The SPEAKER (09:31): I present report No. 22 of the Selection Committee relating to consideration of committee and delegation business and private members' business on Monday 9 November 2020. The report will be printed in the Hansardfor today and the committee's determinations will appear on the Notice Paper. Copies of the report have been placed on the table.

The report read as follows—

Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation business and of private Members' business

1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 27 October 2020.

2. The Committee deliberated on items of committee and delegation business that had been notified, private Members' business items listed on the Notice Paper and notices lodged on Tuesday, 27 October 2020, and determined the order of precedence and times on Monday, 9 November 2020, as follows:

Items for House of Representatives Chamber (10.10 am to 12 noon)

COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION BUSINESS

Presentation and statements

1 Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts:

Inquiry into Australia ' s creative and cultural industries and institutions.

The Committee determined that statements may be made—all statements to conclude by 10.20 am.

Speech time limits—

Dr Gillespie —5minutes.

Next Member speaking—5 minutes.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins]

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1   Ms Steggall: To present a Bill for an Act to establish a national climate change adaptation and mitigation framework, and to establish the Climate Change Commission, and for related purposes. (Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) Bill 2020)

   (Notice given 22 October 2020.)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

2   Ms Steggall: To present a Bill for an Act to create duties to consider climate change impacts and to deal with consequential and transitional matters arising from the enactment of the Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) Act 2020, and for related purposes. (Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020)

   (Notice given 22 October 2020.)

Presenter may speak to the second reading for a period not exceeding 10 minutes—pursuant to standing order 41. Debate must be adjourned pursuant to standing order 142.

3   Mr Thompson: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that Wednesday, 11 November 2020 marks Remembrance Day, formerly known as Armistice Day, when the guns fell silent during the First World War;

(2) recognises:

(a) that since the First World War, almost two million men and women have served in our defence forces; and

(b) the more than 102,000 defence personnel who have tragically died during, or as a result of, warlike service, non-warlike service and certain peacetime operations; and

(3) acknowledges the service and sacrifice of all those who served in our defence force and the families that supported them by encouraging all Australians to observe one minute's silence at 11 am on 11 November 2020.

   (Notice given 21 October 2020.)

Time allotted—20 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Mr Thompson—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

4   Ms Stanley: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges south-western Sydney:

(a) is one of the key contributors to economic growth in the Australian economy;

(b) is in need of investment to support jobs and growth;

(c) is home to diverse and endangered species;

(d) has a population of approximately 700,000, which is over 9 per cent of the NSW population; and

(e) provides over $30 billion in gross regional product to the NSW economy;

(2) notes that south-west Sydney is chronically underfunded and under-resourced in the following areas:

(a) road infrastructure and public transport;

(b) hospitals and health services;

(c) communications services; and

(d) schools and universities;

(3) acknowledges that investment in south-west Sydney is required to support jobs creation; and

(4) calls on the Government to provide the necessary support to:

(a) encourage business growth;

(b) encourage jobs growth; and

(c) build infrastructure to sustain growth.

   (Notice given 6 October 2020.)

Time allotted—20 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Ms Stanley—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

5   Mr Sharma: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) 4 November 2020 marks 25 years since Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated at an anti-violence rally in support of the Oslo peace process;

(b) a condolence motion for Prime Minister Rabin was moved in this House on 23 November 1995 by the Prime Minister, Mr Keating, and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Howard, reflecting the deep sense of loss and shock all Australians felt at the news of Mr Rabin's assassination;

(c) Yitzhak Rabin served as Israel's Prime Minister on two separate occasions, from 1974 to 1977 and then again from 1992 until his death in 1995, in addition to being a decorated general who led Israel's armed forces during the 1967 Six Day War and served as Israel's Ambassador to the United States; and

(d) Prime Minister Rabin promoted peace and co-existence in a turbulent time and region, concluding the Oslo Peace Accords with the Palestinians in 1993, for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and the Israel-Jordan Peace treaty in 1994; and

(2) affirms Australia's ongoing commitment to Mr Rabin's vision of a peaceful two-state solution to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, mutually negotiated and agreed by the Israelis and the Palestinians.

   (Notice given 22 October 2020.)

Time allotted—20 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Mr Sharma—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

6   Mr J. H. Wilson: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes:

(a) 6 and 9 August 2020 will mark, respectively, the 75th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki;

(b) by the end of 1945, it is estimated that 213,000 people had died in those communities, and the legacy of chronic and terminal illness, stillbirths, birth defects, survivor discrimination, and acute environmental harm and contamination continues to the present day;

(c) 2020 also marks the 50th anniversary of the coming into force of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty;

(d) the ongoing work of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, an initiative founded in Australia that received the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for advancing a Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons; and

(e) since 2017, 81 countries have signed and 38 have ratified the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which will enter into force after the 50th ratification;

(2) further notes with concern:

(a) a number of recent developments that weaken the international system of weapons monitoring, impair progress towards nuclear disarmament, and undermine agreements to prevent nuclear proliferation and explosive testing;

(b) the fact that the hands of the Doomsday Clock have been moved to within 100 seconds of midnight, representing the greatest yet marked risk of nuclear conflict; and

(c) a 2019 report by the United Kingdom Parliamentary Committee on International Relations that warns the risk of nuclear weapons is now as great as it was during the height of the Cold War; and

(3) calls on the Government to:

(a) voice its concern about the deterioration in the multilateral framework for achieving nuclear disarmament and for minimising the risk of nuclear conflict;

(b) voice its concern at indications the United States:

(i) intends to withdraw from the Treaty on Open Skies;

(ii) may allow the START agreement to expire in February 2021; and

(iii) has abandoned the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty; and

(c) increase our diplomatic focus and the resources needed to play a greater role in global efforts to reduce conflict, build regional and international cooperation, resist the further proliferation of nuclear weapons, and progress their, ultimate elimination.

   (Notice given 15 June 2020.)

Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon

Speech time limits—

Mr J. H. Wilson—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

Items for Federation Chamber (11 am to 12 noon)

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Notices

1   Dr Freelander: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport held an extensive inquiry into the use and marketing of electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers in Australia, throughout the 45th Parliament;

(2) notes that the inquiry did not find, nor recommend, that e-cigarettes and personal vaporisers be considered to be 'health products', nor that they reduced harm to users;

(3) further notes that e-cigarettes and personal vaporisers:

(a) are not universally considered to be an effective tool in helping smokers to quit smoking or reduce consumption of nicotine products;

(b) may be considered to be a 'gateway' into the consumption of nicotine, tobacco and nicotine products; and

(c) involve the use of flagrant advertising and enticing flavours, which allure consumers to consume their substance;

(4) notes that the Senate is considering holding another superfluous inquiry into the use of such products, despite the House having held an extensive inquiry in the previous parliament;

(5) condemns any attempt from vested interests to promote the use of e-cigarettes and personal vaporisers within this parliament; and

(6) concurs with the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport in its findings, namely that independent experts at the Department of Health, the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Therapeutic Goods Administration are well-placed to review the use and regulation of electronic cigarettes and personal vaporisers.

   (Notice given 3 September 2020.)

Time allotted—15 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Dr Freelander—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 3 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

2   Mrs McIntosh: To move:

That this House:

(1) acknowledges the role that Australian manufacturing businesses continue to play in ensuring our nation has vital supplies, including food and personal protective equipment, especially during the pandemic when global supply chains were disrupted;

(2) recognises that a vibrant manufacturing sector is important for our economic security; and

(3) congratulates Australian manufacturing businesses on their ongoing efforts to adapt to the current circumstances, keep people in jobs, support local supply chains and contribute to our national economic recovery.

   (Notice given 6 October 2020.)

Time allotted—30 minutes.

Speech time limits—

Mrs McIntosh—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

3   Mr Wilkie: To move:

That this House:

(1) notes that:

(a) the Tasmanian public health system is fundamentally broken and that is directly resulting in prolonged illnesses and avoidable deaths;

(b) this dire situation is despite the Tasmanian health system receiving more funding from the Commonwealth Government than the national average;

(c) independent Tasmanian public policy analyst Martyn Goddard estimates that, since the Tasmanian Government came to power in 2014, health and hospitals have been short-changed by $2 billion of GST money being diverted from Tasmania's public health system;

(d) Tasmanian hospitals are the worst-performing in the country, despite heroic efforts from staff;

(e) the latest state government figures show that 11,342 people are waiting for elective surgery—the most urgent category one patients, who should be treated in 30 days, have to wait an average of 130 days for their procedure;

(f) mental health services are another significant area of chronic under-investment, resulting in poorly treated and untreated illnesses causing great suffering and sometimes suicides; and

(g) there is precedence for the Commonwealth Government to intervene in the Tasmanian health system, for instance the take-over and hand-back of the Mersey Hospital; and

(2) calls on the Commonwealth Government to refer Tasmania's failing health system to the Productivity Commission to:

(a) conduct a public inquiry to identify the root causes of Tasmania's failing health system; and

(b) formulate a solution to fix the systemic and cultural problems within the Tasmanian health system.

   (Notice given 27 October 2020.)

Time allotted—remaining private Members' business time prior to 12 noon

Speech time limits—

Mr Wilkie—5 minutes.

Other Members—5 minutes. each.

[Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 3 x 5 mins]

The Committee determined that consideration of this should continue on a future day.

THE HON A. D. H. SMITH MP

Speaker of the House of Representatives

28 October 2020

Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Education) (09:32): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020 will provide stronger protections for academic freedom and freedom of speech in Australia, by giving effect to recommendations from the 2019 independent review into freedom of speech in higher education undertaken by the Honourable Robert French AC, former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia.

The bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003 (HESA) to:

provide a new definition of academic freedom that enshrines in law principles of freedom of expression that are an essential part of the life of our universities, for both academic staff and students;

substitute the existing term 'free intellectual inquiry' in relevant provisions with the terms 'freedom of speech' and 'academic freedom', to align the language of those provisions with Mr French's proposed model code for the protection of freedom of speech and academic freedom in Australian higher education providers.

In replacing 'free intellectual inquiry', the amendments appropriately distinguish freedom of speech as a common freedom from elements of freedom of speech and intellectual inquiry that are central and distinctive aspects of academic freedom. Key characteristics of academic freedom are set out in the new definition.

The Australian government is strongly committed to supporting academic freedom and freedom of speech in Australian universities. Our universities are critical institutions where ideas are debated and challenged. We must ensure they are places that protect all free speech, even where what is being said may be unpopular or challenging.

That is why, in November 2018, following reports of concerning incidents on university campuses across Australia, I announced the independent review into freedom of speech, undertaken by Mr French.

Mr French's review was a cooperative and consultative project that respected Australian universities' long held and deeply valued autonomy. As Mr French observed in his review: even a limited number of incidents seen as affecting freedom of speech may have an adverse impact on public perception of the higher education sector. I released the final report in April last year and announced that the government had accepted all his recommendations.

The central recommendation was adoption of a model code on freedom of speech and academic freedom across the higher education sector. Consistent with this approach, Mr French recommended amendments to the Higher Education Support Act and the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) legislative instrument to align this legislation with the model code.

The amendments I am introducing today are one of three key elements in the government's commitment to strengthen protections for academic freedom and freedom of speech in Australian higher education.

In addition, we are working with and supporting universities to align their policy frameworks with Mr French's model code.

The French model code sets out a framework for universities that protects freedom of speech and academic freedom as paramount values of Australian universities.

All universities have undertaken to adopt the model code, in a way that is consistent with their individual legislative frameworks.

In August 2020, to support their efforts in implementing the code, I announced a review by lawyer and former Vice-Chancellor of Deakin University Professor (Emeritus) Sally Walker AM to evaluate the alignment of university policies with the principles of the model code.

A third element is focused on supporting the work of institutions and the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency to monitor compliance with relevant quality standards.

This will involve making changes to the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) legislative instrument to align its language with HESA and the model code.

As work to implement the model code is well advanced across our university sector, these amendments are necessary to ensure consistency between the legislation and university statutes, and to support regulators and universities alike, in promoting academic freedom and freedom of speech in higher education campuses across Australia.

