic conditions and what is occurring in Australia and make appropriate, prudent and measured decisions to respond to circumstances as they continue to evolve.

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

While we were discussing in here the government's response to people on temporary visas, in terms of the expiry of their visas and in terms of providing income support for many people on temporary visas, the government ministers in here were stalling away and not giving any commitments. I'll just announce on behalf of the government that in real time, only moments ago, they dropped a story to one of the government's favourite 'dropees' at The Australian, Simon Benson, who understands that the Morrison government is 'working on a plan that includes a form of support payment for potentially hundreds of thousands of temporary migrants who stand to lose their jobs in industries such as tourism and hospitality'. The lead of that story also mentions visa extensions being offered to nonresidents. It's such a shame that, rather than the Prime Minister communicating with the Senate and with his ministers in the Senate, the PM's office was off dropping the story to their favourite recipient in The Australian.

This is a good thing that the government are doing here. It's something we are very glad they are doing, and we're very glad that we've been pressuring the government to do it. It is a shame that it's not in this current package. Because it's been dropped to The Australian rather than messaged into the Senate, we obviously have no capacity to ask detailed questions about it, because we simply have no detail about what the package is. It's almost like the Prime Minister's press secretary was listening to the debate in the Senate and went: 'Whoopsie! We left about 1.5 million people out of our coronavirus response. We'll just get on to The Australian really quickly, drop it to Simon Benson and see if we can get ourselves out of trouble.'

But I do want to make a very serious point here to Minister Cormann. In response to one of my previous questions on this issue, he mentioned that the government's focus was on Australians and Australian residents. Well, Minister, a lot of people are about to become effective Australian residents because they simply can't get out of the country, through no fault of their own. As Senator Keneally quite rightly pointed out, this is a public health issue as well as an issue of equity, fairness and humanity. No matter whether someone is ordinarily resident in Australia or ordinarily resident overseas with a temporary visa in Australia, they could still contract coronavirus just as easily as anybody else. If you want to run a comprehensive, holistic public health response to coronavirus, you need to have a financial package supporting everybody in the country so that they can self-isolate. I can't put it any more clearly than that. Your normal tricks are not going to fly here. You're in an emergency. We're all in an emergency together. That includes people in this country on temporary visas.

The story in The Australian appears to reference only people who are on temporary visas and who have lost their jobs as a result of the shutdowns around the coronavirus response. If those are the parameters of the package, it won't go far enough. Everyone who is in Australia right now should be regarded as a resident of this country for the purposes of the coronavirus response, and everybody in that category needs income support so they can have a house or a home in which they can self-isolate should they be required to.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me just again confirm for Senator McKim that the position of the government is that eligibility for the coronavirus supplement is based on the following income support payment categories: jobseeker payment, and all payments progressively transitioning to jobseeker payment—partner allowance, widow allowance, sickness allowance and wife pension; youth allowance; parenting payment, partnered and single; farm household allowance; and special benefit. There are about another million visa holders that we have added—and I've said previously, earlier today. Access to jobseeker payment and youth allowance is available to people residing in Australia who are Australian citizens and permanent residents. It will not be available to people in Australia on temporary visas, other than some people in limited circumstances on special category visas. Australia's social security system is a non-contributory, residence based system. It is designed to support primarily Australian citizens and permanent residents. In relation to those on a permanent residency visa, for those who are still serving a newly arrived resident's waiting period, as I've indicated to the chamber before, the government has decided to waive the newly arrived resident's waiting period temporarily, in order to assist permanent residents to get access to the jobseeker payment. Generally, residency requirements will still apply, and most temporary visa holders do not qualify for jobseeker payment and other forms of income support. However, special benefit is available to specified temporary visa holders, as I've also previously advised the chamber. The classes of temporary visa holders eligible for special benefit are specified in a legislative instrument and currently include: temporary partner visas, temporary humanitarian visas, and bridging visas for victims of human trafficking. The Minister for Families and Social Services has the ability to declare new visa types to be eligible for special benefit—visa types such as temporary resident, other employment, and temporary resident, skilled employment, which will be included by the minister in the near future. We are not proposing to expand the eligibility for the coronavirus supplement to visa holders beyond that.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the request for an amendment be agreed to.

Question negatived.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Siewert, you would like it recorded?

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, please. For the benefit of the chamber, could I also indicate that I won't be moving the Greens' amendments on sheet 8906 or 8909, because we're taking the government at their word: that they will be using the amendment that we passed not long ago to make sure that students—Abstudy or Austudy—do get access to the supplement.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will be opposing this amendment. The federal government will only provide direct payments from the severely affected regions fund to states and territories, where local governments are best placed to administer a program. The Commonwealth will arrange for the funds to be administered to the local government entity via the states and territories using well-established mechanisms.

Stirling Griff (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be agreed to. I believe the noes have it. Senator Faruqi, would you like the usual?