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

I rise tonight to contribute to the debate on the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Bill 2020. This bill marks an important step in pushing forward the supports for Australians during this unprecedented crisis and covers many areas. Some of the measures in this bill that I want to specifically address are related to a lot of the payments that will be made available for Australians in a number of areas. The once-off payment of $750 applies to people receiving FTB A and FTB B, the age pension, DSP, the wife pension, the carer payment, the bereavement allowance, the widow allowance, parenting payments, youth allowance, Austudy, Newstart, the sickness allowance, the special benefit and partner payments. The first payment applies to people who receive income support between 12 March 2020 and 13 April 2020 and will be made available on 31 March. This bill also covers—and I want to speak about this—the second payment that applies to people who receive income support but are ineligible for the coronavirus supplement. It occurs on 13 July.

The bill also provides for a coronavirus supplement of $550 per fortnight to new and existing recipients of the jobseeker payment and some people on youth allowance, the parenting payment, the farm household allowance and special benefit payments. The $550 supplement will be available for an initial six months and, as we know from the bill now, the minister is able to extend the supplement by legislative instrument for a period not exceeding three months. Income support recipients are also exempt from the assets test, the liquid assets waiting period, the ordinary waiting period, the newly arrived residents waiting period and the seasonal work preclusion period. I strongly, strongly welcome the streamlined application process that removes the requirement for employment separation certificates and the need for jobseekers to make an appointment with employment service providers before they can be paid.

As has been articulated by my colleague, the Greens support this bill, but we are worried that it doesn't go far enough given the magnitude of this crisis, as my colleagues and I are addressing in our contributions during this debate. I foreshadow now that I've got a second reading amendment which highlights our concerns about the people being left behind. We are facing an unprecedented crisis that will see hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs. A social safety net must be equipped and ready to support everyone in need of help. I will just add here that we're having to do massive repairs to our social safety net because, over the years, so many great big holes have been slashed right through it.

First, I'd like to go specifically to the $550 supplements and say that, finally, the government has listened to the community and all those living in poverty on Newstart, crying out for an increase to Newstart, for years and years now. This substantial increase to Newstart shows just how serious this crisis is, and I welcome the increase. As someone who has been campaigning for an increase in Newstart, when I heard that it was going to be doubling, I've got to admit that a tear came to my eye—that people will now get access to a payment that at least keeps them out of poverty.

But it shouldn't have taken a crisis like this to show compassion for those surviving on Newstart. Of course, we need a long-term and permanent increase to Newstart. The supplements announced are time limited to six months, with the potential, if the crisis continues, to be renewed. But, after this crisis is over, the government cannot simply drop people that are still on jobseeker payments back to $40 a day. That would be unconscionable. We in this country need to make sure we put in place a permanent increase to Newstart, and I for one commit absolutely to continuing to campaign for that. A lot of people are now saying it is time for the nation to consider a universal basic income. It is times like these that highlight the absolute need for these sorts of protections, and I think that's going to be a live, ongoing debate.

I'm deeply disappointed that a number of key groups of people are missing out on the coronavirus supplement because, apparently, the government doesn't think these people will be hurt by the health crisis and economic downturn. Students will be some of the first to lose their jobs, as casual workers in the gig economy. I'm deeply concerned this is going to encourage students to drop out of their studies, hurting both their studies and the universities and TAFEs they are attending. And why should disabled people on DSP and carers on carer payment miss out on this payment, particularly disabled people who are out of work? Why should they be treated differently to those on the jobseeker payment? One of my colleagues received an email from a constituent over the weekend. This person is on DSP and is immunocompromised. They work part-time at a supermarket. They shouldn't be working during the coronavirus crisis, but they don't have a choice. People on DSP must get the coronavirus supplement to ensure that they are not being put at risk.

I'm also concerned about age pensioners, particularly those that are paying rent and getting Commonwealth rent assistance. We all know that's inadequate, and they will be particularly hurt during this crisis. We need to make sure that those who are on the age pension and renting, who are highly likely to be living in poverty, also have access to the supplement. That's why I'll be moving amendments to extend the supplement to those on youth allowance, Austudy, Abstudy, DSP and the carer payment and age pensioners receiving Commonwealth rent assistance.