Mr French identified support for academic freedom, freedom of speech and institutional autonomy as the three central tenets of his model code.

More than 56 years ago, in August 1964, Prime Minister Robert Menzies gave voice to the importance of these elements. Speaking at the University of New South Wales, Mr Menzies described the right and duty of universities and academics to pursue new knowledge as 'of the most vital importance for human progress in all fields of knowledge'.

He noted that a university that treated an academic as no more than a person 'hired to study as directed and to teach in accordance with rules laid down by other people, would be an extremely strange university; it would have failed to understand the immense importance of true academic freedom.'

In the history of western civilisation, from the death of Socrates nearly 2½ thousand years ago to the Cold War era that helped shape modern geopolitics, scholars and the institutions that support and nurture them have been subject to internal and external incursions on their freedom to explore, understand, critique, engage with, and disseminate knowledge about the world.

The first quarter of the 21st century is no exception. Australia's university sector is affected by pressures at home and abroad that may diminish academic freedom on campus. It is vital to Australia's sovereignty and our moral, social, political and economic wellbeing that universities, their staff and students, and their governance bodies be empowered to resist these incursions. The legislation that regulates higher education should support them in this task.

The government considers that adoption of the French model code is the most effective means to ensure Australia's higher education providers are supported to uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom, protecting Australia's reputation for quality higher education.

The consistency of language to be achieved by the measures in this bill will facilitate adoption of, and compliance with, the code, and provide for more consistent and transparent policies in relation to freedom of expression and academic freedom across the university sector, including key elements, principles, and any necessary limitations imposed on these freedoms.

I commend the bill.

Debate adjourned.

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Housing) (09:40): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Today the Morrison government is introducing a package of bills to ensure that Australia's foreign investment review framework is equipped to keep pace with the emerging risks and global developments, while remaining welcoming and open to foreign investment.

Foreign investment is important for Australia's long term economic success, stability and prosperity. It creates jobs, improves productivity and connects Australian businesses to global markets. Australia remains one of the world's most attractive investment destinations. Our stable democracy, rule of law, highly skilled and educated workforces and world-class industrial capabilities mean choosing to invest in Australia benefits both investors and Australians.

Australia's foreign investment regulatory framework has always sought to strike a balance between welcoming foreign investment and ensuring that all investment is consistent with Australia's laws and, of course, our national interests. However, in recent times the risks to Australia's national interest, particularly national security, have increased as a result of a range of factors—including rapid technological change and changes in the international security environment.

The government's foreign investment reform package deals with national security risks, strengthens compliance measures, streamlines approval processes and enhances administrative arrangements. Importantly, the reforms preserve the underlying principles of our system—that Australia welcomes foreign investment for the significant benefits it provides but also wants to ensure that individual investments are not contrary to the national interest, including national security.

As part of this reform package, this bill amends the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975to give effect to the most significant reforms since this act was first introduced.

Key measures in the bill include:

a new national security test requiring mandatory notification for investments in a sensitive national security business or land, and allowing investments not otherwise notified to be 'called in' for review if they raise any national security concerns;

a new last resort power giving the Treasurer a further opportunity to review actions for which approvals have been given if exceptional circumstances arise, and to impose conditions or issue a disposal order where there are no other remedies for the identified national security risk;

stronger compliance and enforcement powers through increased penalties, directions powers and new monitoring and investigative powers, in line with those of other regulators;

integrity amendments that close potential gaps in the screening regime; and finally

a new register of foreign owned assets amalgamating the existing registers which record foreign interests acquired in Australian land; water entitlements and contractual water rights; and expanded to include business acquisitions that require foreign investment approval.

In drafting this legislation the government undertook an extensive consultation process. This included the release of exposure draft legislation for public comment, more than 20 targeted stakeholder sessions reaching over 200 organisations such as peak bodies, state and territory governments, representatives from foreign private and government investors, and legal and financial advisers. Treasury, in addition, also held two public information sessions with over 120 subscribers.

Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Housing) (09:44): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Act 2015.

This bill forms part of the broader reform package to strengthen the foreign investment framework, as announced by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer on 5 June this year.

The bill updates the existing fee framework to take into account the new roles and responsibilities of various government departments and agencies in the foreign investment framework, including to administer the new national security test and the expanded suite of compliance measures. It also takes into account the growing complexity of cases.

The government has long maintained that the cost of administering the foreign investment review framework should be borne by foreign investors, not Australian taxpayers. The government continues to hold this view.

The proposed amendments to the fee framework will ensure a fairer and simpler framework for foreign investment fees, while continuing to offset the full cost of the package.

Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.

Debate adjourned.

Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Housing) (09:46): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill implements a number of streamlining and integrity measures.

Schedule 1 to the bill will amend the income tax law to ensure that no tax is payable on refunds of large-scale generation certificate shortfall charges.

This measure will apply to refunds paid since 1 January 2019.

Under the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000, energy retailers and other liable entities must surrender large-scale generation certificates or pay a shortfall charge. This shortfall charge can be refunded where the outstanding certificates are surrendered within the allowable refund period.

This measure will therefore clarify the operation of the income tax law for energy providers and will ensure that the market for large-scale generation certificates works as intended, meeting targets for clean energy while minimising costs for consumers.

Schedule 2 to the bill amends the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First—Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Actto facilitate the closure of the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal and any transitional arrangements associated with AFCA replacing the SCT.

The AFCA Act will be amended to allow the transfer of SCT records and documents to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission for ongoing records management, and will also allow the Federal Court to remit appealed cases back to AFCA, where previously these had been remitted to the SCT.

Schedule 2 also introduces a rule-making power to the AFCA Act, to allow the minister to prescribe matters of a transitional nature that may be required to facilitate the closure of the SCT.

Through this measure, the government is delivering on our promise to wind up the SCT at the conclusion of its work, allowing all superannuation related complaints to be now dealt with by AFCA.

Schedule 3 will enable the government to establish a more effective enforcement regime to encourage greater compliance with the franchising code by amending the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to increase the maximum civil pecuniary penalty available for a breach of an industry code from 300 to 600 penalty units, and increasing the civil pecuniary penalties for breaches of the franchising code accordingly.

Appropriate penalties in the franchising code are necessary to provide a strong deterrent against breaches of the code across the franchising sector, particularly by large multinational franchisors.

Schedule 4 to the bill will extend the operation of a temporary mechanism put in place during the coronavirus pandemic, which allows arrangements for complying with information and documentary requirements to be altered under Commonwealth legislation, including requirements to give information in writing and to produce, witness and sign documents. The temporary mechanism responds to the ongoing challenges posed by social distancing measures and restrictions on movement and gathering in Australia and overseas that have been introduced to respond to the coronavirus pandemic.

In recognition of the importance of continued business transactions and government service delivery during this time, this measure provides that a responsible minister may continue to determine that provisions in Commonwealth legislation containing particular information or documentary requirements (i) can be varied, (ii) do not apply, or (iii) prescribe that another provision specified in the determination applies, for a specified period of time. A responsible minister must not exercise the power unless they are satisfied that the determination is in response to circumstances relating to coronavirus. The mechanism is temporary and will be repealed at the end of 31 March 2021 or a later date determined by the Attorney-General should that become necessary due to continuing challenges posed by the pandemic. Any determination made under the mechanism will cease to operate when the temporary mechanism is repealed.

Debate adjourned.

Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Education) (09:58): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Education) (09:58): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Education) (09:59): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Education) (09:59): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Education) (10:00): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms COKER (Corangamite) (10:02): I rise to speak on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill. While Labor will be supporting this amendment, this legislation does nothing to help more than 100,000 older Australians waiting for home-care packages, nor does it fix the systemic problems undermining our broken aged-care system and which the federal government is responsible for. Instead, this legislation tinkers at the edges. It is of some value, but ultimately it fails to deliver the home-care packages that will help to keep older Australians at home longer, keeping them connected to their communities and families.

This bill is designed to move the payment of the home-care subsidy to approved providers from an advance payment to an afterpayment. This will place home-care payment packages on the same model used for providers of the NDIS—a model that I'm regularly told places real pressure on providers' ability to do their work. Now, the issue that needs to be appreciated by this government and this House is that post-payment cycles can financially stretch service providers. This is particularly true for smaller service providers. Regional areas like my electorate of Corangamite are more likely to be covered by smaller providers and therefore will be harder hit.

This legislation is more noteworthy for what it excludes than what it includes. The amendment before the House does not implement the wholesale reform needed to protect the safety and dignity of older Australians. The neglect of the sector by this government was brought to light in the royal commission into aged care. The commissions interim findings have painted a bleak picture of many providers which put commercial profits before vulnerable people, and this callous behaviour is only made possible because we have a federal government that has not in its seven years of governing put in place the stringent guidelines needed. It was Labor that pushed for the royal commission and dragged the Morrison government, kicking and screaming, to act, despite the fact that they already knew there was serious misconduct in the aged-care system.

It must be said we owe a debt of gratitude to every loved one, provider and staff member who took the time to provide evidence on the failure of the sector to the royal commission. The first recommendation of the royal commission's interim report entitled Neglect,and what a shameful title, was for the Morrison government to fix the home-care package waiting list. When the interim report was released we had 100,000 Australians waiting on the list for a package. Today, 12 months later, we have 102,000 Australians still waiting on the list for a package and the government's response is to introduce 300 more home-care packages.

It's absolutely tragic that in the past three years more than 30,000 older Australians have died waiting for their approved home-care package. Over the past two years more than 32,000 older Australians have entered residential aged care prematurely. This is simply unacceptable. But true to form the Morrison government has made a stream of announcements without any real action. I know this because many of my constituents have raised their aged-care issues with me. They have experienced firsthand that the announcement never matches the delivery. Many talk to me about their anxiety when forced to place a loved one in an aged-care home. They know there are serious flaws in the system and fear their loved one will receive substandard care. I do understand the pain of losing a loved one in aged care during COVID. This happened to me. It is tragic. It is traumatic. It was awful not to be able to say goodbye. But it makes me even more determined to push for an overhaul of our aged-care system.

The coronavirus pandemic has only magnified the entrenched problems facing the aged-care sector. Almost 700 older Australians have lost their lives to COVID in residential care. Many of the workforce contracted the disease themselves—the same workforce has fought every day to keep residents in aged care safe. Tragically too many vulnerable people have died in aged care, because the federal government and the providers they regulate failed to do their jobs. Every one of these deaths is a tragedy and every one of these deaths is a lesson.

We now know the federal government, and many providers, failed to put enough staff on in place. They also failed to manage the right workforce mix. Training has been insufficient under this government, so knowledge of infectious control was, and remains, far too rare. Insecurity of employment and a casualised workforce drove further infection spread to other workers and clients.

The royal commission was willing to put pen to paper on some of these lessons, specifically finding there was no COVID-19 plan for the aged-care sector. Officials have very plainly said that if the government had moved more quickly to establish better resourced aged-care response centres lives would have been saved. The Prime Minister has boasted about the number of announcements his government has made in aged care, but they've failed to deliver the policies and resources our aged-care sector needs to survive this pandemic. The federal government promised an effective surge workforce for Victoria but didn't deliver. They promised protective equipment for all aged-care workers but too many missed out for too long. And even when our most vulnerable are at risk, even when the pandemic took hold, even when the country demands answers, this government is all photo op and no follow-up.

A key theme of the royal commission has been the repeated testimony of families that have been kept in the dark when it comes to important issues in the lives of their loved ones in aged care. Aged-care facilities receive about 75 per cent of their income from the taxpayer. Despite the heavy reliance on the public purse there is worryingly little reporting of how the money is spent. Families of our loved ones in care need transparency and accountability. When considering reform it's crucial that transparency and accountability of the aged-care sector are at the top of the list. Sunlight is a powerful tool in making sure organisations are behaving in line with community expectations. But this government has a strong track record of shielding dodgy aged-care providers from accountability. Such actions by this government are a disservice to those aged-care providers, like those in my electorate of Corangamite, who are doing their absolute best to put quality care at the forefront of everything they do.

