Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

My colleagues the member for Watson and the member for Hindmarsh have made extremely good and pertinent points about the energy minister. I don't want to dwell on that—I think the points have been made—except to say that the minister responsible for social services on that side of the House is Minister Robert. That might explain a few things!

It would have been sensible, as the member for Watson has pointed out, for Minister Robert to be here in the chamber responding, not the energy minister, who happened to be around at the right time. Unfortunately, the bill that he was referring to had not been debated; that was the next bill in the House. The remarkable thing is that he got through his whole speech without realising it was the wrong speech, which just astounded me. We just couldn't believe what was happening.

But let me address the amendments that Labor moved. We are very disappointed that our amendments, which were modest and which would have meant a lot to many hundreds of thousands of people, were not supported. Our amendments were about considering not only pensioners who are on the age pension but also carers and people on DSP, the disability support pension. Those people have been left behind by this government, as have the 300,000 unemployed Australians over the age of 55, who experience the greatest difficulty in getting work. They've been left behind by this government, and the almost one million Australians on unemployment support, who are excluded from the hiring subsidy, have been left behind. The Prime Minister constantly says we're all in this together. Well, if we're all in this together, the government would have supported the very modest amendments that Labor put forward in this debate. Apart from the energy minister getting the wrong speech and making the wrong speech, it was a complete ignoring of the needs of the groups that I've outlined. Our amendments were modest, they were thought through, and they were not anything that the government should not be considering or that Labor hasn't consistently argued during this pandemic.

I endorse the comments from the member for Watson and the member for Hindmarsh, but I also make very clear to the House that the amendments that the government have rejected are amendments that would have supported many hundreds of thousands of Australians who are experiencing great difficulty, including increased costs, because of this pandemic. When the Leader of the Labor Party spoke, he made the point that prior to the pandemic pensioners did not have to buy hand sanitiser or masks. They did not have to have the PPE that we all know is so critical to addressing this pandemic. That is an extra cost. We know that health costs have gone up. We know that food costs have increased. We know that many people are absolutely struggling, and our amendments went to those people who are finding it most difficult. This side of the House understands those needs. Clearly, the other side of the House is ignoring the needs of the many hundreds of thousands of people that I've articulated.

In closing, can I say that the disregard shown by this government is epitomised by the minister for energy giving the wrong speech in the closing comments on this bill. It just goes to the heart of the lack of attention, the lack of care and the lack of consideration for those people who are going to miss out because the government have not adopted the very modest amendments that Labor has moved.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

See this speech in context