This uncertainty over whether they should get it has to end now, not if the government decides, out of the goodness of its heart, to use the provisions in the bill to extend it to those payments. Uncertainty needs to be cleared up right now. We are in a time of great uncertainty, and any uncertainty over potential access to resources, if it can be addressed, needs to be addressed, which is why I'm moving the amendments that I'll be moving in the committee of the whole.

We also strongly support the two one-off economic support payments going out to a wide range of people that receive income support, like veterans and concession card holders. This will provide targeted assistance to those struggling through the crisis. However, I'm extremely disappointed—and, again, we'll be moving an amendment—that those that are holding the low-income healthcare cards, who by the very definition of the description of the card are on low incomes, will not be receiving those payments. It's illogical. It is also unfair that families who are raising children and receiving FTB part A won't receive any additional relief to support those children during this particular time, which is why I'm also moving an amendment to ensure that families with children get a payment for the children through the supplement.

I'm also deeply concerned that the supplement is being tied to the cashless debit card and that those that are trying to survive on the cashless debit card will have 100 per cent of the payment on the card. We think this is unfair and extends the punitive approach that government takes on the cashless debit card. People on the cashless debit card should be able to use the $750 payment in their normal bank account so they can take advantage of cheaper food at markets, if the markets are still there, or in other safe ways—to be able to buy second-hand goods, for example. But, importantly, if those that are surviving on the cashless debit card, with limited cash, aren't able to access the second-hand economy like they usually do, they will have more expenses.

The fact that the government still thinks it's okay to enforce mutual obligations is nonsensical. I have had a number of phone calls into my office about this. I've had lots of social media inquiries and comments as well. The government has improved the flexibility. But, for a start, it doesn't seem to be being applied by some job service providers. As of today, I've had people telling me that people are being required to fill in a form to see if they can get an exemption from turning up to job interviews at their job service provider and it'll be up to the job service provider to determine whether they should come in or not. People are still being required by their job service provider to come in for interviews. A lot of people, believe it or not, don't have access to the internet at home. They don't have smartphones and they don't have computers. They use them in libraries and other social places, where they will no longer be able to attend. So to just say, 'Go online,' does not pass muster. Mutual obligations should be suspended.

On top of that, providers are not going to be able to deal with the massive number of people that are going onto jobseeker allowance. Cut it now. You've already done the right thing, finally, in suspending CDP. Suspend mutual obligations for everybody and make sure the employment providers are able to act in a proactive, supportive way instead of a punitive way. Instead of having them take a compliance approach, get them supporting people to update their CVs, encourage them in more training and things like that, not through mutual obligations, where people are forced to turn up and put themselves and the workers in the job service providers at risk.

Services Australia, I'm pleased to see, have an additional 5,000 staff. I'll be asking questions about how they're to be onboarded and what they will be doing. But a serious question remains: is the government still pursuing robodebts and repayment of debts? I've had contact from someone as late as Friday who'd been contacted by Centrelink about repaying a debt. I want to know how many Centrelink staff are currently pursuing debts, including robodebts—illegal robodebts, by the way—when all those debts should be cancelled, and those staff should be looking after the Australians who are currently at risk from and need support through the crisis we are facing. We've already seen the meltdown of the myGov site that occurred today, misattributed to a cyberattack, when the fact is that the system couldn't deal with the 55,000 people who were trying to access it—and we saw the police called to a Centrelink office in Sydney, I'm told. Those staff should be working to make sure that these payments are delivered.

There are a number of communities that are specifically at risk when it comes to coronavirus. They are particularly vulnerable. I am very pleased to see the measures that have been put in place to make sure, for example, that coronavirus is kept out of remote First Nations communities. That is really, really imperative. But there are many things that still need to be done to support particular people—for example, meeting any extra costs for people with an NDIS plan, and making sure we are meeting the needs of disabled people who will have further costs beyond what some other people will have. It's also really important that we're looking after the mental health of Australians, both those who already have poor mental health and those who go into self-isolation. I hope that the government will seriously consider and support our amendments. I'm also pleased to see not-for-profits can access the stimulus package now; they were left out before. We will continue to monitor that situation.

Finally, I'd like to say to everybody, because we're all going to be staying at home more and we're not going to be seeing many of our loved ones: save up your hugs for when this crisis is past, and then we can hug our loved ones, our friends and our family.