Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Hansard source

It is a great truism, as a great British Prime Minister once said, that a week is a long time in politics, but—my!—how time flies when are you in the midst of a pandemic. Everyone was a bit punch-drunk by the speed with which this COVID-19 outbreak has spanned the globe and by the appalling human toll the disease has already had. It was only over 2½ months ago that the Australian government was beginning to react to the news of a coronavirus epidemic in China. On 23 January, some weeks after the first report of the virus outbreak, the government moved to apply biosecurity screening to direct flights to Australia from Wuhan, the epicentre of the disease. However, those flights immediately ceased because the Chinese government imposed a blanket quarantine on Wuhan and the Hubei province, with no flights in or out. Although the epidemic had already spread across China, flights from other parts of the People's Republic of China continued—some 40 flights a day to Australia at that time, including flights from Hong Kong.

A week later, from 1 February, the Australian government banned the entry of foreign nationals who had been in China for two weeks prior to arrival in Australia. Australian citizens arriving from China were also asked to self-quarantine. At that point, the Prime Minister was insistent that Australia was well ahead of the game. He expressed confidence that the consequence here would be modest, saying 'we're a big country' and that people should 'go about their business in the normal way'. In talking points issued to coalition MPs and senators on 4 February, the government focused on its desire to further lower taxes, expand trade and keep the budget strong. It was business as normal. With regard to the coronavirus, the government declared Australia was ready.

How ready were we? I think the answer to that question is that we weren't very ready at all. I don't make that observation as a partisan point. We do now have the benefit of some hindsight, but it is the case that the pandemic risk really hadn't received the attention it deserved. Governments didn't properly manage the risk, nor adequately plan for something that numerous health experts and even the likes of Bill Gates warned was inevitable. Successive Australian governments were well aware of the risk of pandemic, whether a new form of influenza or another disease, such as is the case with COVID-19, and broad plans had been drawn up following the SARS outbreak of 2002-04, but we failed to flesh out those plans. They were left as very high-level frameworks. We failed repeatedly to test them and we failed to develop our understanding of the likely economic impacts of the measures that would be required to slow and reduce the human toll of a pandemic.

The only full-scale national pandemic exercise was Cumpston 06, which tested a short-term government response to a novel influenza virus pandemic, and Sustain 08, which explored maintaining a whole-of-government response over an extended period. These two exercises, which were conducted on a whole-of-government basis and fully involved states and territories, were held 14 and 16 years ago. That's right; a decade and a half ago. Although some smaller tabletop exercises have been carried out since within the Health and Home Affairs portfolios, and some response capabilities were tested with the 2009 H1N1 influenza outbreak, pandemic planning and preparation faded. It was well and truly relegated to the backburner. If anyone doubts this, they only need to look at the government's response to the one recent parliamentary committee report on these issues. In March 2013, a House of Representatives committee tabled a report entitled Diseases have no borders, a detailed examination of health issues across international borders. The terms of reference for that inquiry noted:

Growing global interconnectedness and close proximity to regional neighbours increases Australia's exposure to imported infectious diseases and to the risk of epidemic or pandemic disease outbreaks.

The committee made a number of recommendations aimed at improving Australia's ability to respond to international disease outbreaks, including that the Australian government undertake a large-scale pandemic exercise across relevant Commonwealth, state and territory government agencies.

Senators will be familiar with the long delays before government responses to committee reports—we've all seen that—and in this case it was no different. There was a federal election and a change of government in 2013. That said, it is a disgraceful fact that it took the current government one month short of five years—that is, until August 2018—to respond to that committee report. The government's response did eventually come and included some useful information, but a five-year delay was inexcusable and demonstrated a clear failure to properly prioritise a vital public health issue. Had the government engaged properly, had the government planned in greater depth an exercise to explore all aspects of potential scenarios, then we might not have been forced into the extraordinary improvisation of the past two months.