The interim report from the royal commission does make note of the lack of fundamental transparency across the sector. It should be noted the report was handed to the government 12 months ago, but with little consequence. However, the debate we're having today is not about the gross neglect of Australians receiving aged care. Instead, more than a year after the royal commission first reported some of the most horrendous stories imaginable, this government has prioritised the timing of invoicing. Is this the crucial step we need to take for our aged-care system? The house is burning to the ground, and this government is talking about what colour hats the firefighters should be wearing!

We know this government has not turned its attention to the vital issue of workplace planning and management. The nurses and carers in the aged-care sector do deserve our sincere gratitude. This is especially true in 2020, but it has always been true. The royal commission's comments on working in aged care were nothing short of harrowing—in the words of the commission:

Workloads are heavy. Pay and conditions are poor, signalling that working in aged care is not a valued occupation. Innovation is stymied. Education and training are patchy and there is no defined career path for staff. Leadership is lacking.

The commission report went on to say:

Major change is necessary to deliver the certainty and working environment that staff need to deliver great quality care.

The conditions of the workforce described here cut to the very heart of the sector. The sector is nothing without the workers, the carers, who dedicate themselves to looking after our most vulnerable. We must show aged-care workers our appreciation. We need them now more than ever, and, on behalf of my constituents of Corangamite, I say thank you.

To meet the ever-increasing demand for aged-care services and support, the workforce will need to be three times its current size by 2050. That's a threefold increase in three decades. In Anthony Albanese's vision speech on ageing, he said:

Part of the answer to this crisis must lie in our aged care workforce. Those we trust to care for our most vulnerable, our parents, our grandparents, eventually ourselves.

There are too few aged-care workers, and they are paid too little. They have begged the Government to do something.

He said, 'But it is Labor—Labor—who is listening.' He went on:

Our aged care workers need proper pay and proper training.

The aged care workforce must also be able to provide culturally and linguistically appropriate care.

Staffing numbers, qualifications, skills mix and experience, all affect the ability of aged care workers to provide safe, quality care.

Under a Labor Government, solving this will be one of the priority tasks for Jobs and Skills Australia.

I believe in this vision outlined by our Labor leader and I am proud to support it.

This is a third-term government that wants applause for being dragged kicking and screaming to acknowledge the existence of these most serious problems. Well, no—seven years in, there are no accolades, no points, for identifying the catastrophe. So here is a checklist the Morrison government should not need. There should not be a disastrous overreliance on chemical restraints in our aged-care sector. There should not be aged-care workers who have to choose between meeting the medical needs of one patient over another because of inadequate resourcing. There should not be 50 sexual assaults in aged-care facilities every day. There should not be people living in aged-care facilities who are left in soiled continence pads. There should not be people living in an aged-care facility with ants crawling on their wounds. There should not be people living in aged care who are suffering from malnutrition. We should not have a residential aged-care system that fails one in five residents.

This government is failing our mothers and our fathers, our grandparents and our aged-care workers, and eventually the government's failure will affect us all.

In closing, it is important to remind all in this House that government must be judged by how it treats its most vulnerable. It's time the Morrison government fixed the aged-care sector or got out of the way for someone who can.

Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (10:14): I rise to speak on the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020. Why this bill? More specifically, why now? There is nothing in this bill that needs to be done now before the royal commission hands down its final report in February 2021. This bill was introduced back in February this year, so we've waited eight months already. It seems far more responsible to wait until after the royal commissioners have handed down their final report. I think it's fair to assume there are serious recommendations coming for major reform to aged care. This legislation seems to be tweaking a system that's failing older Australians. They're tweaks to adjust how or when we pay service providers. They're tweaks that will do nothing to provide better services or release new packages.

Two years ago, when the Prime Minister announced the royal commission, he admitted it was likely to be a bruising outcome. Let's face it, he called the royal commission to get ahead of the bruising reports by the ABC's Four Corners program—a program on which his own minister appeared saying there was no need for a royal commission—how embarrassing.

The royal commission has been far more than bruising. The response of this royal commission was referred to as an opportunity of a lifetime. The stories we have heard from older Australians and their families have been appalling and heartbreaking. When senior counsel assisting, Peter Rozen QC, wrapped up last week he labelled this the most in-depth and thorough examination of Australia's aged-care systems that has ever been undertaken.

The senior counsel presented 124 suggested recommendations to the royal commissioners. There are no guarantees that all the suggested recommendations will be accepted. The fact is they deal with issues that will make this legislation before the chamber either redundant or irrelevant. Regardless of what the commissioners agree upon, there are changes coming and there will be many.

Let's look at a few of the suggested recommendations by senior counsel. Recommendation No. 8 suggested a new aged-care program combining all the existing aged-care programs into a more comprehensive continuum of care of older people. Why tweak a system that may be completely overhauled after the recommendations are handed down?

Suggested recommendation No. 9 is about meeting preferences to age and place. This suggested recommendation includes a requirement to clear the home-care package waiting list and immediately increase the home-care packages available, allocating a package to all those on waiting lists by 31 December 2021. Why tweak a payment system when what we really need is to clear the backlog?

Suggested recommendation No. 14 is about approved providers responsibility for care management. This would see an approved care provider assign a care manager to each individual. In the instance where there are more than one provider, the leading provider must assign a care manager. Why make life harder for aged-care providers when an overhaul is on the way?

Suggested recommendation No. 16 is about assistive technology and the home modifications category. This would provide aids, appliances and services to promote independence in daily living and reduce risks to live safely at home. Why tweak the system when what people need is more than what's being offered anyway? Older Australians simply want to age well, safely and securely at home.

The Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Health Network, so ably led by CEO Merrilyn Strohfeldt, asked older residents in my community what they thought about services that provided care for older Australians. Among the things they wanted to see was more support to continue living at home as they aged. They wanted: more focus on prevention, such as exercise, balance and nutrition; more help to manage their health needs; and more services closer to home, such as visiting professionals and telehealth options. This is exactly what the royal commissioners found in their interim report so infamously called Neglect, and that's what the evidence that has been adduced before the royal commission shows since the interim report. It's what we want for our parents, our grandparents and for ourselves as we age. It's what home care is all about, or, rather, it's what home care should be all about.

Given there are more than 100,000 Australians still waiting for home-care packages, given we are just four months away from the final report of the aged-care royal commission and given there's a strong likelihood of major reform to aged care coming, why are we debating this legislation now? Is this the time to be tweaking a system, which isn't working, about how the government pays providers of aged care—tweaks that would put pressure on smaller providers? When we know we need more packages, is this the time that this legislation before the chamber is so important? If people are not being supported to live independently at home then they are more likely to require more expansive and expensive health and residential aged-care services. Do we want the see more Australians languishing and dying while waiting for home-care packages?

This legislation does nothing to address the current crisis. The legislation does nothing to address the challenges, the blessings and the burdens of our ageing population. The government hasn't even considered the issues of an ageing population. This is a government with a track record of ignoring the ageing population and the impact of longevity on our economy and our lifestyles and on jobs and on services.

I hear backbenchers in the government waxing on about their proud record on ageing. They must have political amnesia. A bit of history is really important. Back in November 2013—this is a third-term government—one of the first acts of this government was to scrap the Advisory Panel on Positive Ageing, just six months away from delivering their final report, their blueprint. But it shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone, because the coalition parties, going into the 2013 election, had a seven-page pamphlet—seven pages in total—that they devoted to aged care. That was their total policy commitment on the area of aged care. They said things like they were going to get rid of antiquated regulatory processes. How's that going? They thought this would put at risk standards in the industry. If they got rid of regulations, they thought it would also help, because people would be less susceptible to potential abuse and neglect. That's really gone down fantastically well, hasn't it? Honestly, what a joke that policy was.

'Ageing' wasn't a dirty word to former Treasurer Wayne Swan, who established this panel of pre-eminent Australians to lead the nation forward. At the same time this government was sacking Everald Compton and his panel, they axed the Aged Care Workforce Supplement—$1.2 billion designed in accordance with the sector to assist aged-care providers to pay and train their staff appropriately. Then, a few months later, in June 2014, they axed the dementia supplement. That was just fantastic! As we know, ACFI, the Aged Care Funding Instrument, doesn't cover severe behavioural issues and issues for those people suffering from severe dementia. It doesn't fully catch them, so the funding doesn't cover everything.

The previous Labor government designed a dementia supplement, providing 10 per cent extra, and a veterans supplement, also providing 10 per cent extra, for home-care packages and a daily payment for people living in residential premises who were living with dementia and severe behaviours. But what did this government do? One of its first acts was to get rid of dementia supplement, which was affecting, at that time, 330,000 Australians. So don't come into this place and tell us about your proud record. There's barely been a MYEFO and a budget that this government has brought forward that hasn't resulted in a mismanagement of the aged-care sector or a cut, particularly in their first three years under Prime Minister Abbott and Prime Minister Turnbull, to funding in the aged-care sector. I might add, the current Prime Minister was the Treasurer during a lot of that period.

Because those opposite are so excited and happy about what their record is, let's have a bit of a look at what they've done. On September 2017, there were 6,000 home-care packages. This was their first relief. They were all exhausted by December 2017, so, in the budget in 2017-18, there was no funding for 14,000 home-care places. They took them all away by reducing the 26,000 residential aged-care places. That was really a brilliant move! In the MYEFO in 2018, there was supposedly another 10,000 places. They brought forward some funding. That's all they did. They didn't put forward new funding; they just brought it forward.

In February 2019, they announced another 10,000 places on the eve of the royal commission hearings beginning over five years. It was because they wanted a little bit of an accounting trick. They are really good at it if you watch Senate estimates. They also reannounced that in the budget in 2018-19. Then in November 2019, prior to MYEFO and in response to the royal commission's interim report titled Neglect, they announced for one year from 1 December another 5,500 places. You can't really work out when you look at it whether that was new money or just rehashed or recycled money. So don't give us lectures about how good you are in terms of aged care when you have a royal commission damning you at the moment and you can't find a budget or MYEFO you don't want to cut the funding for. The government are obsessed with aged-care funding cuts.

This government has moved 'ageing' out of the departments of health and human services. It stuck it initially in the department of social security, where it got lost. Ageing became a government service without any consideration of how to address the ongoing health and active ageing policy agenda. Eventually aged care was moved back to the Department of Health after Labor campaigned for that to happen, and so many people in the sector did also. But the government remains focused on aged-care services rather than ageing policies. There is a distinction, but you wouldn't know it. I remember a former coalition minister for rural health telling a Senate estimates inquiry she considered 'ageing' and 'aged care' to be precisely the same thing. I can assure you they are not. I encourage anyone to have a look at the Department of Health website and look at it's 'health topics'. There's 'aged care' but no topic for 'ageing'.

Come to think of it, 'dementia' doesn't rate as a topic either. Dementia is the second leading cause of death for men and the leading cause of death for women. In 2016 it became the leading cause of death for women and the greatest cause of disability for older Australians. Dementia Australia tells us there are close to 500,000 Australians living with dementia at this moment and a further 1.6 million Australians are involved in the care of someone living with dementia. We recently buried my mother-in-law, who was living with dementia for many years. In the next 30 to 40 years, there will over one million Australians living with dementia. How does dementia not rate as a major health topic on the Department of Health's website? Dementia isn't an ageing issue. It is true that over half of the residents in residential aged-care facilities are living with dementia, but it is a disease that affects young people as well as older. Almost 30,000 younger Australians are living with dementia.

The research is vital. But where is the government's agenda on active ageing and dementia-friendly communities? We hear nothing from the government about positive ageing or age-friendly communities. A large part of the demographics of our country is getting older. The community that plans for this with appropriate infrastructure and public places, safe and stable walking services, plenty of seating and conveniently located restrooms is the community I want to live in and that Australians want to live in. It is a community that appreciates playgrounds are not just for kids but to provide exercise and recreational facilities as well. It is a community that employs older people and utilises their wisdom and their experience to mentor and train young people. It is a community that values and appreciates older people, rather than isolating and neglecting them. It is a community informed about dementia and aging, respecting and caring for those people living with those challenges. It's a community that provides appropriate housing options, age-friendly transport options and health, consumer and social services. This is a community that provides services and support for carers.

