Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (COVID-19 Economic Response No. 2) Bill 2021. These are incredibly difficult times for the Australian people, but particularly, I think, for Australians in locked-down communities. We think particularly of the people of Sydney and surrounds. We think of the people in my hometown of Logan City, Brisbane, the surrounding local government areas and further afield. We think about the people of Melbourne and Victoria. We think about the people of Adelaide and South Australia, who only recently had restrictions in those lovely parts of Australia lifted. These are incredibly difficult times. We are dealing with the delta strain of this virus, which is causing havoc in our local communities. We see that day to day with the current announcements out of the New South Wales government and the Queensland government about these latest outbreaks.

There's a human cost to this, of course, and that's the most important cost. Of course, the cost to people's mental health is especially challenging. I want to acknowledge John Brogden and the people from Lifeline for the briefing that I received last week about some of the human elements, some of the mental health elements, of these lockdowns. The human cost is the most important. We understand that people are finding it difficult. Families and people on their own right around Australia in lockdown communities from time to time are finding this incredibly difficult.

But there's an economic cost as well as this human cost that so many people are paying for more lockdowns in our communities and in our economy. The Treasurer himself has put a number on the cost to the economy of these lockdowns. He said, I'm assuming based on the advice of Treasury—I hope—that the lockdowns are costing the national economy something like $300 million a day and a couple of billion dollars a week. That's an extraordinary price to pay. The Business Council of Australia have done their own well-considered and informed work on all of this and think that the cost may be even higher than that. These are extraordinary costs that the national economy is bearing when it comes to lost activity in the economy. We know that when we see this kind of lost activity that it has consequences for people's jobs, for their ability to provide for their loved ones and for their ability to maintain their living standards.

We have said all along—all throughout this year, really, from the beginning of 2021—that as the government has been in this rush to pat themselves on the back for the beginnings of an economic recovery, which came after the first recession in almost 30 years and the worst recession in almost 100 years, that the government shouldn't be in a rush to congratulate themselves on the beginnings of a recovery. We said all along—and, unfortunately, we've been proved right by recent events—that this recovery was always hostage to the government's ability to roll out the vaccines and to build purpose-built quarantine facilities. It would be better if the government had done that; we could have avoided these lockdowns, or at least the severity of these lockdowns, if the government had done those two jobs.

We've said, really, for some time now—I've lost count of the amount of times that I've said it—'You cannot have a first-rate economic recovery with a third-rate vaccine roll out'. That's what we're seeing right now, literally today and for the last few weeks. What we're seeing is the price that Australians are paying in their economy for the government's failure to do those two really important jobs. That failure is costing the economy hundreds of millions of dollars a day and billions of dollars a week. We've said for much of this year: 'Be really careful about how quickly you withdraw economic support. Don't end the economic support before the pandemic ends. Have the ability to dial that up or dial that down.' JobKeeper was key in 2020 in being able to do that and it shouldn't have been discarded so readily and easily in March.

Remember that when the government first said that they would discard JobKeeper in March it was also when they said that four million Australians would be vaccinated. They linked the two things together. So they were too quick to withdraw support and too slow to roll out the vaccines, and that's why Australians are paying the price for that misjudgment—that error, that public policy mistake that has been made by those opposite. We can't have that great recovery enduring if the government doesn't do the constituent parts of that recovery when it comes to vaccines and quarantine, and economic support as well.

When we said that they were withdrawing support too soon, the government was in this rush to pat themselves on the back for the beginnings of the recovery. We said, 'There will be a need; your own budget says there will be lockdowns each month for the rest of the year.' The government factored that into the budget in one respect but they didn't factor in that they might actually have to do something about it—that they might actually have to come to the assistance of Australians, whether it's in my part of the world, whether it's in the Hunter or whether it's in the suburbs of Melbourne represented by the member over there. We have said for some time that they need to have the capacity to help out. These lockdowns are a consequence of the failures on vaccines and quarantine. The least they can do is come and help Australians who are the unwilling victims of their incompetence in those two really important areas.

What we've seen since then—and we all know what's happening here—is that the government don't want to admit that they were wrong to pull the rug out from under Australians too early when it comes to government support. We've had four attempts now to make up for that public policy mistake. Each time they've popped up and said, 'No, no, this is all we need to do,' and it's become obvious within an hour or two that that hasn't been the case. Every few days we get another announcement and another shirty prime ministerial press conference, where he seems to be personally affronted that people are asking questions about these issues. He's probably doing one as we speak. I think he is.

