Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Extension of Coronavirus Support) Bill 2020 and in favour of the amendments moved by the member for Barton, and there are a couple of key reasons why. These amendments seek to ensure that the government does not cut the coronavirus supplement by Christmas. They also seek to deliver a permanent increase to the base rate of JobSeeker so we do not see people who looking for work living in poverty on $40 a day. These amendments also seek to retain the ongoing powers to keep paying the coronavirus supplement after 31 March 2021 and to retain those powers to make other beneficial changes to the taper rates, income tests and eligibility criteria after 31 March.

These amendments are critical and necessary. Firstly, I wish to highlight that we are not yet through the pandemic. Until we have a vaccination and the world is immunised, we will still face the risk of our community and our economy periodically having to shut down to try and keep people safe. We are quite lucky and have worked hard in Victoria to get through our second wave, and we are now in a COVID-safe environment. We have worked hard as a community and as a society not only to ensure the health of individuals but so we can start to work together to open businesses and the economy. It is only because we have worked together that we're able to do that. However, cutting back the support, as the government proposes to do by Christmas, will hurt that recovery. It will hurt that recovery because businesses that rely upon customers getting the higher rate will soon see those customers disappear, making the recovery longer than it needs to be and putting thousands of local jobs at risk. It will also make it very hard for families.

As we have seen recently, with other clusters and outbreaks in South Australia and Sydney, this hasn't just happened in Victoria. Whilst we still have Australians returning from overseas who could quite possibly be infected with coronavirus, we are at risk. That is why it is too soon for this government to be withdrawing support. We are still at risk of second, third and fourth waves just like we are seeing in countries all over the world. It is premature for this government to be winding back support because we don't know when the next outbreak will be. We are prepared for, and we are doing all we can to stop, a second, third or fourth wave, and that is why the government is ill-advised to be cutting back support now. It's also the time—right before Christmas—at which they're cutting back support. I've been talking to so many people in the welfare agencies in my community, and what they are telling me is that this year they're seeing less people and the regulars aren't seeking as much support. The extra support that people have received from the coronavirus supplement has meant that they have been able to put a little bit away for Christmas. There are less people asking for toys from Uniting this year, but there are new families asking for toys—people who did not get access to appropriate support through JobSeeker because of partner income or who did not get access to JobKeeper and have now lost their jobs. Again, this is an area where the government is letting down the community.

The other part that is so critical to this amendment is calling for a permanent increase to the base rate of JobSeeker. I cannot believe that the government is putting forward the real proposition in these bills that, come March 2021, everyone on JobSeeker will drop back to $40 a day. Yes, it was a temporary measure that they introduced, but what we have seen through the introduction of this temporary measure is how vital this extra support is. It actually lifts people up out of poverty. It allows people to have dignity, the security of a roof over their head, food on their table and the opportunity to look for work if there are jobs available. I also point out to the government another reason why we need to lift the base rate and lock it in on an ongoing basis. Our jobs market has not returned to what it was prior to the pandemic. They may gloat about figures and national headline figures, but the lived experience on the ground is very different. Yes, there are lots of hospitality jobs—insecure, part-time, flexible jobs for people who can work nights and weekends. These jobs are not suitable for a single mum who may not have appropriate care arrangements, and they are not suitable for older workers who may have worked for their entire lives in another industry and don't have the required skills.

We've also got to make sure that any support in JobSeeker is linked to a proper training program. I note that, very few of the jobs advertised are entry level jobs, and all of them are seeking highly skilled workers. If you're working in an industry that has been shut down, like the arts, entertainment and events sector, it's hard for you to transition into a hospitality role, like a chef or a barista, without appropriate training. You will need access to a decent rate of JobSeeker whilst you undertake that training. That is where the government is not thinking holistically about how we can help people who may want to transition into other industries. You need a decent JobSeeker payment whilst you are retraining for the other jobs they may exist. This is what the government isn't doing. They are running their entire policy based upon short-term economic outcomes and their own budget, not on long-term job security, economic security or building long-term resilience into our local communities and economies.

I want to highlight some of the lived experiences of people in my electorate, what they have gone through in the recent months and what it would mean to them if these cuts went through, particularly if they went back to $40 a day as the government is proposing. First of all, there's a fabulous volunteer at Eaglehawk Community House. She is one of the people the government are attacking when they cut these payments. She worked tirelessly through the period of lockdowns and restrictions in Victoria. The Eaglehawk Community House made over 15,000 meals, and she was responsible for cooking all of them. On JobSeeker, not quite old enough yet to retire and struggling to find work with the skill set she has, she volunteers at the Eaglehawk Community House. When the pandemic hit and we faced restrictions and we had some little clusters break out in Bendigo, she cooked meals. She cooked 15,000 meals to help our community and did it with the support of JobSeeker, yes, but as a volunteer for Eaglehawk Community House. This is who the government are attacking when they cut these payments, someone who has volunteered so much of her own time to help our community, particularly the most vulnerable, when things were tough, when people were living at home and in isolation.