Labor took these policies to the last election, and I anticipate that we will do so again. On this side of the chamber, we want to wrestle with these options and develop comprehensive plans with stakeholders. We're a party that believe that the ageing of our population can be a positive thing, a blessing rather than a burden. It is a tremendous achievement in Australia that our population is ageing. It is something that we should celebrate. It is a good outcome for our health services and an achievement we can take pride in.

When I see all the challenges we face in the health and ageing sectors in terms of dementia and getting our communities ready for the demographic changes that will happen and I see legislation that tweaks things like this, I see that the government have utterly failed older Australians. They are languishing at home. This is an unacceptable performance by the government, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services ) (10:29): The Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Improved Home Care Payment Administration No. 1) Bill 2020 amends the way that home-care providers are paid a government subsidy so as to address stakeholder concerns regarding unspent funds and to align home-care arrangements with other government programs, such as the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The bill will amend the legislation such that an approved provider of home care will not receive a payment in advance but will be paid a monthly subsidy for a home-care recipient upon lodgement of a claim with Services Australia at the end of each month. The government has introduced a second bill, which will amend the legislation such that home-care providers will only be paid a subsidy for services rendered to a care recipient during a month, with Services Australia retaining the unsent subsidy for which a care recipient is eligible in each month. This unspent subsidy will be available for a provider to draw down on behalf of the care recipient as services are provided in future. I thank all members for their contributions to the debate on this bill and commend the bill to the House.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services ) (10:40): by leave—I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Ms BURNEY (Barton) (10:41): I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020. I move the amendment circulated in my name:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes that:

(a) since the start of the recession, the number of people relying on unemployment payments has doubled;

(b) many pensioners—including those on the Age Pension, Disability Support Pension and Carer Payment—have faced increased costs during the pandemic; and

(c) the Minister has the power under the Social Security Act to extend the Coronavirus Supplement; and

(2) calls on the Government to:

(a) extend the $250 per fortnight Coronavirus Supplement until March, in line with Jobkeeper;

(b) better support pensioners—including Age Pension, Disability Support Pension and Carer Payment recipients—facing increased costs in protecting their health because of the coronavirus pandemic; and

(c) announce a permanent increase to the base rate of the Jobseeker Payment".

I'd like to read the amendment into the Hansard because it is extremely important to this side of the House. I have moved that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House (1) notes that, (a) since the start of the recession, the number of people relying on unemployment payments has doubled, (b) many pensioners—including those on the age pension, disability support pension and carer payment—have faced increased costs during the pandemic, and (c) the minister has the power under the Social Security Act to extend the coronavirus supplement; and (2) calls on the government to (a) extend the $250 per fortnight coronavirus supplement until March, in line with JobKeeper, (b) better support pensioners—including age pension, disability support pension and carer payment recipients—facing increased costs in protecting their health because of the coronavirus pandemic, and (c) announce a permanent increase to the base rate of the Jobseeker payment'. That is the amendment circulated in my name.

I'd like to also point out to the House that there are 18 Labor people speaking on this bill, and also someone from the crossbench—compared to four from the government—because this is something that we consider to be absolutely important and it is consistent with what Labor have been saying for months and months, particularly about a permanent increase to the base rate of JobSeeker. I advise the House that in estimates this morning the government refused once again to agree that there needs to be a permanent rate of JobSeeker, and they are busily backpedalling on that right now.

This bill seeks to implement a number of coronavirus support measures from the budget—measures which Labor has called for for many, many months. Labor has long called for greater support for pensioners, who were left behind by this government when it enacted its cruel and disrespectful pension freeze just a few weeks ago. For months, Labor has called on the government to adjust the work test to ensure parents who are impacted by the coronavirus recession who lost hours of work or lost work would not miss out on paid parental leave. At the height of the pandemic, we asked the government to adjust means-testing for youth allowance so students would not fall through the cracks.

The supports for families who lose a child to stillbirth before the child's first birthday will be welcomed by many of my colleagues in this place who have been brave and tireless advocates in that regard. Losing a child is a devastating and heartbreaking experience, and we commend the government for finally coming around to enacting these important supports, but I do once again put on the record that it is something Labor has advocated for a very long time.

Nevertheless, the government's budget has left too many Australians behind. There is no certainty for the 1.6 million Australians on JobSeeker as to what support will be available after 31 December. There still has been no announcement about that. There is absolutely no reason why the government couldn't have addressed that issue in the budget statement just a couple of weeks ago. There was a deafening silence about this group of people. We are talking about 1.6 million people, the most vulnerable people in our community, who still don't know what their future holds after 31 December. We'll have to wait, obviously, to find out about that. It is certainly not addressing a permanent increase to the JobSeeker payment, which everyone agrees with, including a number of people on that side of the House and the former Prime Minister of Australia John Howard.

Almost one million Australians on JobSeeker are ineligible for the government's wage hire subsidy, and those who receive the pension, disability support pension or carer payment continue to face increasing costs in protecting their health because of the coronavirus pandemic. There has been much media commentary on this: additional costs for masks, additional costs for doctors' appointments, additional costs with psychiatrists' appointments and additional costs in just trying to keep safe. Many people, particularly those people on the age pension and the disability support pension, face compromised immune systems and many other issues that make them more vulnerable to coronavirus. I'm sure all my colleagues would agree with this question: what happens to people who are carers, who are making sure they're keeping their loved ones safe, many of them without any recognition for it? Those who receive these pensions—the disability support pension or the carer payment—should not have to face increasing costs. Our amendment calls for them to be compensated and reimbursed for those costs.

Pensioners have been facing rising health, dental, energy and grocery bills for years. Average GP out-of-pocket costs alone have gone up $11 under this government. Labor will be moving detailed amendments to better support Australians who are unemployed or who have endured extra costs because of the coronavirus pandemic. I read Labor's second reading amendment into the Hansard, but let me expand on it. Extending the coronavirus supplement is absolutely fundamental. Our amendment will create an obligation on the minister to extend the $250 per fortnight coronavirus supplement until March, in line with JobKeeper. It makes absolutely no sense to Labor that those on JobSeeker should not have the same respect shown to them and the same certainty as those people who have to rely on JobKeeper. It is $250 a fortnight but, once again, the people who are on JobSeeker, the 1.6 million people I spoke about earlier, have absolutely no certainty as to their future after 31 December. It must be terrifying for those people, who are just making ends meet as it is, and sometimes not actually doing that. Many of these people have absolutely no reserves to fall back on.

I'm just incredulous that the government, in particular the Treasurer and the Minister for Families and Social Services, have not recognised or taken up the responsibility they should feel for giving 1.6 million Australians some sort of certainty. How can we, as a society, hold our heads up if there is not that certainty for the most vulnerable? We're not talking about people who are sitting on the lounge and collecting money, as the government has briefed the media. We're talking about single mums. We're talking about women in their 50s and 60s who are renting. We are talking about people who are really struggling and know where every single cent goes. They are not bludgers. They are not sitting back and allowing the state to look after their affairs. They desperately want work and the least that we can owe them, the least that we can give them, is some sort of certainty after Christmas. That does not exist now. As I said, we are having estimates at the moment and there is a refusal to commit to anything. There is a refusal to actually say, 'This is what we're considering.' The idea that these people have to wait for the next statement for the Treasurer in the mid-year budget update is just outrageous. And who knows if there will be any certainty given in that? Who knows if it's not just an extension of temporary money?

There is no argument that people cannot live on $40 a day, yet that is the prospect that 1.6 million Australians have come 31 December. So Labor will be moving detailed amendments to better support Australians who are unemployed or who have endured extra costs because of coronavirus. Our members will create an obligation on the minister, as I said, to extend the $250 per fortnight coronavirus supplement until March, in line with JobKeeper. The coronavirus supplement is scheduled to end in December. With 1.6 million Australians currently on JobSeeker and a further 160,000 Australians expected to lose their jobs between now and the end of the year—it's not their fault, but that is the projection—now is not the time to be withdrawing support from Australians who are finding it extremely difficult to keep their heads above water. We should be recognising that. We should be acknowledging that and we should also be acknowledging that, for those people who will lose their jobs between now and Christmas, it is not because they want to be unemployed; it is because of the circumstances that the world finds itself in.

It is going to be an anxious and uncertain Christmas for so many people who are on JobSeeker, and it's cruel of the government not to give some clarity. You cannot tell me that there isn't some sort of understanding of what the government is planning to do. I just don't believe that. And the fact that there is a denial by this government to put some clarity around that issue is, as I said, cruel. It makes people anxious and it is unreasonable. It is completely unreasonable to make people wait until mid-December before there is a decision announced on the JobSeeker payment. Until then, Australians on JobSeeker won't be able to plan their finances around major expenses such as rent, gas, electricity bills and—actually—food and medical care. As I said, many of these people are young. Many of these people are single parents, and there are children involved. There are children involved who are relegated to poverty, relegated to the stresses that their parents must be feeling, because this government refuses to provide any certainty. I just don't understand that cruelty. I don't understand why the government can't clarify things and why they haven't taken the opportunity to do that. As I said, you cannot tell me that there isn't some sort of plan. The answer that the Prime Minister gave in question time yesterday told us very clearly that there is a plan, but he refuses to say what it is.

Labor's amendments will create an obligation on the minister to better support pensioners, including age pensioners, people on the disability support pension and carer payment recipients. Unlike the government, Labor acknowledges that older Australians, people with a disability and carers have experienced increased costs as a result of coronavirus, but surely it is not beyond the government's imagination or capacity to look at this as a real issue, to acknowledge it as a real issue and to make sure that people on those pensions are not out of pocket because of those additional costs. Please don't give me the argument that there are payments coming their way. Two lots of $250 does not make up for the additional expenses experienced by the groups of people I am talking about. In particular, they have seen increased costs in protecting their health during this pandemic. The terrifying prospect that these people face every day is that if they contract the coronavirus the outcomes will be dreadful for them because of their compromised immune systems, their age or their disability, and because the carers in particular are coming into contact with people in these groups.

So there is capacity for the minister, with the powers that she has been given, to create an obligation on the minister to better support these people. Labor acknowledges that older Australians, people with a disability, and carers have experienced increased costs. Cruelly, the government froze the pension in September. Those receiving an age pension, a disability support pension or a carer payment were affected by the fact that the government refused to think about indexation. In fact, according to the Prime Minister, he didn't realise it, which of course is not conceivable.

Labor's amendments will require the minister to announce a permanent increase to the base rate of JobSeeker payment. JobSeeker is scheduled to return to its old base rate at the end of December. It is clear to everyone that it can't go back. The Prime Minister's comments in question time yesterday acknowledged that. 'This will be a little comfort to people on JobSeeker,' was his answer. People on JobSeeker deserve to know what level of support will be available to them beyond 31 December. To make them endure an anxious wait is cruel, unreasonable and also unnecessary. Household budgeting for food, rent and bills is something these people spend a lot of time doing every week. The government could provide certainty by delivering a permanent increase to JobSeeker, which Labor has consistently advocated for. Some members of the government are also calling for that payment to be permanently increased. At least they're being honest. Since the rate of JobSeeker was temporarily boosted, Australians on JobSeeker and their children have been lifted out of hardship, and they've had more to spend on local and small businesses. They've been able to buy food, pay bills and meet their rent. In the wake of this pandemic, the budget was an opportunity to deliver lasting structural change for vulnerable Australians, while boosting local businesses and local jobs, but that economic as well as social opportunity was missed.

Labor is concerned about the Morrison government's plan to return JobSeeker to its old base rate of $40 a day in December with 160,000 Australians expected to lose their job and 1.6 million Australians on JobSeeker at the moment. We know that the government continues to try to demonise those who have lost their jobs. It's just despicable. Implying somehow that these people are unemployed because of choice is just wrong. There is still a plan before the parliament to drug test welfare recipients. It has been foreshadowing a national rollout of the cashless debit card. With more jobseekers than job vacancies, there are simply not enough jobs for everyone who needs one. It's even more difficult to find a job in our regions—the result of the government's failure to deliver jobs programs for our regions. Australians are finding this a very anxious time, with an uncertain Christmas. There are many Australians who will be wondering what level of support will be available to them after December. Many are worried about how they will afford essentials, cover rent or pay the bills, let alone buy Christmas presents for the children.

