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

I rise to support this motion to disallow part 1 of schedule 2 of the Social Security (Coronavirus Economic Response—2020 Measures No. 14) Determination 2020. This disallowance motion opposes the reintroduction of the liquid assets waiting period test. It is, in fact, identical to the disallowance motion I introduced in October, which we debated but, unfortunately, the Senate did not support. This gives the Senate the opportunity to make sure they support people trying to survive on the JobSeeker payment and on youth allowance payment. It gives the Senate a chance to rethink it and, in my opinion, get it right this time.

The liquid assets waiting period test was initially waived for people on JobSeeker payment, youth allowance and Austudy between March and September this year. We very strongly supported this move. It was the right and sensible thing to do, because people needed to get instant relief when they lost their jobs due to the impact of the coronavirus. They needed the immediate support. They couldn't be left waiting before they could access that support. We supported it and we support the continuation of the waiving of the liquid assets test, because we are not out of this yet. We still have the effects of the pandemic, and now we're in recession. So that sort of support needs to still be in place, particularly for those people who, for example, lose their job because of the changes in the JobKeeper payment. They come off the JobKeeper payment and then, all of a sudden, they're supposed to wait before they can get access to the JobSeeker payment, which in our mind is grossly unfair. Not only is it unfair to those people left hanging, waiting for that; it is also not good for our economy. As I said, this was an essential move in the midst of the pandemic and the recession, and those conditions continue to exist; people are still doing it tough. As I commented earlier this morning, the latest Hunger report from Foodbank shows just how much demand there is out there in the community for their support and services.

On 20 September the government reintroduced this punitive test at a time when millions of Australians are unemployed and underemployed. This means that you now have to serve a waiting period of between one and 13 weeks if you have savings of $5,500 if you are single with no dependants, or savings of $11,000 if you have a partner. At a time when people are still at risk of losing their homes because they either can't pay their mortgage or can't pay their rent, people need to have access to JobSeeker without whittling away their savings. Those savings are going to be needed, because we know, particularly with the cut to the coronavirus supplement, that JobSeeker isn't enough for families get by. It isn't enough for people who are trying to pay their rent, meet their essential bills, spend money in order to find work. It isn't enough. We know that people often rely on their essential savings to supplement the low rate of the JobSeeker payment and youth allowance, especially, as I said, now that the supplement has been cut by $300 a fortnight, and particularly with the uncertainty that still hangs over what the JobSeeker payment plus supplement will be at the end of December.

The government used the spurious argument of 'Let's wait for the labour market before we decide what we're doing with the supplement or whether we're going to increase the JobSeeker rate.' The government knows very well that the JobSeeker rate is too low; that's why they brought in a supplement in the first place. They knew it was untenable for those hundreds and thousands—and now 1.8 million—people who will be unemployed next year to try to exist on $40 a day. What possible reason would you have to wait until you see what the labour market is like, to see whether people can survive on $40 a day again? Expenses are expenses—you still have to pay your rent or your mortgage, put food on the table, pay for your medications, pay for your dental appointments, meet the gap if you aren't lucky enough to go to a GP that bulk-bills, and meet all those other essential payments.

As I said earlier today, we know that poverty, in and of itself, is a barrier to employment. The government is making it even harder for people to do things and to meet the government's own rhetoric. When they say, 'The best form of welfare is a job,' they are making it harder—although I don't actually believe that rhetoric. I don't want people to think the Greens agree with that, because in fact we think we're better off supporting some people in caring roles, for example, or making sure that they are studying so that they can get employment that not only, obviously, supports them but also contributes to our community, because educating and supporting people while they're training helps all of us.

The test makes people wear down their savings and only entrenches poverty and disadvantage. I am deeply concerned that we will see thousands retiring into poverty because the government has made them spend their savings in a job market with very limited opportunities. For older Australians, we know very well that age discrimination is rampant and has not been adequately addressed in this country, and that the training packages don't meet older people's needs. We are in danger of seeing another generation of older Australians retiring into poverty because they've been forced to use up all their savings and they then have to scrape things together on the JobSeeker payment, retiring on the pension in poverty.