There is also Peter, who spoke to my office and to me about how the extra payments meant he could buy some warmer clothes this winter, some shoes that fitted and some extra food. It even meant that he could fill up his car without feeling guilty. He didn't have to plan where he was going based on the petrol that he had. He said that it might not seem like much to most, but to him it was a lifeline. As someone who had worked hard their whole life until he experienced some health issues, finding himself unemployed and needing support from the government was already hard, but then to live in poverty on the old Newstart rate was absolutely heartbreaking. He was grateful for the increase because he was able to purchase things he wouldn't have been able to. It's also improved his mental health because he isn't sitting at home stressing about money. JobSeeker should be more like the pension. It should help secure people, particularly those who've worked hard their whole lives and only at the very end are finding themselves in a situation where they can no longer work because of ill-health.

There's also Melissa, a single mum in her 30s receiving the parenting payment single. Currently, it has allowed her to put some extra money into her utilities and mortgage. It's a bit of a financial buffer. She is not wasting it, as some in the government are suggesting, but getting ahead. One of the main reasons she said that she was always sceptical of this government was that she didn't believe it would continue, so she got ahead in her bills and in her mortgage. She at least is looking forward to this Christmas, because it is the first time she will not have to turn to family for extra money, but she does worry about what will happen next year when this government winds back the support. Melissa is concerned because she has a six-year-old and is not currently receiving child support. That's another battle. She said that the extra buffer means that she is able to get ahead in her bills, as I've said, and put a bit of money aside for the car and house insurance. That way she is able not to stress about money this Christmas.

Then there is Sharon, who's an older woman who was facing homelessness. Just before the rise she had been couch surfing. Having run out of options of staying with friends, she was booked in to stay at the Castlemaine caravan park to pitch a tent with all of her worldly possessions during the middle of winter. Then the rate increase came in, and it meant that she could afford a bond, that she could afford to rent. She is now doing work, now that she has secured accommodation. She has had some work as a COVID patient screener and is working with her employment agency on further work opportunities. She is keen to work and willing to give anything a go that she has the skills for. She's got confidence and optimism now. People like Sharon are the very people we want to see helped, and with a decent rate of JobSeeker they can get the help. It's about allowing people and families to secure the basics—a home, food security and transport security—so that they've got the confidence to go out and apply for the jobs. It means that they can do the extra training required to get the jobs that exist. That seems like common sense to me, but the bill that we have before us isn't common sense. The bill before us would cut support way too soon, impacting businesses in so many local areas and impacting individuals. I strongly urge the government to consider the amendments put forward by Labor. This is an opportunity to rewrite a wrong. If you really want to see our country rebound stronger and more secure post this pandemic and this recession, invest in those in our community who are doing it the toughest: the people who were unemployed before the pandemic and the people who have become unemployed during the pandemic. Right now they're the people who will secure our long-term recovery. If they've got a decent rate of income support, they will have the means to afford their rent, food, transport and the extra costs that may come with retraining for the jobs that are available. As I've stated, it will also help to secure the thousands of local jobs and small businesses in our community relying on these people to have a higher rate of support. It just makes economic and social sense to have a decent rate of JobSeeker.

I do not want this country or these individuals to go back to the old rate of Newstart which destined people to poverty and created an underclass of Australians who were struggling. It became a mindset of trying to survive day to day: 'Can I afford my rent? Which bill will I pay this month? Which bill will I get extended?' It pushed people into poverty who didn't need to be there. It was poverty by design by a government that was determined to be cruel. And this suggestion by some industry and some employers that a higher rate of JobSeeker keeps people from applying for jobs is nonsense. Those employers who are looking for workers should look at the jobs that they're offering. They should look at the training that they're offering. They should look at the job agencies and at whether the job agencies are sending them the appropriate people. If you've got a job that's not filled during this pandemic and this recession, we need to look at the employment industry and employment services. Simply cutting JobSeeker will not find you the workers that you need—another point that this government misses.

It's very, very simple rhetoric and very, very lazy rhetoric to suggest that a lower rate of JobSeeker will force people into the jobs that are available. On behalf of the 10,000 or so people in my community who are currently receiving the supplement, I again urge the government to give them a happy Christmas and a new year where they can feel safe and secure going forward. I urge the government to keep the higher rate of the coronavirus supplement, lock in an ongoing JobSeeker rate that is livable and that gives people the dignity, respect and the means to look for work. I urge the government to retain the ongoing powers to make sure that we have fair income tests, fair eligibility criteria and tapering rates that are fair and that ensure that more people have the means to look for good work and can secure their futures and their children's futures.

See this speech in context