We've had four attempts at replacing JobKeeper. Each one of them has been inferior. Each one has had different eligibility criteria. Each one has had a different level of payment. It's policy on the run. They're scrambling to make up for it. They're scrambling to fill what they see as a political hole to be filled, not a human cost that people are paying in our communities. They need help. The government always see things as, 'How do we close down this political problem that's emerging?' as it dawns on more and more Australians that the government's not prepared to do what's necessary to compensate them and help them through a difficult period caused by the government's incompetence. So we've had these four attempts, and there have been gaps each time. There have been problems each time. There hasn't been a perfect substitute for JobKeeper, but each time the government comes forward with a package of support we say: 'We're not going to stand in the way of that support. We think there's a better way of doing it, but it's not in the interests of the country for us to stand in the way of that government support being provided.'

That's what guides our approach to these bills. We will support these bills through the parliament. We may have done things differently. We may point out—and subsequent speakers will point out—some of the gaps and some of the issues that we have with this government support, but we do support the efforts to remove some of the obstacles as the federal government works with the state governments in providing this advice. There are some obstacles there that we need to remove, so we obviously support that effort. We do need to have the capacity to share information between the feds and the state governments to make that support possible. There are some issues around the extension of electronic signatures and other issues like that, and obviously we're not going to stand in the way of that. That's one set. There are five schedules, and that's one set of objectives covered by three of those five schedules. The other two are about the tax free nature of the payments. Again, we will support that. We will vote for that here in the parliament. If that's another way to get more support to people who desperately need it then so be it.

It's worth noting, on the way through, that it wasn't the government's intention that these payments be tax free. JobKeeper was a part of the tax system. What actually happened was the Prime Minister was asked about this in a media interview last week and said it would be tax free. He said that it would be tax free. You can imagine all his colleagues scurrying around in the Treasurer's office drafting this legislation so that the legislation reflects the error that the Prime Minister made in that interview. I don't intend to dwell on that, but it is the case that these payments are tax free because the Prime Minister wasn't across the detail of the original announcement. If that means more support for people, good, but let's not pretend that the two schedules that go to the tax free nature of these payments were some sort of deliberate act of public policy genius. It was a mistake made by the Prime Minister in a media interview, and that's why it's represented here in the legislation. Those opposite will deny that, but I think we all know what went on here.

The major issue we have, when it comes to these packages of support, is, however welcome it is to get money into the hands of families and small businesses, and workers in particular—that is obviously a crucial thing right now as the economy bleeds those billions of dollars in lost activity each week, and it is crucial that we get the support out as soon as possible. But we should recognise that even these bills, the fourth attempt at announcing a package of support, don't properly deal with the cause of these lockdowns or all of the consequences of these lockdowns. Even with the best effort to pass this package of support through the parliament, we will still be leaving the cause of the lockdowns unattended to and some of the consequences unattended to as well. One cause is obviously the extremely slow vaccine rollout, which has us at the tail end of the developed world when it comes to vaccination rates. It is something that those opposite, frankly, should be ashamed of. We should be better than that in this country. We are capable of so much in this country. We are capable of doing amazing things. The Australian people are doing their bit. They need the government to do their bit when it comes to rolling out the vaccines. With the vaccine rollout there have been so many issues which could have been avoided had the government gone about this task in a more competent fashion. So that is something left unattended to by these bills.

Then there is purpose-built quarantine. It beggars belief, frankly, that the budget or anything subsequently hasn't contained more sufficient investment in purpose-built quarantine. We're 19 or 20 months into this pandemic and still there's no purpose-built quarantine in addition to Howard Springs. That's a remarkable failure and another of the causes of these lockdowns.

The bill deals with some of the consequences, it tries to provide some support, but we need to consider that the economy is bleeding hundreds of millions of dollars a day, billions of dollars a week. Most credible economists think that the September quarter will be negative in terms of economic growth. The economy will shrink in September, according to the considered view of the country's most respected economists. Nobody quite knows about the December quarter. The Treasurer himself said that he can't rule out the second recession in two calendar years. We don't know yet, obviously, because we don't know how long Sydney will be locked down and we don't know how long South-East Queensland will be locked down. We don't know what the future lockdown scene around Australia will look like, so we don't yet know what December will look like. But we do know that the economy, for the time being, is in all sorts. So this otherwise welcome support, in my view, won't do enough to stem the bleeding from what's happening right now in the national economy—and I've dealt with some of those numbers provided by the government, the BCA and others.

One of the reasons I will be moving the second reading amendment circulated in my name is that I think it's critical that we acknowledge that the economic costs of this crisis come from the failure on vaccinations. It has meant that businesses and workers are struggling, and that's why the economy is bleeding hundreds of millions of dollars a day. So I will be moving the second reading amendment circulated in my name.