We know that there are many people in our nation on unemployment payments who are spending those payments at local businesses, which, of course, is an economic measure. Social security payments play a vital role in sustaining local jobs, especially in times like these and especially in some communities. Australians on social security will have less to spend in those small businesses. And small businesses will have less to spend on wages and jobs. How many jobs will be lost when JobKeeper is cut in December? Labor has sought this information from the government, but the government either doesn't know or doesn't want to know.

The budget left behind Australians on JobSeeker aged over 35—almost one million Australians—by excluding them from the wage hire subsidy, and older Australians represent the largest cohort on JobSeeker. They also have the most difficulty finding work because of structural barriers and age discrimination. The government needs to permanently increase the base rate of JobSeeker payment. Women and young people have been disproportionately impacted by the unemployment crisis brought on by the pandemic.

The government was caught out on Labor on the pension freeze for 2.5 million pensioners, and that's the only reason why they acted on it. Labor fought the government's disrespectful and cruel pension freeze. The reality is that pensioners plan for their twice-yearly indexation, one in March and the other in September. The government was caught out on their pension freeze in August. The freeze took effect in September. They made pensioners wait for the October budget before announcing any kind of relief. The government has a long track record in cutting and attempting to cut the pension. They still haven't adjusted deeming rates, which remain significantly higher than interest rates. Pensioners won't forget the government's record on cutting the pension. They will not forget the fact that deeming rates are still not equitable.

The Liberals and Nationals are obsessed with cutting the pension, attempting to cut the pension in every budget, every year. That has been well documented by me and others. We know that in 2014 they tried to cut the pension indexation. In the same budget, that horror budget, they cut $1 billion from pensioner concessions. In their same horror budget, they axed the $900 senior supplement for self-funded retirees receiving the Commonwealth seniors health card. In that same budget they tried to reset deeming rate thresholds, a cut that would have seen half a million part-pensioners made worse off. In 2015 they did a deal with the Greens to cut the pension to around 370 pensioners by as much as $12,000 a year. In 2016 they tried to cut the pension to around 190 pensioners as part of a plan to limit overseas travel for pensioners to six weeks. In 2016 they tried to cut the pension to over 1.5 million Australians by scrapping the energy supplement. The government's own figures show this would have left over 563,000 Australians currently receiving this allowance much worse off. Over 10 years in excess of 1.5 million pensioners would have been worse off. They spent many years trying to get the pension age to be 70. Pensioners have paid their taxes and contributed their entire lives. They deserve our respect and the respect of this government.

This bill is adjusting how someone qualifies for paid parental leave. To be eligible a person must satisfy a work test. The existing work test requires a person to have worked 10 out of 13 months prior to the birth or adoption of a child and at least 330 hours in that 10-month period. During the pandemic the concern was that families would miss out on PPL because of job losses or having their hours reduced, making them ineligible for PPL, leaving them up to $15,000 worse off. Labor called for the government to temporarily suspend the work test in April so families would not miss out. I even wrote to the minister for social services. And in June we moved amendments in the Senate for the work test to be suspended but the Morrison government voted it down. Families need certainty about their access to paid parental leave during these challenging times.

This bill will also temporarily amend circumstances in which a person may be regarded as independent for youth allowance. In May Labor called on the government to provide case-by-case exemptions to youth allowance parental incomes tests. We were concerned that tertiary students would miss out on youth allowance and would be unable to afford to continue their studies. These are not ordinary times. What we don't want to see is students discounting tertiary studies because they can't afford it. It is disappointing that government has taken so long to act on these issues. It's been too long an anxious period for students.

In conclusion, Labor support the measures outlined in this bill, measures that Labor has been advocating for from the very outset of the pandemic. It is just seven weeks until Christmas and people relying on the coronavirus supplement need certainty, not cruel cuts and not a deafening silence, which is what we are hearing at this point in time. That is why Labor is moving amendments to extend the coronavirus supplement until March, in line with JobKeeper—not an unreasonable ask. I know that there are many people on that side of the House that also believe it is not unreasonable. At least in line with JobKeeper and require the government to announce a permanent increase to the JobSeeker payment. This is something that we have been advocating for for a very long time. The government has an opportunity to fix these things. These amendments are serious amendments. They are amendments to provide certainty, to provide comfort, to those 1.6 million people on JobSeeker. It's doing something that the government is going to have to do anyhow, kicking and screaming, to increase the permanent rate of JobSeeker. This is not the end of this discussion so don't think it is. This issue will continue. It will continue because it is in the interest of the economy, 1.6 million Australians, 2.5 million Australians on the age pension, over 700,000 Australian on the disability support pension and many, many thousands of people on the carer payment. Those people have provided an enormous amount to this country. In some cases aged pensioners have provided a lifetime of commitment, a lifetime of service, a lifetime of paying taxes. Surely we as a parliament can remember that and we as a parliament can do the right thing by those people. That is what my amendments are seeking to do: the right thing. It is as simple as that: the right thing.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Ms Claydon ): Is the amendment seconded?

Ms Chesters: I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.

Mr SIMMONDS (Ryan) (11:10): I am very pleased to speak today in the House to support the amendments contained in the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020 as they will better support those relying on Australia's safety net and receiving government support payments during this COVID-19 recession.

This year we have seen challenges that this country has simply never faced before. Hardworking young people and families have seen their workplaces shut down through no fault of their own. As a nation, we have worked tirelessly to reduce the case numbers of COVID-19 so that we can open our economy as quickly as possible and get workers back into jobs and to create new ones, but we cannot underestimate the scale of this challenge. The world economy has contracted by four per cent, compared to less than one per cent during the GFC. It's why this government has provided over $300 billion in financial support to Australian families already. It is why the 2020 budget was delivered a few weeks ago. It's focused on our economic recovery plan to get people back into jobs and to create new ones.

This government has combined this record financial support for business and to enable job creation with an enhanced safety net to get Australians to the other side of the crisis. Now Labor can, as the previous Labor speaker did, claim credit for our work as much as they like, but Australians know that it was this government who had their back during the crisis and that it's this government that still has their back during the crisis.

In relation to Labor's amendment that was just recently moved to increase the rate of JobSeeker past December: while the Prime Minister dealt with this yesterday in the House in a very clear way, we have provided financial assistance to Australians to get them to the other side of the COVID-19 recession throughout the last couple of months and these are not set-and-forget policies. The Prime Minister made it very clear that this pandemic moves fast. We have all seen this. We have all seen the circumstances change quickly. Those kinds of decisions about whether the JobSeeker payment is extended will be made prior to Christmas so that, if extra legislation is required in the House, there is time to do that as well. But these kinds of decisions are made by the government in a considered way. We see Labor trying to do the same thing that they did during the GFC, and that was to run off and spend money as quickly as possible without thought and consideration that it's due. That's simply all that we ask.

This pandemic moves fast, there's a lot of financial support going to Australians and they need it. So let's give this issue the consideration and due care that it requires. It's no disrespect to those who are receiving JobSeeker payments. We know that they are doing it tough, but this is taxpayers' money and the pandemic moves quickly. So let's make sure that, unlike Labor, who are simply keen to get as much cash out the door as possible, the support that we are providing Australians is fit for purpose for the stage of the pandemic and the stage of the COVID-19 recession that we are currently in.

I turn now to the substantive amendments in this bill. In the first few months of the crisis, many young people receiving youth allowance or Abstudy payments faced reduce work hours and were forced to rely obvious their parents' income to support themselves. Youth allowance and Abstudy require recipients to demonstrate independence by working a minimum of 30 hours per week for at least 18 months. It is estimated that 4,000 young people would have lost their payments as a result of not meeting this criteria during the six-month period between 25 March and 24 September. At a time where families are facing the pressures of this COVID-19 recession, the last thing that we need is for them to carry the further burden of covering lost youth allowance payments for their kids when their kids have lost those working opportunities through no fault of their own. By introducing the amendment proposed in this substantive bill, young people receiving youth allowance or Abstudy payments, or looking to apply for these payments in the future, will be automatically recognised as having worked 30 hours per week during the 6-month COVID-19 period, regardless of how many hours they actually ended up working during this time.

The Morrison government understands that this COVID-19 pandemic has put hardworking Australians in tough situations. It's our job, as government, to have their backs and to give them a hand up to get back on their feet. During the height of this pandemic the government introduced the economic support payments to cushion the blow of reduced work hours and to boost spending to get our economy moving.

Older Australians and those at-risk in the community have faced, in particular, increased costs of living to protect their health during this pandemic. The initial support payments were instrumental in ensuring that those more at risk of catching COVID-19 could pay for services, such as home food delivery and home maintenance services. I'm sure every MP on both sides of the chamber, throughout the COVID-19 recession and the COVID-19 period, have stories like this to tell about older residents in their electorates who they've phoned up or spoken to, who had some nervousness, particularly at the beginning of the pandemic, about going out to shops, but still required that important care, food services and medications so instead availed themselves of delivery services. Many MPs, I know I certainly did, helped facilitate this for older Australians living in their electorates. These payments were instrumental in helping them do that. It helped them, if they so choose, to reduce their contact with others to protect their health and avail themselves of the extra costs required to have these services delivered.

The further amendment contained in this bill will provide those receiving pensions, carer payments and DVA payments and senior health card holders with additional $250 support payments in November 2020 and February 2021. This will further support around five million Australians leading up to the Christmas period. It forms part of the government's economic road to recovery. As I said, the practical impact of that is allowing, particularly older Australians and at-risk Australians, to be able to avail themselves despite the extra costs of getting the services that they need delivered to their homes.

The Morrison government's plan for economic recovery is, of course, about creating jobs and getting people back into work. They were succinctly outlined by the Treasurer when he delivered the recent 2020 budget. With the restrictions on international travel due to this pandemic, our agricultural industry in particular has seen a decline in applications for seasonal work during the upcoming harvest season. To support this industry and to help young people who are on youth allowance and Abstudy to complete their required work hours, the government has introduced a temporary incentive by this bill to encourage young Australians to undertake agricultural work. The new criteria will give young people who engage in agricultural work the opportunity to demonstrate their financial independence faster than they would otherwise have been able to. A person who earns $15,000 through employment in the agricultural industry between 30 November 2020 and 31 December 2021 will be considered as independent in this new criteria.

Throughout this pandemic Australians have been reliant on our domestic capability, and we must continue to support our incredibly important agricultural industry, just as they have supported us this year. There are some very, very passionate advocates on this side of the chamber for Australia's agricultural industry, but we all know that supporting them and supporting our farmers is vital, particularly at this time. By introducing this incentive we will get young people into work and farmers will see a greater workforce for the upcoming harvest season.

The final amendments contained in this bill will directly support parents and families in the Ryan electorate, and I am very proud of the government for that. In normal circumstances, reduced work hours would see around 12,800 individuals lose their eligibility for paid parental leave and dad and partner pay. The changes to this in an amendment contained in the substantive bill will temporarily extend the paid parental leave work test period from 13 months prior to the birth of a child—or adoption, for that matter—to 20 months for parents who have had their employment impacted by COVID-19. This will give parents the ability to reach the required 330 hours of work that they need to satisfy in the eligibility test for these payments over a period of 20 months rather than 13 months. This government, the Morrison government, is dedicated to ensuring that families are not penalised because of the impact of COVID-19. We are working to ensure that parents are supported to take the time off they need when welcoming a new baby or addition to the family.

The last amendment contained in this bill is far and away, in my opinion, the most important of all and relates to an issue that I have spoken about a number of times in this place in just the last year and a half since the election. Each year it is estimated that 850 families are affected by stillbirth and 40 families experience the death of an infant. I cannot even begin to imagine the profound pain that parents experience with the loss of a child through stillbirth and infant death. It is truly an unthinkable tragedy. Parents affected by such a tragedy must be supported with these bereavement payments so they can take time off to grieve and process the loss with their loved ones.