This measure puts people on income support payments at further risk of homelessness and of poorer mental health by leaving them in a precarious position with little to no savings, having to survive on the JobSeeker payment. For many people, the only way they can survive on JobSeeker is by supplementing that income with what little savings they have. This could be the difference between hanging in on the mortgage or being able to pay the rent until they find more work, and losing the family home or their rental and having to move and try to find, for example, lower cost accommodation, which we know is very hard to come by.

The reintroduction of the liquid assets waiting period is the latest example of the government going back to its old ways, making our social safety net punitive and harsh. Just today we saw a dorothy dixer, basically, from Senator Hanson to Minister Cash, asking about JobSeeker and mutual obligations. Minister Cash made hay and seemed to delight in the fact that over 250,000 suspensions had occurred. For those who are not au fait with our social security system, a suspension means you don't get paid. You are suspended and then you have to re-engage.

The government themselves know this is a punitive approach because, as I said this morning, in December they are in fact giving people 48 hours grace to reconnect before their payments get suspended—because the government know the impact of that suspension. They know that, for those families that are living hand to mouth, missing a payment at a particular time can be the difference between being able to put food on the table that night or not. That's why they're fixing it—well, not properly fixing it. They should get rid of the whole targeted compliance framework because it is punitive, it doesn't work and it particularly affects people on disability support pension, First Nations people, homeless people—in other words, the people that find it harder to meet some of these mutual obligations. But here we have the government celebrating the fact that there have been a quarter of a million suspensions. And don't forget that is over a period of about five weeks, folks: mutual obligations only came back into effect on 25 September, but already we have a quarter of a million suspensions. The government should hang its head in shame that that many suspensions have occurred. The liquid assets waiting period is going to significantly impact Australians trying to find work.

We know that we are not going to return to pre-pandemic employment figures until 2024, and those figures were nothing to celebrate. There were still too many people unemployed because there wasn't enough work. And the reason that we had so many people out of work is because there are not enough jobs at the moment. So people are being punished through this punitive system because they can't find non-existent jobs.

The government had an opportunity to actually reform our social security system, and that's what people want. People want reform to our social security system. They could have used this time to actually make changes to make sure that we have a system that is supportive; that cares for people; that meets their needs; that doesn't automatically stream people into stream A, for example, where they don't get the help they need; that addresses the age discrimination that we've got in the workforce; and that supports people meaningfully in higher education, instead of passing that higher education bill that went through this place the last time we sat. They could have made changes that enable genuine training, that have employment services that meet people's needs, that are supportive, that aren't punitive, that don't require the employment consultant to suspend you if you haven't turned up as you've missed an appointment or you haven't applied for the number of jobs—it's eight at the moment—because there are no jobs there. And they know very well that all they're doing is ticking the box. Talk to anybody that's been on JobSeeker payment. Particularly when you have to apply for 20 jobs, it is a pointless, soul-destroying exercise because the jobs aren't there but also because they're not qualified for a lot of the jobs they are forced to apply for just so that they've ticked that box.

In New Zealand, they've got studies that show that if you get rejected more than seven times when you're applying for a job it has an impact on your mental health. So, if you are having to apply for 20, imagine what impact that is having on your mental health and wellbeing. Again, the system is being counterproductive because it is a soul-destroying system. I always say to the government members, 'Get on the phone when your constituents ring you up and listen to their experiences with Centrelink, listen to their experiences trying to find work, listen to them in tears because they can't find work and because Centrelink has suspended them again through no fault of their own.' It is a soul-destroying system that defeats its supposed purpose, and that is to support people into employment and to support people in their time of need, and, right now, Australians are in need. Those that are unemployed through no fault of their own because the work isn't there are in need. And what do we do? We're going to make them wait 13 weeks now to get the JobSeeker payment and we're not going to give them any security about whether they're going to go back to $40 a day after Christmas other than vague promises by the Prime Minister when he's asked a question in the other place or the minister for social services at estimates saying it's highly likely that there will be an extension to the supplement. They're not saying what it's going to be or when it's going to come in. Although, we know of course it's got to come in the next two weeks of sitting and this place won't get time to properly review it. It will be rammed through this place with the dagger hanging over our heads, saying: 'If you don't pass this people will not get an increase, so after 31 December they'll be back on $40 a day.' That is not the way to run this country. It's not the way to treat people who are doing it tough right now. I urge the Senate to support this disallowance and do the right thing.