|
senate vote 2020-12-10#16
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2021-01-02 10:39:40
|
Title
Bills — Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Extension of Coronavirus Support) Bill 2020; Consideration of House of Representatives Message- Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Extension of Coronavirus Support) Bill 2020 - Consideration of House of Representatives Message - Do not insist on amendments
Description
<p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>I move:</p><p class="italic">That the committee does not insist on its amendment to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.</p>- The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2020-12-10.241.2) introduced by SA Senator [Simon Birmingham](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/simon_birmingham) (Liberal), which means it succeeded. The motion was:
- > *That the committee does not insist on its amendment to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.*
- Because this vote was successful, the bill can now become law. That is, both levels of parliament have agreed to the bill in its current form.
- ### 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.*
<p>In doing so, I emphasise that the government has brought forward this legislation to this chamber and to this parliament to extend an additional support mechanism that we put in place as part of the economic lifeline that we have provided to Australians through the COVID-19 pandemic. This has been an important part of the comprehensive response provided by our government to this global pandemic. In doing so, it's provided assistance that, from the very outset, our government made clear would be targeted, temporary and proportionate. We have stuck to those principles to guide us through the crisis. In doing so, we have been able to provide the greatest levels of support at the greatest times of need. But it is important to recognise that the scale of government intervention put in place in the depths of the pandemic is not sustainable for the long term. That is why we were clear at the outset that measures would be temporary. They would be targeted and they would be proportionate. In relation to the JobSeeker supplement and the JobKeeper payments, we have been true to those initial principles that we outlined as a government. We have ensured that, in being proportionate, we have adjusted them—gradually, at stages, over time. We have always indicated that they would be temporary. The measures brought forward here have a clear end date of 30 March. That is no secret; that is what the government said when we announced this extension. We brought it transparently to the chamber.</p><p>The amendments that the House of Representatives has disagreed with would provide for an enduring ability of the minister to continue the supplement. It is not the government's belief that that enduring power is necessary, and certainly not that it need sit in the hands of the minister in that way. This parliament will have appropriate powers, as it always does, in relation to legislation. We put in place extraordinary powers for ministers in the depths of the global pandemic, during those extraordinary and dark days. Australia is in a far better place right now, which enables us to be here, in person, debating these things, with parliament having resumed its sittings, in the ordinary, normal course of events. In these times, it's not necessary for the minister to maintain such powers in an enduring way. We said that these measures would last until 30 March. That's what our legislation does. That's what we're standing by. That is why the government has not accepted the Senate's amendments.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>Well, what an extraordinary contribution, but not as extraordinary as the statement of reasons. Everybody, hold on to your seats! Mr Morrison wants us to not insist on the amendments because he says it is important to respect the parliament. It is important to respect the parliament and to deal in primary legislation rather than regulation. It is important to respect the parliament! I've got two names in response to that. The first is Angus Taylor—a bloke who misleads the House of Representatives, relies on—</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>I have a point of order.</p> <p class="speaker">James McGrath</p><p>Senator Birmingham?</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>Senator Wong well knows to refer to members of the other place appropriately.</p> <p class="speaker">Penny Wong</p><p>That says something about the debating style, doesn't it? You can defend on a technicality but not on the ethics, because you know this bloke relied on a forged document and doesn't have the decency to front up. But he's still there. That's respect for the parliament under Scott Morrison. Do you want to know the second name? It's Senator Richard Colbeck—censured by this chamber, turns his back on the Senate chamber when he's asked to explain his role as minister when so many Australians have died. And now we have the representative of the Prime Minister coming in and doing Mr Morrison's bidding, obediently trotting in here and saying, 'We have to respect the parliament, so we don't want you to insist on the amendment.'</p><p>What this really shows us is the pettiness of this Prime Minister. What it really shows us is the pettiness of this Prime Minister. He doesn't want to compromise. This is a provision—I'll say it again—that the minister told the opposition she had no problem with. I accept that they've been come over the top of—your Senate team. I accept that those in the PMO who advised Mr Morrison have said, 'No, we can't possibly compromise.' But the reality is that she knew the truth of it. She knew the truth of it—that the amendment that was moved by this chamber simply put the minister in the position she was in already, whereby she had the discretion to extend the supplement. That's the pettiness of the Prime Minister.</p><p>He's a bloke who pretends to be the daggy dad. But you know what he actually is? He's a bloke who never holds a hose. He's the bloke who never holds a hose. He's the bloke who never takes responsibility—never takes responsibility. It's always about the optics and the photo shoot and the headline and the story, and never about the reality. We see that here again today. We see that here again this evening, where he can't even cop an amendment that his minister knew was acceptable because he doesn't want to have a loss. Really? That's what we want the leader of the country focusing on? This message and these reasons for the decision demonstrate very clearly the sort of man that leads this country—prepared to talk about respect for the parliament but not prepared to demonstrate it.</p><p>I say to the Senate we should vote to insist on this amendment. I will also say—and the Australian Greens know; I made this clear to them before—we had a very productive discussion with the government. I'll come back to that. We have taken a responsible approach to this legislation because we believe we understand how many millions of Australians are relying on the continuation of these payments. So, unlike Mr Morrison, we're not going to play games.