Back in early February, by its own admission, the government had no idea what the economic impact would be. The Treasurer said it was impossible to say what the economic consequences would be, but it should have been possible, even then, to model the likely impacts of border closures, quarantine, the shutdown of many industries and social distancing. Some people, including me, have compared the current challenges to those of a war. The problem is that, if this is the equivalent of a war, then the government had no real mobilisation plan. It's all been improvisation—vast improvisation certainly, but improvisation nonetheless. Had government engaged in proper preparation and planning, it would not be scrambling now, as it is, to gather information on the ability of Australian companies to supply personal protective equipment and the ingredients for a COVID-19 testing kit. In saying that, I don't wish to be overly critical or take unfair advantage of hindsight. The government does deserve credit for its response to the pandemic and for the extraordinary budget measures it has brought to the parliament, but it should not have been flying quite so blind and it should certainly not be unmoored from parliamentary oversight and accountability.

Before the Senate today, we have the framework for the government's $130 billion JobKeeper wage rescue plan to support some six million Australians. This is an enormous commitment over the next six months. It is an extraordinary measure to deal with an unprecedented shutdown of a large portion of our economy—something that will inevitably lead to a recession. It is likely to be a severe recession; perhaps even a depression. Among specific measures before us is the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Bill 2020, the framework for the creation and implementation of the JobKeeper payment. The payment is a sensible response to assist employers to retain staff and assist employees to retain a job as part of the economy is forced into hibernation.

However, the framework removes the ability for the parliament to really make sure this economic response package is fully inclusive. It spectacularly fails at being fully inclusive. It misses support for fundamentally important industries and workers. I will go to a few examples.

The Australian agricultural industry relies heavily on migrant workers to pick our seasonal fruit for both export and local markets. With the picking season commencing in autumn and continuing to summer, it is a long season of steady work. Migrant workers on temporary visas are not included, so at the moment they are in limbo. They can't work, they can't go home and their finances are quickly running low.

Also locked out from the financial support are those people who have come here seeking a fair go. In the true spirit of the Prime Minister's mantra, he says, 'If you're having a go, you'll get a go.' There's a local cafe owner in Adelaide. His cafe is a family affair that has been highly successful for almost five years. As a law-abiding person, he tried to alter his dine-in cafe to a takeaway cafe, but it just wasn't doing well and he had to close the doors and lay off his staff. Because he's on a temporary visa, he doesn't meet the requirements for the JobKeeper program. He wants to, and intends to, reopen the cafe; he just can't keep it open for now. Where's the fair go for him? What about casual workers with less than 12 months of employment? Where's their fair go?

Central Alliance's amendments—and I foreshadow moving two amendments—will extend the JobKeeper payment to the temporary workforce, whether they are migrants or casuals, with three months employment. The Prime Minister says his aim is to get as many people and businesses over the bridge to the other side. He should ensure no-one is left behind to fend for themselves. Right now, we are in this struggle together and we need to get through to the recovery phase together.

Those concerns aside, these are, without doubt, vital measures. They are the economic equivalent of an oxygen tent. The big questions to come are how sustainable such measures will be and what will follow them. The pandemic modelling released by the government yesterday leaves no doubt that, in the absence of a vaccine or effective therapeutic treatment, we are in this for the long haul. It's not just the peak of the epidemic curve that counts; also, the breadth of the curve plays a critical part in this.

Continued border controls, quarantine, isolation and a significant level of social distancing, with the consequent restrictions on our economy and on many people's livelihoods, are likely to be of lengthy duration. They will likely extend well beyond the six month time frame the government is presently working to. The Prime Minister acknowledged this issue at his press conference yesterday, but the government is only just starting to come to grips with this wicked problem.

In the months to come, the Senate, through the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19, will need to keep a very close eye on the evolution of the government's response. We will need to conduct that scrutiny in a fair, open-minded and non-partisan way. But we will also need to pursue that oversight duty with absolute rigour and a preparedness to test the fundamentals of government policy in action. We will need to look very closely at all aspects of the government's response so far, with the benefit of hindsight—because that's how lessons are learned. We will need to pay very close attention to future steps, especially those critical decisions about how to move our economy out of hibernation without sparking new epidemic flare-ups. Rigorous oversight will be absolutely critical in relation to what may be very controversial government decisions.

In the meantime, I conclude my remarks by again reminding the Senate and other listeners how time flies in these extraordinary circumstances. Only four weeks ago, the Prime Minister was still actively encouraging people to go to the footy; now, social-distancing rules ban non-essential gatherings of more than two people. Where we will be in another month's time? In six months time? In a year's time? No-one can be sure. But all Australians listening to this debate should be assured: one way or another, the Senate will be here and we will be doing our duty to help out.