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

My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Ruston. Minister, next month, when there will be 1.8 million people on the JobSeeker payment and youth allowance, the government will cut the coronavirus supplement by $300 a fortnight. Last week, Treasury predicted that the effective unemployment rate will hit 13 per cent by the end of the year. How many people are expected to default on their mortgage and be in rental stress when, firstly, the supplement is reduced by $300 a fortnight in September and, secondly, if the JobSeeker rate goes back to $40 a day in December?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Siewert, for your question. I also acknowledge that you have announced your retirement at the end of this session, come the end of this parliament. I acknowledge the great work that you've done on behalf of the people you represent.

In response to the principal part of your question, in relation to changes that are being made to both the JobSeeker and JobKeeper payments, but particularly the JobSeeker payment, at the end of September, you, Senator Siewert, as well as everybody else, were in this chamber back in March when we made the decision to put in place the coronavirus supplement for a period of six months. It was very clear at the time that we were voting for a temporary payment. In July, a decision was made by the government. We believed that the time for the removal of that temporary supplement was not the end of September, so we have sought, through an instrument in this place, to extend until December the elevated level of support to those people who find themselves unemployed past the end of September. At the same time, we have also put in place an increased income-free area, because we recognise that the job market is still very shallow, but it is starting to open up. We want to encourage people who find themselves unemployed as a result of coronavirus to actually take the steps to start re-engaging with the workforce so that we can, hopefully, get them re-employed as quickly as possible. The one thing that we do know—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert on a point of order?

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

I understand that I did a bit of a preamble, but we're now down to 30 seconds left in the time to answer the question. The minister has come nowhere near my question, which was: how many will be defaulting or in rental stress when the supplement is cut?

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, I'll say again: when questions contain a preamble, the minister can be directly relevant to part of a question. That was the second part of your question. The minister is being directly relevant to other parts of your question, in my view. A minister can be directly relevant to assertions and a preamble to a point made at the end of a longer question. That is within the standing orders. I can't direct a minister how to answer a question, nor which part of it to answer.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Mr President. And as I said, Senator Siewert, past the end of September we are intending to continue to provide elevated levels of support to people who find themselves unemployed, whether they were unemployed before the coronavirus hit or unemployed as a result of the COVID pandemic. We on this side of the chamber understand that we have a responsibility to balance providing the level of elevated support people need with making sure we provide the incentive for them to re-engage with the workforce, because the best thing we can do is get them back into work. (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, a supplementary question?

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

I'd first like to thank the minister for her comments about me retiring at the end of my term. I'd just like to reassure the chamber that I'll be here for quite a while to hold you to account. The latest research from ANU shows that the coronavirus supplement almost eliminated poverty amongst JobSeeker recipients, and the reduction of the JobSeeker payment will mean that 740,000 people are pushed into poverty. Minister, how is this conscionable?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've no doubt that you'll continue to hold us to account in the time you have left here, Senator Siewert. In relation to your question around the elevated levels of support that were put in place back in March by this government, it was clear at the time that we recognised that we had before us an absolutely unprecedented situation, and we put in place these supports to help Australians to get from one side of the coronavirus pandemic to the other. Clearly as the pandemic has rolled out we have seen different things happen in different states, but the one thing we have started to see is that in the majority of Australia our economy is starting to open up again and we're starting to see jobs created. It is the responsibility of government, as I said before, to manage the balance between providing elevated levels of support in recognition of the fact that people are still doing it quite tough as a result of the coronavirus pandemic and, at the same time, making sure that people understand that they need to re-engage with the workforce, because getting a job is the best way out. (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, a final supplementary question?

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

Minister, at the COVID hearing not long ago, you said that 'to make any changes to the ongoing structural nature of our welfare system when we're in such a state of uncertainty would be completely irresponsible.' How is it irresponsible to guarantee that you won't drop people back into poverty, on $40 a day?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think everybody in this chamber recognises that we are in quite unprecedented times, and we are still in them. There is absolutely no doubt that the end of this coronavirus pandemic—when it's going to end and what it's going to look like when it ends—remains something we are unsure of. Therefore, the government has remained flexible, and the temporary nature of the provisions we put in place recognise the constantly changing conditions this pandemic is presenting to the Australian economy. You only have to look at Victoria to realise that we have a particular set of circumstances down there, and we've seen the announcements today in aged care, to directly deal with those particular instances. But what we have to do as a government is manage our way through this pandemic, putting in place the provisions that are required at the time. When we get to a situation where we understand what the new normal looks like, that will be the time to make structural change.