Throughout this pandemic, we on this side of the House have done our best to be constructive and to put forward ideas that we think will be helpful as we try to combat the virus, in the first instance, and the economic consequences of the virus. Throughout all of 2020 and 2021, yes, we've picked up the government when we've thought they were doing a bad job, and, yes, we've mentioned where there were gaps. But overwhelmingly what has guided us has been not the politics of the day but the national interest in combatting this virus. We said the country needed wage subsidies, and the Prime Minister and the Treasurer said they would be dangerous. When they had a change of heart, it was a welcome change of heart. We didn't rub their noses in it, because we wanted the country to have those wage subsidies. There was lots of waste, they didn't do it perfectly, but they implemented wage subsidies. And they were important. When they took the credit for them, we said, 'That is fine.' It was our idea; it was dismissed by those opposite. They had a change of heart; it was good for the country that they did.

That's the approach that guided us and that's the approach that guides us today. When we think about the twin issues that we're dealing with now—the slow rate of the vaccine rollout and the slowing economy—we believe there is something that can be done responsibly to deal with both of those issues at once, and that is a cash incentive for people to get vaccinated. What we have proposed is a $300 payment on the second jab, before 1 December, incorporating everyone who's had it to now, everyone who would get it between now and the start of the policy, everyone who would get it up until 1 December. This is partly a reward for people doing the right thing. We acknowledge that they have all kinds of motivations, all kinds of good motivations, to get vaccinated. This is a reward for doing the right thing. It's an encouragement, an incentive, for people to get vaccinated. The national cabinet's own guidelines talk about providing incentives. We think that this is a good, responsible way to go about it. This will also be a shot in the arm for the economy and a shot in the arm, in a public health sense, to get the vaccine rollout going again. It will be a shot in the arm for families and small businesses and for an economy that desperately needs some help right now. So this would be good from a public health point of view but would also be an important economic stimulus in the system. That's why we think it is important, in addition to the support in this bill, that the government pick up and run with the idea that we have proposed today.

If we get the vaccine rollout right, we give ourselves a chance of getting the economy right. Look at what Chris Richardson from Deloitte Access Economics said today: 'Vaccinations are Australia's path out of the COVID crisis. It's not just the number of jabs that matter; how fast they happen is vital too.' That's absolutely spot-on. He also said, 'We estimate that one job is being saved for every nine extra people getting vaccinated now, rather than later, in New South Wales.' That's bang on. What he's saying there is that getting everyone vaccinated as soon as possible is important, and if we do that we will save more jobs than we would do otherwise.

Of course, as always, before properly contemplating what we're proposing today with this cash incentive for people to get vaccinated, the government come out and make all kinds of criticisms. I just want to deal briefly with three of those. The first one is that they want to talk about what's responsible in terms of spending. Well, what could be more responsible than investing in the public health response in a way that has such a substantial economic dividend—a good dividend for small business and for workers and for local communities? If those opposite want to talk about budget responsibility, we're not taking lectures from them. They are the most wasteful government since Federation when it comes to sports rorts, 'pork and ride', Safer Communities rorts, dodgy land deals and wasting $13 billion on JobKeeper payments for businesses that didn't need it because their profits actually went up. The price tag here, if you want to talk about responsibility, is minor compared to the billions of dollars a week the economy is bleeding because the government can't do its job.

I heard the finance minister on Radio National this morning talking about our policy being 'insulting'. I'll tell you what's insulting: insulting is being at the tail end of the medal tally when it comes to the vaccine rollout because the government can't get its act together. Think of all the sacrifices Australians have made for each other to get ourselves through and to do the right thing by each other. The government is not doing its bit when it comes to vaccines. That's insulting to the Australian people. You want to talk about what's insulting. That's insulting.

They say that these kinds of incentives won't work. Well, let me tell you what's not working: the vaccine rollout is not working and the economy is not working as it should. We're not dealing with the causes and the consequences of these lockdowns. If they think that their rollout is going well, if they think that the economy is going well and that nothing needs to change and there's no need for fresh thinking, then they are from another planet.

I will finish on this point. We've seen this before. We come up with an idea, like we did with wage subsidies, and the government spends a few days, or maybe a couple of weeks, saying it's a dangerous idea. Then, with wage subsidies, they picked it up and ran with it and they took the credit for its success. We genuinely hope they do that again. We expected them to be dismissive today, but we call on them to pick this idea up and run with it, which is offered in good faith. It's a constructive idea. It mirrors what others are doing around the world and mirrors the kind of good thinking that's happening in the business community when it comes to incentives for vaccinations. We encourage the government, we urge the government, we implore the government: please pick this idea up and run with it. The support in this legislation is important, but we can and should be doing more to deal with the causes and consequences of these lockdowns, and we think providing a cash incentive for vaccinations is a good way to go about it.

I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes

(1) only 15 per cent of Australians are fully vaccinated;

(2) businesses and workers are struggling from lockdowns made necessary by the Government's botched vaccine rollout and the lack of purpose-built quarantine facilities; and

(3) these lockdowns are costing the Australian economy hundreds of millions of dollars every day".

See this speech in context