From 1 January 2021, the measures contained in this bill will remove the discrepancy in the rates of the stillborn baby payment for first and then subsequent stillborn children and align the stillborn baby payment with the rates payable to families that experience an infant death. This will be achieved by establishing one rate for the stillborn baby payment equivalent to the current highest rate plus an amount equivalent to the maximum family tax benefit part A bereavement payment. Additionally, a top-up amount will be paid to families with children who receive the low rate of the newborn supplement and then who experience the death of the newborn before their first birthday.

For parents who experience this kind of loss, there is no money in the world that can numb the pain. That is for sure. But I hope that this change in payment that the Morrison government is putting through allows those families to take more time together to grieve and process such a terrible loss. There should never have been these kinds of discrepancies in the payments in the first place for stillbirths and early infant loss, and I really want to commend Minister Ruston for taking this step to address it and to address it properly.

The families in these circumstances deserve every bit of support that we as a parliament can provide and I will keep fighting for them, as I'm sure other members in this place will, to get even more support. On that point, I really commend the amendments contained in this bill to the House. I know that they will assist young people. I know that they will assist families in the Ryan electorate. I know they will assist older Australians, industry and all of us, all Australians, on the road to recovery out of the COVID-19 recession.

Mr HILL (Bruce) (11:23): I rise in support of the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020 as drafted, as far as it goes, and note at the outset that Labor has called for many of these measures for months. The government's self-congratulatory prattle needs to be put in context. Many of these things could, and should, have been done months ago. But it's better late than never. This bill gives pensioners a few crumbs off Prime Minister Scott Morrison's table. It's two $250 payments. The government is racking up $1 trillion of Liberal debt, hurtling towards $1.7 trillion, and that is what pensioners get—$250. The urgency to get this through to the Senate is because that first $250 payment crumb is on 27 November. This is the government that froze the age pension. It is hoping with this $250 that people will forget over seven years of Liberal attacks on the age pension. It wouldn't be a Liberal government, we've come to think, if there wasn't another cut tried on the pension and attacks on age pensioners. This payment is of course for disability support pensioners and carers—$250 of hush money, in effect.

The second aspect of the bill, which we do support, is some concessions for people trying to prove their independence for youth allowance and Abstudy in the Morrison recession. And there is also—this is an interesting measure—a temporary incentive for young people in agriculture to prove their independence for the purposes of youth allowance. If they earn $15,000 over 13 months, the government will take that as evidence of independence. Frankly, I'm sceptical about whether this will work. The government has tried these incentives many times before—and, every single time, they announce one thing but under-deliver. The previous incentives to get young people and people on Newstart to go to the bush and engage in rural work have never achieved their targets. So I will be interested if the minister—whichever muppet they serve up to sum up the bill—could answer the question and inform the House how many young people they project or expect will be accessing this benefit. How many people do they think are going to be incentivised over the next year to go bush and do agricultural work?

The fourth change, which we welcome, allows parents to access paid parental leave where employment has been impacted by coronavirus. Again, this is stuff that Labor has called for for months—entirely common sense. Frankly it is administrivia which, I would bet my bottom dollar, the department served up to the ministers months ago, but it has taken them this long to actually get around to bringing it to the parliament—so constipated is the government's policy process while they are busy making announcements but never actually delivering.

The fifth measure, which we strongly support and have been calling for for a long time now, is the changes to stillborn baby payments and infant death payments. The bill defines a stillborn child and makes much fairer arrangements for families who lose a child through stillbirth or whose child dies before their first birthday. Currently, and quite unbelievably—I wasn't aware of this until I actually delved into this bill—if a family lose a child to stillbirth, they get a higher rate for the first stillborn child and then lower rates thereafter. I suspect that most people in this place would have direct or indirect personal experience of people in their family and circle of friends who have gone through the pain and trauma of this. One of the saddest funerals I have attended, a couple of years ago, was for someone who was very close to me who had lost a baby to stillbirth a week before the baby was due. It took them 12 months before they could get to the point emotionally where they could gather the family and friends and have that shared grieving. I can't imagine the pain. To lose a child is every parent's greatest fear, and it is something that I know members of this House have gone through.

The measures are fine, as far as they go, but I want to turn now to the second reading amendments moved by the member for Barton—which, in effect, go to what the bill does not do. As is often the case with this government when it comes to the vulnerable in Australia, it is not about the little crumbs that they throw at people, the little tweaks that they make, the administrative tidy-ups that they call policy and reform; it's about what they don't put in their legislation but should. The fact is that the hangover from the Morrison recession, however long it lasts, is going to be longer, harder, deeper and harsher than it should be because of the government's tardiness in introducing a wage subsidy and the fact that they are still making active choices to exclude hundreds of thousands of Australians from support that they need—casual workers, people in universities, people working in the arts and entertainment sector. And now, unbelievably, it seems that they are still proceeding with their nasty, ill-timed cuts. With the conditions we're seeing now, you couldn't think of a worse time to make cuts to the support that people are relying on.

Probably the worst thing about this budget in my view, given the people I represent in what is socio-economically the most disadvantaged council area in the whole of metropolitan Melbourne—people who rely on government to get by, people who need some support to get back on their feet through whatever their life circumstances have come to—is that this budget bakes in a cut to Newstart, or unemployment benefits, or whatever you call it now with your marketing spin. You thought you'd rename the program!

If you say 'job' a lot then everyone might think you have a jobs plan, might they not! I know—what a cunning plan, Baldrick! We're going to rename Newstart 'JobSeeker'! Then we'll call the wage subsidy 'JobKeeper'! Then we'll call our $3 billion of cuts to TAFE 'JobTrainer'! They may as well call their wage subsidy 'JobFaker', may they not? We learned at Senate estimates that it's not going to be 450,000 jobs, like the Prime Minister and Treasurer told us yesterday. The Treasury's over there telling the public it will be 45,000 jobs. They should call that one 'JobFaker'. We'll get on to 'MateKeeper' later, won't we—your rorts with Australia Post and stacking the AAT? That's a topic for another time.

The government are running around with their little talking points, saying: 'The recession's over. As the Reserve Bank governor has said, it might be over. We might be slipping back into positive growth, so it's all over; it's all better.' Try telling that to the 1.6 million Australians relying on JobSeeker. I don't think the government has any idea of the abject terror that people trying to survive on JobSeeker have of what's coming down the pipe from this government's budget—a cut back to $40 a day. They tell us—maybe give us a little hint—that maybe they're not going to do that. Tell us what you are going to do.

As the member for Barton so rightly said, 'People deserve the dignity of some degree of certainty.' People who are unemployed budget. They actually count their pennies, to use that old phrase. They know where every single dollar is going—every single dollar. All we're asking for is certainty—to tell people who are surviving on JobSeeker what your plans are and tell them what they're in for. Reassure them they won't be returning to $40 a day. Is that really too much to ask? That's what our second reading amendment does. It says that it puts a positive obligation on the minister to 'announce a permanent increase to the base rate' of JobSeeker and to 'extend the coronavirus supplement' until at least March. The minister has that power. She doesn't need our help here. She doesn't need our advice. She could get an instrument and sign it already. The parliament has already, as part of emergency measures, given the Minister for Families and Social Services the power to extend the coronavirus supplement. But she won't do it.

This bill is a missed opportunity to increase JobSeeker. There are 1.6 million Australians relying on JobSeeker, and the bill should have given them certainty and a permanent increase. How we treat the most vulnerable is a measure of what kind of society we really are, and they deserve certainty. By not giving people that certainty, they face an uncertain and anxious Christmas. The most effective stimulus, as all economists keep telling us, is not tax cuts. It's boosts in the payments in the pockets of the most vulnerable and poorest in society, because they spend every dollar. By not giving certainty and by baking in this cut to $40 a day, that will mean less to spend on local and small businesses in the coming months.

I'd be interested, when the minister muppet turns up with the summing-up dot-points speech to read out, in how many jobs will be lost when JobSeeker is cut. That would be good for parliament to know. What would the economic modelling say when JobSeeker is cut back to $40 a day—or whatever number the Prime Minister's got in his bottom drawer in store for people? How many jobs are going to be lost when that money is taken out of the economy?

We could also talk—as the second reading amendment touches on—about the one million jobseekers. These are the one million people of the 1.6 million people in the Morrison recession languishing on JobSeeker. We could talk about how the budget has abandoned unemployed Australians over 35 who are ineligible for their wage subsidy. Older Australians are the largest single cohort of those 1.6 million Australians on JobSeeker. That older cohort face structural barriers—age discrimination, as the evidence shows—and enormous difficulties in getting back into the workforce, and the government is not making them eligible for their wage subsidies. They're forgetting about them. So I do touch on the second reading amendment that Labor is urging the government to accept. They are to 'extend the $250 per fortnight coronavirus supplement until March, in line with JobKeeper'; to provide better support—not just the crumbs-off-the-table hush money which the Prime Minister announced belatedly in the budget—to age pensioners, disability support pensioners and carer payment recipients, who, as the member for Barton outlined, are 'facing increased costs in protecting their health because of the coronavirus pandemic'; and to 'announce a permanent increase to the base rate' of JobSeeker.

Before closing, I'll make a few remarks about pensioners. The government were caught out with their freeze to the pension. I don't know how they could have thought pensioners wouldn't notice that the government were freezing their pension. Pensioners know about the small increases in March and September; they are baked into their financial planning. The government thought they could just get away with it: 'We'll freeze the pension. That's okay, isn't it? Why would anyone worry about that?' It was only because of the pressure that Labor put on the government—through the media, with stakeholders and with so many thousands of community members—that they acted on it. We fought this government's disrespectful and cruel pension freeze.

Of course, the government has a long track record of cutting, or attempting to cut, the pension. This context is important when considering our second reading amendment, which calls on the government to do more for pensioners, because with the government in its eighth year—after seven years of this government—the record of cuts is astounding.

They still haven't adjusted the deeming rates. They made a little gesture that way a few months ago, but the deeming rates still haven't been adjusted. They're higher than the typical saving rates that pensioners can get. The upper deeming rate is 2.25 per cent and the lower deeming rate is 0.25 per cent. Goodness only knows where pensioners with a little bit of cash in the bank are supposed to get 2.25 per cent—ask anyone in the real world. Maybe the investment banker mates they appoint to the Australia Post board and ASIC or stack their government appointments with through their 'MateKeeper' program could advise pensioners on where to get 2.25 per cent. They might get a Cartier watch for their trouble! You never know; it could be their lucky day.

The government's record of pension cuts should never be forgotten. The Liberals and Nationals, at every budget, have been obsessed with cutting the pension. In 2014 they tried to cut pension indexation, which in 10 years would have meant pensioners being forced to live on $80 a week less. It's lucky we stopped that one. They cut $1 billion from pensioner concessions in 2014. They axed, in 2014, the $900 seniors supplement to self-funded retirees receiving the Commonwealth seniors health card. Continuing the theme in that horror budget, they had a crack at resetting the deeming rate thresholds, a cut that would have seen half a million part pensioners worse off. Then there was the shoddy, shameful deal with the Greens political party, who still haven't lived that one down amongst pensioners—they remember it. They cut the pension to around 370,000 pensioners by as much as $12,000 a year by fiddling the pension assets test. Hundreds of thousands of people were kicked off the part pension completely. Then they broke their promise. I remember that. That went well, didn't it? They said, 'You'll keep the healthcare card,' and they broke that promise. It took them a year or two before they finally backed down and said: 'That wasn't such a good idea. Maybe we should have kept that promise. People were a little bit mad.' In 2016 they tried to cut the pension to around 190,000 pensioners as part of a plan to limit pensioners' overseas travel to six weeks. The government's own figures show that this would have left 563,000 Australians currently receiving a pension or allowance worse off. Over 10 years, in excess of 1.5 million pensioners would have been worse off.

Of course, they spent five long years—this was the current Prime Minister's policy; he sold it as the social services minister and then sold it as the Treasurer—trying to increase the age pension age to 70. There was no empathy and no understanding of what that would do to people, like so many in my electorate, who had engaged in heavy manual labour, whose bodies were wrecked from a lifetime of hard work. They weren't going to treat them with dignity. He only backed down after they rolled Malcolm Turnbull. Remember Malcolm? Whatever happened to him? This guy, his best friend, had his back. They only backed down after they realised they were hurtling towards an election and had to cauterise every wound.

