Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Hansard source

First of all, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the government for the financial assistance they have provided to the over three million people who are Centrelink recipients through the provision of the coronavirus supplement since the original outbreak of the virus back in March.

I'd just like to make it clear: we actually don't need this legislation, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Extension of Coronavirus Support) Bill 2020. The minister already has the power through regulation to extend the supplement. The only exception is if you're a student or apprentice on youth allowance—and they could deal with that separately. This legislation before the House today technically is not needed.

This legislation does two things, though. It does reduce the coronavirus supplement from $250 a fortnight to $150 a fortnight from 1 January 2021 but I think the underlying purpose of this legislation by the government is to draw a very hard line on the supplement from 31 March 2021, which sounds like a long time away but really isn't. The purpose, then, of this legislation is that there can no longer be any extensions to the coronavirus supplement.

That will take us back to the old Newstart rate, which I know would take many, many people—particularly older people who are having difficulty finding employment but are not yet at the age of retirement, many of whom have worked for decades but can no longer find employment—down to, for a single person, $282 a week. That's actually what every person in this House receives for one night for accommodation. It's pretty outrageous that we would do that to our fellow Australians. In my electorate you cannot rent a single property—not even a one-bedroom bedsit—for $280 a week. So to know that we are going to be taking people back to that rate from 31 March, as winter's coming, is outrageous, and I think we need to do better as a nation.

This is going to affect people on partner allowance, widow allowance or youth allowance, people who are on the JobSeeker payment and people who are receiving Abstudy living allowance, Austudy, parenting payment, farm household allowance—we're going to do this to our farmers as well—or special benefit. While this is going to affect the individual, in my community it's also going to affect my small businesses, because money circulates in the economy. So people won't be going to the butchers or to my fruit and veg stores. Do you know what that's going to mean? It's going to mean a constriction. That's going to mean that people who are currently working are potentially going to be under the threat of losing their jobs, and then we increase this problem.

There are going to be some big winners out of this, though: payday lenders, the pawn shops and the buy-now pay-later schemes. It's going to entrench debt. It's going to entrench hardship. It's unnecessary and it's really bad for the economy to do this. It's going to increase the demand on homelessness services, critical emergency assistance and food relief. It's going to increase the demand on mental health services. They're all services that government pays for, so we're actually not saving any money by doing this. It's a furphy to think that this is helping the budget's bottom line.

Just yesterday I received an email from a woman in her 50s who's currently homeless. She's worked for a long time in her life, but she doesn't have a job at the moment. She's trying to secure private rental in my electorate. Particularly on the south coast, there are up to a hundred people attending open inspections for one home, because we just don't have enough rental properties. She's worried about how she's going to live post the coronavirus supplement ending.

What do we need to do? This is an opportunity for the government to create a permanent increase to the JobSeeker rate. For a very long time the sector was calling for $95 a week. I think that that would be a very reasonable amount that would still provide a huge incentive for people to try and get off JobSeeker while also ensuring that the absolute basics of life can be met.

There's another thing we need to do, and we never really talk about it in this place: we need to lift the age criterion for moving from the single parenting payment to JobSeeker. Right now, when your youngest child is eight years of age, you are moved from that to JobSeeker. I don't know a single member in this place who would leave their eight-year-old child at home alone during working hours. If they managed to get a job, they would be there until at least five o'clock at night and then do the drive home. People say, 'But there's after-school care.' Well, not in the regions. It's very, very difficult to get a place at after-school care in the regions. So, for some parents who have been able to find employment, their children are home alone at night. I really don't think that's the Australia we want to see. We should be lifting that to at least age 10 or 12. I would say 12. That's the age a child is more independent and would move to high school. But eight years of age is unnecessarily cruel, and to be honest I'm quite surprised that that was a decision made by Labor. That shouldn't have been done, and I think that we need to address that urgently. It's a wicked thing to do.

With this legislation, we're put in a very difficult position. Do we support the legislation that gives another three months of just a little bit extra for people who have enormous bills in January?

I don't know about you, but in January it's the time when all the bills come through the door. If you have children at school, it's new schoolbags and pencil cases and shoes and school uniforms. And the council rates come in. Everything comes in just after Christmas in January, and that's when we're reducing people down to $75 a week. So we've got two choices: do we play chicken with the government and think that they're going to actually do a permanent increase or do we accept this, knowing that on 31 March we are condemning people to abject poverty? It's a horrible decision to make, and I would urge the government to rethink their legislation.

See this speech in context