</p><p>I do want to say something about the shemozzle that we've seen in these last few hours, where the government belatedly realised it did not have the numbers to defeat two amendments and was unable to get those resolved. It was in this context that the discussions were had, where the minister made it very clear that she could live with this amendment but not with the other one. To her credit, she did what was requested of her. She explained to the chamber—to the Australian Greens and to the Australian Labor Party—why the government could not live with the second amendment. It was a shemozzle, and the government should have sorted it out earlier and should have explained it earlier; it should have made sure that it could actually run the procedure and the numbers. But, leaving that all aside, we didn't make a big song and dance about it, and we tried to find a way through because I understood what she was saying and so did Senator Siewert. How is this chamber met by the Prime Minister in the face of that cooperation? He's given us the proverbial finger. Let's be clear, he has. This statement of reasons makes it really clear: there is no substantive reason why the government can't accept this amendment that has no practical effect. The minister knew that and she told the truth. The only effect is on the Prime Minister's, Mr Morrison's, ego.</p><p>The fact that he's prepared to do this, in this way, with a bill that is about support for so many Australians, says something about his character. It says something about what his priority is, because it isn't the people who are supported by the bill. It's himself. And that's the consistent theme, isn't it? It's always about him—how he looks, the spin bike, the daggy shorts, the chicken coop. All these great picfacs are always about him, not about the people we're supposed to be helping and representing, and, in this bill, not about the people who are doing it tough. It is pathetic. It is a pathetic display—first, an incompetent display from the government, but we all make mistakes; worse, a display of pettiness and lack of character from the man who's supposed to lead the nation. 'I don't hold a hose, mate'—that's who he is.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>This legislation, we know, is important. But it's also important that the minister is provided with the measures that may be necessary to deal with what we still don't know may happen. We aren't out of this pandemic yet, and those of our fellow Australians who are doing it tough at the moment certainly aren't out of trouble. We're still suffering from a recession. This is the very least the government can do. We aren't out of this pandemic yet, and those of our fellow Australians who are doing it tough at the moment certainly aren't out of trouble. We're still suffering from a recession. This is the very least the government can do.</p><p>They won't raise the JobSeeker payment. They keep saying, 'Oh, let's wait to see what's happening with an economic recovery.' You don't actually need to know what's happening there, because we already know the JobSeeker payment is not adequate, and the government knows that. Those who were listening earlier would have heard the government tie themselves in knots trying to explain why they brought in the coronavirus supplement while denying that the JobSeeker payment of $40 a day was inadequate. They refused to acknowledge that. They know very well that the JobSeeker payment is inadequate. There is absolutely no excuse not to raise it now. If you need to do a top-up, do a top-up later on, in case something happens down the line. But we know we are never going to come to a situation in this country where 40 bucks a day is enough. It simply is not. So what this amendment did was ensure, just in case. But no. The government wouldn't do that, because apparently the government are always right. Well, no, you're not. You're not right on the cashless debit card, and you're not right on this.</p><p>I'll remind everybody that this bill actually cuts the supplement. Do you think I want to support a bill that cuts the supplement? Not really. I moved an amendment to keep it where it was, at $550 a fortnight. But we're supporting it because we don't want to see people going into Christmas and New Year having to survive on 40 bucks a day. So I'm sucking it up, as are the Australian Greens, when what I'd like to do is knock it back into the ballpark and make you come back with some better payments. That's what we want. We want a permanent increase to JobSeeker.</p><p>So it breaks my heart that we're having to sit here to support a bill that I know will make people live in poverty if they're trying to survive on this. We know it's dropping people down to below the poverty line as we come up to Christmas. Happy Christmas! We know that the January period is one of those periods when essential services, emergency relief and financial counselling are in demand, yet the government are cutting the supplement. They dress it up in fancy words: 'No, we're extending it, because it was going to run out.' No. Australians know that, come 1 January, the money in their pockets will be reduced by another 100 bucks. As we run up to March, when people are going to start not being able to pay their rent and they're going to start having to default, we are going to have a problem here. We still don't know what's going to happen with the pandemic. We still don't know what's happening with the vaccine. We don't know the future, which is the point the government's made. Yet what you're doing is cutting off an option to give the minister the power to deal with a situation that may arise.</p><p>The government knows that we are not going to deny people money in the run-up to Christmas and into next year. We can't possibly. It's inconceivable that we would not support at least some money going to those people in Australia doing it tough. This is an appalling way to treat this Senate. It was a very reasonable amendment. We supported it because it was a reasonable amendment, and it's appalling for the other place to just kick it back. The Prime Minister has effectively kicked sand in our faces—that's what it's about—while they do over so many Australians by dropping them into poverty. Australians who are trying to survive on it will be thinking about that over Christmas: 'How are we going to make our rent payments? How are we going to pay the mortgage? How are we going to continue to put food on the table?' They'll start going without medications and skipping meals again, like they used to on the 40 bucks a week that JobSeeker was. People will be living in poverty. Over a million children will be dropped into poverty or further into poverty.</p> <p class="speaker">Opposition Senators</p><p>Opposition senators interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">James McGrath</p><p>Order on the left!</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>This is not good legislation, but we have to support it because we don't want to see people literally go hungry.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|