This government's record on the pension is shameful. I commend the second reading amendment to the House.

Dr ALLEN (Higgins) (11:38): The COVID crisis has impacted the lives of everyone, not just here in Australia but right around the world. It has, tragically, taken lives, crushed businesses and resulted in many job losses. In the wake of Victoria now getting its second wave under control, we as a nation are building back. Businesses are reopening, jobs are returning, and there's real hope for not only my electorate of Higgins but indeed all of Australia. From the Reserve Bank there have been welcome comments that a revival is in the air, the recession may be over, and we've had growth in the September quarter.

The Morrison government has had the back of Australians during the COVID lockdowns by preparing our hospitals, deploying ADF support and financially backing us in the form of JobKeeper and JobSeeker. The government had our back then and it has the back of every Australian as we build back our economy and our future. My electorate of Higgins has been affected by two lockdowns and the many local restrictions, but we are resilient and we are wanting to find a new COVID normal.

Through this bill, we intend to provide even more support to those within our economy who may be struggling with the new COVID normal. This bill has a diverse range of measures because our country is diverse. The Morrison government is not taking a single-handed approach to the recovery of our economy. We understand our COVID recovery is complicated and needs a nuanced response. That is why we are responding to the complexity of the COVID recovery with this bill, which responds to the needs of Australians in their time of need. This bill aims to help some of our most vulnerable citizens. It will help those who are suffering through no fault of their own, those who battle with finding themselves in completely unexpected circumstances. 2020 has been an extraordinary year because of the COVID pandemic, which is changing the very fabric of society—not just here, but all around the world—and we've had to make changes to keep ourselves, our families and our communities safe. This bill will help veterans and those on social security. It will help the young. It will help those who are grieving for the loss of a child.

The first of these new measures is to provide two further economic support payments of $250 to around five million social security and veterans payment recipients and concession card holders in the lead-up to Christmas. Christmas is a time of hope and happiness, a time for family and sharing, a time for gift-giving and cooking up a storm. I'd like to reflect on the buoyancy of Victorians, as they are so excited in this lead-up to Christmas that the lockdowns are lifted. You cannot understand how exciting this is, particularly for Melburnians. The payment will help make Christmas just that bit brighter for those who've suffered a really difficult and long winter, a winter that has been particularly difficult through the long and hard COVID lockdown in my home town of Melbourne. Not only will this $250 payment help those in need have a better Christmas; it has the multiplier effect of helping our local businesses and thus our overall economy in the lead-up to Christmas. My electorate of Higgins has many small, medium and family-sized businesses, and they know that they will all benefit from this additional support payment coming through our local economy.

We aren't just stopping there. Many young Australians have been very adversely affected by the COVID pandemic. We know that, when there's a recession, the young are those that are hardest hit. This bill will temporarily amend the circumstances in which a person may be regarded as independent for youth allowance purposes. This has been designed to assist young people to qualify for youth allowance who would have qualified if they had not lost or been unable to attain employment because of the economic effect of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Morrison government has already announced and implemented many support measures to support our struggling young Australians, including JobKeeper, JobSeeker and the JobMaker hiring credit. This last initiative brings huge hope to our young as they look to their future. We are also creating a temporary pathway for young people who are seeking to qualify as independent for the purposes of youth allowance. This will encourage young people to undertake seasonal agricultural work. This will jointly help alleviate concerns regarding workforce availability for the upcoming harvest season, terribly important in my home state of Victoria.

I'd like to turn to a part of this bill which seeks to introduce a revised paid parental leave work-test limit for a limited time to enable people to access to parental leave pay, and dad and partner pay, who do not meet the current work-test provisions because their employment has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. I'd also like to turn to another part of this bill and to talk about stillbirth and infant death leave. While it's been a year mostly consumed by COVID-19, the Morrison government has not allowed other important matters and the need for amendments in legislation to go ignored. Indeed, taking care of our most vulnerable remains a priority and this includes those affected by stillbirth or infant death. As not only a paediatrician, but a mother of four children the thought of losing one is unimaginable. As I said in my first speech, words like 'widow' and 'orphan' describe our losses but there is no word in the English language to describe the loss of a child. However, this is sadly the reality for too many Australians.

Interestingly, last week I represented the Minister for Health, Mr Greg Hunt, for the launch of the UNICEF and World Health Organization global reduction in stillbirth goals. I was proud to represent Australia and to discuss the road map of the Australian government National Stillbirth Action and Implementation Plan, which is being developed in close consultation with stakeholders. I asked the question of those on this Zoom call, of several hundred people from around the world, whether they had a word for the loss of a child in their language and no-one was able to provide that. It's interesting that that was seen around the world.

The national stillbirth action plan, which is expected to be publicly released later this year, will ensure efforts to reduce stillbirth and support bereaved families are strategically planned and delivered. The national stillbirth action plan includes priority and action areas, goals and implementation tasks, including reducing disparities in stillbirth rates between population groups. Importantly, this includes groups at increased risk of stillbirth in Australia and this includes Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, some migrant and refugee groups and women living in rural and remote communities. The plan includes actions focusing on culturally safe haven health services, addressing language barriers, health literacy and providing culturally appropriate bereavement care and support.

As a medical professional in my former life, I heard of a case of a woman from a refugee background who had no English. She presented to a hospital in Melbourne heavily pregnant. She was put under general anaesthetic, unable to communicate in an emergency setting, and woke up losing a child and having had a hysterectomy. It's difficult to imagine how a woman like this has had to face such incredible tragedy in the face of not having any English whatsoever. I welcome Minister Tudge's recent announcement of uncapping English lesson placements, because I think that ensuring that women and families, and men, coming to this country have the ability to access English lessons is incredibly important for their own health, welfare and wellbeing and for the social cohesion of our country.

I presented to the UNICEF, World Health Organization global audience examples of activities that the Australian government is currently funding to reduce stillbirth amongst high-risk groups. These include translation of the Safer Baby Bundle stillbirth resources into 23 languages, a really welcome initiative; co-designing stillbirth prevention resources for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; webinars and resources targeted at rural and remote clinicians and families; and developing a stillbirth education program, using bicultural workers, for migrant and refugee women.

I would like to take note and congratulate Professor Vicky Flenady of the stillbirth centre of research excellence for her amazing work and the centre's amazing work in raising awareness of stillbirth in Australia, and the excellent work that they are doing to not only promote Australia's work in this area internationally but to ensure that women in Australia get the best possible care. These activities complement our other Australian government initiatives that aim to improve maternal and infant health. Reducing disparities remain a key focus as Australia continues its focus post COVID to prevent stillbirth. While this is our goal unfortunately the reality in Australia is that one in every 135 pregnancies results in stillbirth. These events are tragic. They are tragic to the parents, they are tragic to their families and, indeed, they are tragic to the wider community, and that is why this bill is so important.

This bill will improve assistance for families affected by stillbirth and infant death in respect of payments for newborn children, by increasing the maximum amount that eligible families are able to access after a stillbirth and up until the first birthday equivalent. This one-off payment of $3,006 will be provided to the family as a support payment. The last thing any Australian should have to face during such a traumatic time in their lives is additional stress caused by financial burden. The payments can be used in any way to support the family. Some families need time off work to grieve. Some will seek mental health support. Some need the time to organise funerals. I welcome Minister Ruston's excellent work in this area.

This bill will also remove discrepancies within the payment system with respect to multiple instances of stillbirth or infant death within the same family. For families who've tried multiple times to start their dream of a family that has ended tragically in multiple stillbirths, this will be welcomed. This, within itself, is heartbreaking. Many of us in this chamber will know of someone with this struggle or possibly have faced it ourselves. That is why it's so important to pass this bill. By passing this bill today, it will help ensure these payments are made available to those heartbroken families on 1 January 2021 and into the future. 2020 has been a tough year for Australians. This bill will help ensure that no-one is left behind in our economic recovery. It will help ensure that those in need can have a good Christmas, that our young Australians can have a go and that parents are supported, in particular with financial support, in some of the most testing times anyone can face.

By passing this bill, we will help those in need to have a better start in 2021. I'm sure we can all agree across the chamber that Australia looks forward to a better year in 2021 than we've seen in 2020. We are a strong and resilient country. We're a resourceful country, with resourceful citizens, and I'm proud to say that we've worked together to face the COVID crisis. I look forward to a buoyant 2021 ahead.

Mr GILES (Scullin) (11:51): I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020, and in support of the second reading amendment moved by my friend the shadow minister and the member for Barton. Before I turn to the substance of the bill, I'd like to acknowledge the contribution of the member for Higgins and in particular her affecting and informed remarks in terms of her former profession, going to the question of stillbirth, which is obviously one of the issues that is the subject of this bill. While I also share her hopes for 2021, I can't say that I share her entire assessment of the legislation that is before the House, but I wanted to acknowledge what a moving and important contribution she just made on that aspect of the bill. This is something that affects too many Australians, and I'm so glad that we've seen bipartisan action to give recognition to something that has been too little talked about in this building, while very often talked about around kitchen tables across this country. That that has been rectified and appropriately recognised is something that I think all of us in this place should be proud of, and I acknowledge her contribution in that regard.

Of course, the bill is designed to provide very significant support to pensioners and seniors during the pandemic, support which pensioners and seniors in my electorate in Scullin both need and, most definitely, deserve. But this bill, much like the Morrison government's 2020 budget across the board, is really defined by one characteristic: missed opportunity. We have before us a missed opportunity for pensioners, a missed opportunity for unemployed Australians, a missed opportunity for elderly Australians in aged care and a missed opportunity to make Australia a better place—a place where no-one is held back and no-one is left behind. As we start to imagine what our country might look like beyond COVID, we simply can't afford not to seize this critical moment, not just to recover but to build a stronger society. In thinking about that, I'm thinking about the member for Barton, the shadow minister, and what a difference it would make to that aspiration if she were the minister, if she could bring her passion, her experience, her dedication and her deep sense of justice to the challenge that is before our nation now. The budget delivered a couple of weeks ago was a missed opportunity for Australians who've lost their job as a result of this Morrison recession, a missed opportunity because it failed to deliver much-needed certainty to people who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. It was undoubtedly a good thing that the government increased the rate of JobSeeker for six months through the coronavirus supplement. I know that the emergency service providers in my own area of Melbourne saw the difference it made. I think of organisations like Whittlesea Community Connections and the Whittlesea Food Collective, which they helped establish, and of the stories of clients they weren't seeing, of families who, for the first time in quite some time, were able to feed themselves and start to improve their lives. What a difference that made.

But this bill doesn't provide certainty. That's why I'm so pleased to support the amendment moved by the member for Barton, which will create an obligation on the minister to extend the $250 per fortnight coronavirus supplement until the end of March, in line with JobKeeper. An extension of that extra $250 is essential for so many Australians as we near the festive season. People need certainty and stability at this time of great disruption, and people frankly deserve the dignity that this would secure. Labor's amendment, to extend the $250 supplement, will help provide some much-needed certainty, because the truth is 160,000 Australians are expected to lose their jobs before Christmas and the number of people on JobKeeper is expected to reach 1.6 million. These Australians doing it tough deserve our support. They deserve the best shot at bouncing back from this recession. But in order for that to happen they need the certainty and security that the old Newstart rate of $40 a day won't grant them. We know that $40 a day will condemn people to poverty, to misery and to personal risk, too, as the pandemic has so awfully revealed in so many stories. This is what's at stake. Do we want to plunge more than a million Australians below the poverty line or do we want to be a generous nation, a nation that invests in our people, that's confident in them and their capacities if given the chance, if given the support? Do we want to be a nation that makes sure that if people lose their job they aren't held back by inadequate unemployment benefit and everything that that entails? We know that with more jobseekers then there are job vacancies there are simply not enough jobs for everyone who needs one. We know that this shortage of jobs is particularly acute because of the pandemic and for particular parts of the economy and particular regions of our country.

