Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the work of the Greens in bringing forward the Social Security Amendment (COVID-19 Supplement) Bill 2020, which is before the chamber, in their private members time. We know that when the Morrison government introduced the coronavirus supplement back in April it was an admission from the government—an admission that took far, far too long; an admission to Australians out of work who were reliant on income support—that JobSeeker payments are simply too low to live on. It's a real shame that it took until then for the government to recognise this. We've had many debates in this chamber about the low rate of Newstart, now JobSeeker, payment. In the debates, we've seen the government simply paper over the issue in its rhetoric because it hasn't wanted to recognise the impossibility of living on Newstart, or JobSeeker. We've known for too long that JobSeeker payments are too low to live on and certainly too low to give someone enough resources to find a job.

In past Senate hearings into the rate of Newstart, we heard stories of people who are homeless, of people needing to choose between purchasing their antidepressant medication or food, of people choosing between their medication or their rent and of people whose experiences of mental illness were caused by their experience of unemployment and living on a low income. We heard stories of families living in unsafe share housing simply because it was all that they could afford. So it's somewhat ironic that during an economic and health catastrophe like coronavirus the supplement granted by the government has lifted people out of poverty. They can afford food, they can afford rent and they can afford medication.

I'm cynical about the fact that the government chose this time to increase the rate of JobSeeker. You'd think the government, while concerned about stimulus in the broader economy to keep consumption up, would have also been deeply electorally concerned about the idea of a million more people—a million more voters—being subjected to an impossibly low income. Many people who are now reliant on JobSeeker are unemployed for the first time in their lives, and they still have life's obligations of rents, mortgages, car loans and school fees. The fall in the rate with the reduction in the supplement, as we know, has already hit households hard. The supplement lifted the payment to about the same rate as a full-time cleaner working in this building for a 38-hour week—the current rate plus the coronavirus supplement with rent assistance. It's worth noting, as Senator Askew highlighted, that you can work part time without losing your eligibility for the supplement until you reach the minimum wage.

It's telling that the government say that they want to keep a focus on motivating people to take the work that is out there equally while they have really failed to address how terribly low the minimum wage is in Australia. I'm not here to say that, at this point in time in the economic cycle, the supplement is too high, but it is a very telling sign of the stagnation of wages in Australia. As we talk about the supplement now, and later this morning when we talk about JobMaker and JobKeeper, we really need to keep in mind the interrelationship of all these payments and the fact that people need a viable income to live on. We know, based on the very real evidence from people's lived experience, that the old rate of Newstart or JobSeeker was trapping people in poverty and acting as a very real barrier to getting work. So while the government asks us to take comfort in the fact that it has not yet ripped away the coronavirus supplement there's nothing that this government has done that gives any comfort to people as they look forward to trying to come out of unemployment and trying to maintain their household income. There's nothing that says that they can rely on a decision from government that won't abandon them on the low rate of $40 a day, a rate under which people couldn't afford the basics. They couldn't afford clothes, transport, training or the basic kinds of tools they needed.

I know from many people I have spoken to—including single parents and students—that the increase in payment meant they were able to pay overdue bills and pay debt. They were able to get fresh food more regularly. They were able to get their children a pair of shoes that fit and that weren't overly worn. They were able to get the car fixed. They were able to replace old and inefficient whitegoods like fridges with more efficient ones and to replace worn furniture and mattresses. I note that they haven't been able to do all of these things in the time that they've experienced this income boost, just some of them. It was a little bit of capacity to catch up. For many people, it gave them a new capacity to actually look for work, because they were able to afford the train fare, to have the car fixed, to eat breakfast or to wear something decent and respectable. It was also a boost to people's mental health and sense of wellbeing instead of a loss of a sense of control over their lives. They realise it's not because there's something innately wrong with or chaotic about them. It's the simple fact of having to make do with nothing that makes life impossible to stay on top of.

It's quite telling to me that we've seen a boost in the consumption of basic goods, such as fruit and vegetables and whitegoods, in Australia's remote community stores. No-one should really be surprised that that has been the case. In many of these communities you have some people with part-time work, some people with CDP payments that supplement their income and some people on ranger income, but you also have people who, in the main, are reliant on their social security payments. That means at this time we have seen a massive boost to and lift in the income within those communities.

So it is simply unacceptable at this point in time that the only indication we get from government is that they will continue the coronavirus supplement for as long as it is needed but that they have a view to returning to the old rate of Newstart or JobSeeker, as it is now known, of $40 a day. We return to the debate that we've had in this chamber where Senator Ruston had been up on her feet saying, 'The best form of income support is a job.' And, indeed, it is. However, in Australia we have the highest rate of unemployment that we have known in a long time. We are in recession. There will be parts of Australia and parts of the economy that are much more adversely affected by the ongoing effects of COVID; for example, our international tourism destinations. Even when domestic parts of the economy are really moving again, in these communities there'll be huge levels of dislocation that can't simply be papered over with: 'The best form of welfare is a job.'

We know that having only $40 a day prevented people from being able to access the work that was there, but there's a deeper question than this. In a country like Australia people should not be forced to live in poverty in this way. Any child should not be living in poverty in our nation. I recall back in the 1980s our much loved Prime Minister Bob Hawke saying no child in Australia 'will need to live in poverty'. He named a year. I can't remember whether it was by 1990. He was, frankly, lampooned for having made that commitment, but the simple fact is that Bob Hawke, in saying no child should live in poverty, put in place key policies that boosted the household incomes of Australia's most impoverished families. As a result of that, we saw a 30 per cent decline in child poverty in this nation. Statistics today will tell you that much of that gain, in reducing child poverty, has now been whittled away by the fact that unemployment payments to disadvantaged families have fallen dramatically and are no longer relative to other household incomes.

Poverty and disadvantage are not inevitable. The coronavirus supplement has shown that there is a policy choice in our nation. Labor have called on the government to raise the rate. We recognise that the rate is manifestly inadequate. We recognise disability pensioners have been left out. We also recognise that the government is failing pensioners at this point in time by not adjusting the deeming rate and not properly indexing the pension. Labor recognises that the JobSeeker rate is simply too low. This government can and should act, irrespective of what this chamber does. This chamber is very limited in its capacity because, frankly, there's a lot of money in this bill. We'd like to be able to pass these bills in the Senate and assert our right to do so; however, the practical reality is that we rely on the government, with the numbers in the lower house, to make this policy change so that it can be implemented by our parliament.

Now that the government have lifted people out of poverty, they should reflect on what it would mean to simply push people back down, back into poverty, because they have given no indication that they are seeking to avoid the very low rate of JobSeeker payment that is simply unviable to live on. It's all very well for the government to say that the best form of welfare is a job, but the simple fact is that the rate of JobSeeker was too low to support people in finding work, in having stable housing and in being able to buy fresh food and medication, all of which are absolute prerequisites for work in our community.

Debate interrupted.