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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Families and Social Services (Senator Ruston) to a question without notice asked by Senator Siewert today relating to the JobSeeker Payment.

Here we go again. The government are refusing to commit to not dropping the JobSeeker payment back to $40 a day. They know that that payment is too low. They know that because they very sensibly put in place the coronavirus supplement as people started to lose their work earlier this year. They knew that people couldn't survive on it and they knew that families couldn't survive on it, so they increased it. But now they're slowly taking away supports before the pandemic and the impact of the pandemic are over. While we're in a recession they're cutting away those supports and going back to their old way of doing business, which is to demonise and punish those who can't find work, despite the fact that, for every one job vacancy, there are 12 people looking for a job.

They would not commit to the fact that they won't drop it back to $40 a day. The minister trotted out the usual tropes and the usual comments: 'People get a whole range of other payments.' The point is that, even with those other payments, people are living below the poverty line. The main payment the majority of people on income support get is the energy supplement of a grand $4 a week. Well, that doesn't even buy you a cup of coffee—not that you can afford a cup of coffee if you're living on that!

I did a quick check of the rents as they are at the moment in Perth. Perth isn't the city with the highest median rent. In Perth, rent is $395 a week. At most, if you're getting Commonwealth rent assistance, which about only half of the people on income support get, you get $185 a week. So you can see that that's nowhere near enough to actually cover the cost of rent.

Senator Polley asked a question around the reduction in the value of the coronavirus supplement come the end of December to $150 a fortnight. There's no justification for how the government came to that level of funding. There was apparently no consideration of the fact that, come January, people will be living further below the poverty line. If you're lucky, you might get some level of rent assistance, but, if you're one of the majority, you'll get your extra $4 a week, which still puts you significantly below the poverty line. There is no way we are out of the woods yet, in terms of employment. We know the government's own figures are predicting that there will be 1.8 million people unemployed. This country already has around three million people living below the poverty line. You would have thought that the government would realise that it's much better to have people coming out of the recovery with enough money in their pocket to feed themselves, to provide for the services and supports needed to overcome the barriers to employment. As I've said on many occasions, the government doesn't seem to be paying attention: poverty is a barrier to employment. The government keeps running out the line that there are plenty of jobs out there. There are not plenty of jobs out there and certainly not for the people that I'm hearing from, from across Australia. They are trying to find work but they can't find work.

One of my supplementaries was about whether, for people who have accessed their super, that is part of the liquid assets that count towards the liquid asset waiting period. And, yes, it is. I got an email just yesterday from a small business asking for help. Unfortunately, that small business hasn't been going real well during the coronavirus period and the pandemic, so that person has had to reapply for JobSeeker. That person had, in fact, got themselves off the payment to run their little business, but, unfortunately, he's not able to make ends meet and has had to reapply for JobSeeker. And guess what's happened? Because that person accessed the only bit of superannuation that they had, they aren't able to go back on the JobSeeker payment as he has a little bit of cash. Instead of the government supporting that person, that person now has to run down their only bit of superannuation, which they've drawn down to try and make their life better. What does this lot do? They make him wait. Not only have they stuffed up the application process by not getting back to this person; they're also now making them wait until the day before Christmas before they can go onto the JobSeeker payment, forcing them to wear down their superannuation payment. That is a farcical, ridiculous situation. Then, when that person does actually get onto the JobSeeker payment, they'll get the much reduced coronavirus supplement of $100 a fortnight.

Happy Christmas, folks! I know that those people that are looking down the barrel of getting another reduction in the payment they get are not going to be having a very good Christmas. They know what's coming on 1 January.

Question agreed to.