|
senate vote 2020-12-10#11
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2021-01-02 11:56:31
|
Title
Bills — Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Extension of Coronavirus Support) Bill 2020; in Committee- Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Extension of Coronavirus Support) Bill 2020 - in Committee - Don't cut the supplement
Description
The majority voted against- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2020-12-10.151.1) introduced by WA Senator [Louise Pratt](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/louise_pratt) (Labor), which means it failed.
The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 1149 be agreed to.- [According to Senator Pratt](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2020-12-10.151.1), this amendment:
- > *... implores the minister not to cut the coronavirus supplement this Christmas, to announce a permanent increase to the base rate of unemployment payments and to help pensioners and carers.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 5), before item 1, insert:*
- >
- > *1A After Part 1.3B of Chapter 1*
- >
- > *Insert:*
- >
- > *Part 1.3C—Additional economic support payments to address inequities arising out of coronavirus pandemic*
- >
- > *38X Minister must consider what additional payments may be required*
- >
- > *As soon as practicable after this section commences, the Minister must consider whether to do any or all of the following:*
- >
- >> *(a) extend the COVID-19 supplement until 28 March 2021 at the amount of $250 per fortnight, in line with extensions to jobkeeper payments;*
- >>
- >> *(b) better support recipients of the age pension, disability support pension and carer payment who are facing increased costs to protect their health in the face of the coronavirus pandemic;*
- >>
- >> *(c) announce a permanent increase to the base rate of jobseeker payments.*
- ### What does this bill do?
- According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd032), the bill was introduced in order to:
- * *provide for the extension of the Coronavirus Supplement for Youth Allowance (Student and Apprentice) recipients from 1 January 2021 to 31 March 2021;*
- * *prevent any extension of the Coronavirus Supplement and the temporary COVID-19-related waivers from the ordinary waiting period, newly arrived resident’s waiting period and seasonal work preclusion period beyond 31 March 2021;*
- * *provide for the extension of the temporary COVID-19-related qualification rules for Youth Allowance (Student and Apprentice);*
- * *remove provisions relating to the COVID-19-related liquid assets test waiting period and assets test waivers (these waivers ended on 25 September 2020);*
- * *allow for specific provisions of social security law to be temporarily modified by the Minister by legislative instrument in response to the economic and social impacts of COVID-19 until 31 March 2021 (or 16 April 2021 for some of the provisions);*
- * *introduce a discretionary power under the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986 assets tests to extend the temporary absence provisions used in relation to determining a person’s principal home where an individual is unable to return to Australia, for reasons beyond their control, within the allowable absence period; and*
- * *allow for JobKeeper Payment information provided by the Australian Tax Office to Services Australia on or before 28 March 2021 to be used after that date.*
|
|
senate vote 2020-12-10#11
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2021-01-02 11:46:47
|
Title
Description
<p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1149:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 5), before item 1, insert:</p>- The majority voted against
- The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 1149 be agreed to.
<p class="italic">1A After Part 1.3B of Chapter 1</p><p class="italic">Insert:</p><p class="italic">Part 1.3C—Additional economic support payments to address inequities arising out of coronavirus pandemic</p><p class="italic">38X Minister must consider what additional payments may be required</p><p class="italic">As soon as practicable after this section commences, the Minister must consider whether to do any or all of the following:</p><p class="italic">(a) extend the COVID-19 supplement until 28 March 2021 at the amount of $250 per fortnight, in line with extensions to jobkeeper payments;</p><p class="italic">(b) better support recipients of the age pension, disability support pension and carer payment who are facing increased costs to protect their health in the face of the coronavirus pandemic;</p><p class="italic">(c) announce a permanent increase to the base rate of jobseeker payments.</p><p>This implores the minister not to cut the coronavirus supplement this Christmas, to announce a permanent increase to the base rate of unemployment payments and to help pensioners and carers.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>Thank you very much, Senator Pratt. In relation to the amendment on sheet 1149, to apply a further elevated extension of the coronavirus supplement: as the government has been very clear on, the extension of the supplement past 1 January to 31 March 2021 is going to continue. What the legislation before us today seeks to do is to put into effect the legislation that will enable that supplement to continue to be paid, otherwise the payment will expire on 31 December. We have put in place an extension, amongst other things, to this supplement of $150 for the period of 1 January to 31 March. That is in addition to the other provisions that sit within this particular measure to support Australians.</p><p>Whilst we have seen some signs of recovery, and we've seen the jobs market start to improve, we recognise that the Australian economy, although much better than the world economy, is still in recovery mode. That's why the government made the decision that it would continue with this elevated level of payment for people who find themselves still unable to get employment, but at the same time we are also seeking, through other measures, to incentivise people to re-engage with the workforce. As an example, on 25 September, when the original coronavirus supplement was due to expire, we put in place an elevated level of the income-free area. Doing so, we were hoping to encourage Australians who were coming out of a pretty traumatic time; back in March we effectively shut our economy down overnight.</p><p>What we are seeking to do, which is why the government will not be supporting the amendment that's been put forward by the Labor Party, is to strike a balance between making sure we recognise that there is additional support needed out there at the moment to help people through the first part of 2021 and continuing to monitor the economic conditions—particularly the labour market conditions, but more generally the economic conditions—as we move forward, standing side-by-side with all Australians to make sure we walk the pathway of this recovery together. If you have a look at the budget that was brought down back in October, you will see that what we did was put a whole heap of measures in place so that we could support Australians outside of these particular measures that we're talking about today. We believe the most important thing we can do is to provide incentives for people to get work, and the best way we can do that is to make sure we've got a strong economy that is able to create jobs so that people who have found themselves unemployed as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, and those who were already unemployed prior to the pandemic, are able to find a pathway to employment into the future. The government will not be supporting Labor's amendment.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>The Greens will be supporting this amendment. We have an amendment, which I will move later, that increases the supplement to the original $550. In the meantime we will support the $250 amendment.</p><p>During estimates, Minister, you and others made claims that the coronavirus supplement at the higher rate was a disincentive to people finding work. At the Senate inquiry into the bill, Professor Jeff Borland gave evidence to the committee that there was no evidence that the coronavirus supplement had acted as a disincentive for people to move into employment. These are two conflicting pieces of evidence that have been received at estimates and through the Senate inquiry into the bill. Firstly, can you provide the evidence you said you would provide us, that's beyond anecdotal evidence? Secondly, do you acknowledge that the supplement in fact doesn't act as a disincentive for people who are looking for work?</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>Thank you, Senator Siewert. You refer to some commentary that was made by an academic, Professor Borland. In terms of the professor's comments, I will make a couple of remarks before I respond to the final part of your question. Unquestionably, over recent months the labour market has seen unprecedented inflows and outflows as the economy has been impacted by the coronavirus pandemic. Clearly, any findings around recent experiences in the labour market cannot be analogous to or transferrable to normal economic conditions.</p><p>The other thing I would note about the data and the investigation undertaken by Professor Borland, which he referred to in the evidence he gave, is that the investigation almost entirely centred on ABS labour force data. It didn't go to administrative data on payment recipients, as an example. And, as you would well know, Senator Siewert, people on payment are not necessarily counted as unemployed. If they are exempt from mutual obligations or not looking for work, they could be counted as not being in the labour force. We understand that, currently, more than 20 per cent of JobSeeker payment recipients are reporting earnings, meaning that they have some employment and, accordingly, wouldn't be counted as being unemployed. I put that on the record so that we can get some context around the information that Professor Borland was seeking to present as the basis on which he was making his claims.</p><p>In relation to your overarching question on disincentives to work, we were receiving significant information from a number of different places in relation to the impact that higher levels of payments were having on, I suppose, the incentive for people to seek work. And don't get me wrong, Senator Siewert: I understand that, particularly at the height of the pandemic, it was a very traumatic time for people, and I'm sure a lot of people were particularly scared. I acknowledge that. However, as we were coming out of the pandemic, we started to see increasing numbers of businesses coming forward—either themselves or through employer organisations like the Australian Business Council, the Ai Group or ACCI. They were putting on the table data collated from surveys of employer organisations saying that employers were having difficulty finding people to fill jobs they were advertising. The National Skills Commission, for which Senator Cash has responsibility, does a monthly survey. In a survey of 2,000 businesses, 40 per cent reported that they were looking for employees, and the single most significant reason they were unable to get employees was that there were no applications for the jobs. In addition to that, the independent JobKeeper review found that, in effect, the elevated levels of payment were acting almost as a base floor in the labour market.</p><p>So there were a number of factors that contributed to that information. The other statistic that goes to this point is that we saw quite a significant uptick in people applying for jobs as the jobs market was opening. Clearly, we had to have the jobs available, and I think there was a 13.9 per cent increase in the number of job ads in November. We are starting to see people come back into the market.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|