I want to speak very briefly about someone in my electorate, Shannon, although that's not her real name, from Epping. Shannon has been on JobSeeker since late last year, so she's seen the difference that the extra support from the coronavirus supplement has made. She says, 'Looking for work takes a lot of time, money and emotional energy. You actually need a reasonable amount of money to pay the bills, to pay for transport to go to job interviews and to pay for the internet to look for job vacancies.' She says, 'Just because you're out of work it doesn't mean the bills stop needing to be paid.' So please, Prime Minister; please, Treasurer; please, Minister for Families and Social Services: if you're not going to listen to me, listen to Shannon and do justice to Shannon and the hundreds of thousands of people in her circumstances, people who've been given an opportunity to make their lives with dignity and to look for work with confidence and who are seeing that slip away.

This bill will also temporarily amend the circumstances in which a person may be regarded as independent for youth allowance. In May, the Leader of the Labor Party called on the government to provide case-by-case exemptions to the youth allowance parental income test. Labor was concerned that tertiary students would be missing out on youth allowance and would be unable to afford to continue their studies. These are not ordinary times, and we don't want to see students discontinuing tertiary studies because they can't afford to support themselves or their families can't afford to support them. It is disappointing that the government has taken this long to act on this issue. May was a long time ago, as those of us from Melbourne perhaps feel particularly acutely right now, and it's been a long and anxious period for students, for those directly affected in particular.

I want to give a shout-out to the young people in the northern suburbs of Melbourne. I know that this year has been tough, and I know that so much of the burden of this pandemic has fallen on young people—something else properly acknowledged by the member for Higgins. From remote learning to endless Zoom meetings, from cancelled shifts at work to big nights out with your mates that simply couldn't happen and the 18ths, 21sts, graduations and all the other rites of passage that simply couldn't happen this year, it has been a difficult year. I want to acknowledge the sacrifices that young people in particular have made to keep all of us safe.

Let's be clear: it was this Prime Minister, when he was the Minister for Social Services, who cut the pension to 330,000 pensioners, including kicking nearly 100,000 of them off the pension entirely. It was this Prime Minister who sought repeatedly to increase the pension age to 70. So pensioners are under no illusion that this Prime Minister and this Liberal government couldn't care less about them.

Let's go through the list of shame. In 2014 they tried to cut pension indexation, a cut that would have meant pensioners would be forced to live on 80 bucks a week less within 10 years. Also in that year there was $1 billion cut from pensioner concessions, support designed carefully to help pensioners meet the cost of living. Again in 2014, the government axed the $900 seniors supplement for self-funded retirees receiving the Commonwealth seniors health card. Again in that year, that infamous year, they tried to reset deeming rate thresholds, a cut that would have seen half a million part-pensioners made worse off. The next year we saw a deal with the Greens by this government—

Mr Conroy: Shameful!

Mr GILES: That was a shameful decision late at night in this parliament to cut the pension to around 370,000 pensioners by as much as $12,000 a year by changing the pension assets test. The following year we saw attempts to cut the pension to around 190,000 pensioners as part of a plan to limit overseas travel for pensioners to six weeks, something of enormous concern to the multicultural communities that I represent and I know, Deputy Speaker Claydon, to the communities that you represent as well. Again in 2016, they tried to cut the pension for over 1.5 million Australians through scrapping the energy supplement for new pensioners.

Pensioners will always be better off under Labor. The pensioners that I'm proud to represent know this. I want to say this to them: I can't wait to be able to spend time with you again as our city safely opens up and to hear directly from you about your concerns. I know that older Australians, particularly older Australians from migrant backgrounds, are the ones who've found it most difficult to remain connected to political life through the pandemic. I know how important those meetings are both as ways through which you receive information but much more importantly as ways when you can give me and my state colleagues guidance about the things that matter to you. On these issues, I've heard your concerns loud and clear and so has the entire federal Labor Party.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the plight of so many elderly pensioners in aged care during the pandemic. In Scullin, the outbreak at Epping Gardens has taken the lives of 38 people and infected more than 120 residents, along with many staff members. This was a tragedy and my heart goes out to the families and loved once personally affected by it. It's a tragedy that will leave a lasting scar on the communities of Melbourne's north for many years to come. Let me just say this: it is a disgrace that the Morrison government has still not acted fully on the interim recommendations of the royal commission. It's an absolute disgrace that does not do justice to those people.

I want to speak very briefly on the changes in this bill affecting paid parental leave. The bill is adjusting how someone qualifies for PPL. To be eligible, someone must satisfy the work test, and the existing work test requires a person to have worked 10 of the 13 months prior to the birth or adoption of a child and at least 330 hours in that 10-month period. The concern has been that during the pandemic families would miss out on PPL because of job losses or having their hours reduced, making them ineligible and leaving them perhaps $15,000 worse off. So Labor called for the government to temporarily suspend the work test as early as April this year so that families wouldn't miss out. In June, we moved amendments in the Senate for the work test to be suspended. But, again, the Morrison government voted this down.

I've talked a lot about certainty—that is, the certainty Australians deserve to get through this crisis and to rebuild. That applies here. Families need certainty about their capacity to access paid parental leave during these challenging times. It is disappointing, to say the very least, that it has taken the government this long to make this adjustment. It's worth noting that next year marks ten years since the Rudd-Gillard Labor government introduced Australia's first paid parental leave scheme under Jenny Macklin, the former member for Jagajaga. It's a scheme that has been a major policy success story. It's something that deserves to be recognised. It has transformed lives and helped boost workforce participation—one of those three Ps that will drive our economy forward in the recovery.

In conclusion, Labor supports the measures outlined in the bill. They're measures that Labor has been advocating for from the beginning of the pandemic earlier this year—a time that feels much, much longer ago. But now it's just eight weeks until Christmas. Around one million Australians, relying on the coronavirus supplement, need certainty, not an unfair cut. That is why we are moving this vital amendment to extend the supplement until March, in line with JobKeeper, and require the government to announce a permanent, just increase in the JobSeeker payment. I hope government members are listening to their communities and their conscience and will support that amendment.

Mr VAN MANEN (Forde—Chief Government Whip) (12:06): It's always a pleasure to rise in this House and speak about various pieces of legislation where we're looking to resolve issues and make life better for Australians. In the coronavirus pandemic, we have seen all aspects of our society impacted by this one-in-100-year sledgehammer event. Both the social and economic consequences of the pandemic have been severe and, to use the word we've all heard regularly over this past year, unprecedented.

The Morrison government has provided a never-before-seen investment in supporting the vast majority of Australian society, whether it's additional supplements to the JobSeeker payment, JobKeeper to keep employees linked to their employers or supplementary payments to seniors or other social security recipients as well as a variety of supports to the business community. We have sought to support as many citizens as possible through what has been, and continues to be, tough and worrying times.

The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020 delivers further support, as outlined in the 2020-21 budget, for those who are receiving some social security payments. Let me outline for the House some of the measures in this bill. The bill provides additional assistance through two further economic support payments of $250 to certain recipients and card holders in the lead-up to Christmas and in the new year as part of the government's response to COVID-19. From 1 January 2021 amendments are also made so that the 6-month period between 25 March and 24 September 2020 will automatically be recognised as contributing to existing workforce independence criteria for youth allowance. The same concession will also be available for Abstudy recipients.

The bill also creates temporary incentives in the income support system to encourage young Australians to undertake seasonal agricultural work. The new criteria will recognise a person who earns at least $15,000 through employment in the agricultural industry between 30 November 2020 and 21 December 2021 as independent for the purposes of youth allowance.

I know from discussions with many of my regional and rural colleagues that that measure in particular is of critical importance, given the workforce shortages in those areas, due to the closure of our international borders. The bill will also introduce a revised paid parental leave work test for a limited period of time to enable people who do not meet the current work test provisions because their employment has been affected by COVID-19 to access parental leave pay and dad and partner pay. The bill also makes amendments to align the maximum amount that eligible families are able to access after a stillbirth or the child's death shortly after birth. These amendments remove discrepancies within the payment system in respect of multiple instances of stillbirth or infant death with the same family. This bill also makes some technical amendments to the child support laws to allow for alternative figures to be used in place of the male total average weekly earnings trend figure and the average weekly earnings trend figure for the purposes of the child support assessment calculations.

These measures are on top of the government already investing almost $200 billion in a wide range of supports during the COVID pandemic. This unprecedented level of investment, both direct and indirect, amounts to around $7,700 per Australian. This doesn't include the around $15 billion worth of measures by state and territory governments but clearly demonstrates that the Commonwealth government is definitely doing the heavy lifting in this crisis, as it should be. I do note with interest that several weeks ago the Reserve Bank of Australia did call on the state governments to lift their game and spend more to assist the economy with recovering and provide the jobs necessary for that recovery.

It's important to note that we've only been able to provide this level of support due to the careful budgetary management of the coalition government over the past seven years. The measures in this bill will have a direct impact on a significant number of people in my electorate, in particular for youth allowance recipients. The Parliamentary Library outlined that in my electorate of Forde I have had one of the largest increases in Youth Allowance recipients between December 2019 to May 2020: an increase of some 103 per cent. So it's important that this House support this bill in a timely manner so that the people who are receiving income support can benefit from the announced measures. The Commonwealth government's message to these people is that we have your back and we won't let you fall between the cracks. It is a vitally important message that I want all recipients of income support in Ford to hear loud and clear: we are here for you.

As I said, with the other measures we've already undertaken in terms of JobKeeper, JobSeeker, now JobMaker and the apprenticeship supports, and the job commencement bonus, there are a range of measures as a total package that we are looking at to provide support for our economy as we move forward. We recognise that we have a long way to go in this crisis, but one of the things that can help alleviate the impacts of this crisis is to ensure that our borders are open—and it was very pleasing to see the decision of the Victorian government yesterday to get their economy back up and operating. We need all of Australia working together at Commonwealth, state and local government levels together with the private sector to get our economy operating again, get people back in jobs and deliver the services that this country desperately needs and, more importantly, the jobs and the infrastructure that allows our economy to be built, stable and resilient for the long term.

I know the Australian people have the resilience, the ingenuity and the capacity to achieve this, and this bill, along with many other measures that we're making as a government, all go towards achieving that very purpose. I commend this bill to the House.

Ms THWAITES (Jagajaga) (12:14): [by video link] I am speaking on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020 today because it's critical that Australians who are struggling right now as a result of this pandemic get the extra support they need, especially those in my electorate of Jagajaga, who are only just coming out of stage 4 restrictions this week. I support this bill, and the timing is important; however, this bill does not go par enough. That's why I support the amendments moved by the shadow minister to extend the $250-per-fortnight coronavirus supplement until March in line with JobKeeper to better support pensioners—those on the aged pension, the disability support pension and the carer payment—and to permanently increase the base rate of the JobSeeker payment. There is a pretty special feeling in Melbourne this morning as we emerge from stage 4 restrictions. I certainly had a big smile on my face as I strolled up the street for my morning coffee and saw the chairs and tables back out in front of the cafes and the shops opening their doors. I even had to face some traffic, because I drove into the office this morning. So things are looking up for us.

But it would be ridiculous to pretend we're about to experience some sort of miraculous snapback and that people are not going to need support to navigate our COVID-normal landscape. We know, from previous recessions, that employment numbers take a long time to recover. We know, from looking at the current numbers, that it's not just people in Melbourne who are suffering job losses. The economy is weak not just in Victoria but right around Australia. The latest job numbers released so jobs were lost in every single state and territory. We've got a million people unemployed, and another 160,000 people will join the unemployment queues between now and Christmas. Pushing these people into poverty makes absolutely no sense. It's only seven weeks till Christmas, and people relying on the coronavirus supplement need certainty not a cruel cut.

We are well past the stage where this government should be legislating a permanent increase in the base rate of the JobSeeker payment. Even before this crisis, we knew that the level of this payment was leaving people in unacceptable poverty—people having to make decisions about which meals they could afford to eat in a day or cutting back on meals for themselves so they could afford to feed their children; people couch surfing or moving between precarious forms of accommodation because they couldn't afford rent or mortgages. And we know that older women and single parents have disproportionately been affected by this—people making unacceptable decisions because it's not possible to live on $40 a day. And we've seen stories of people who, since the increase in the payment, have done things they haven't done in years—gone to sleep without adding up the bills one final time; got a haircut or a new pair of shoes; felt equipped to actually begin the search for work, even within our current precarious employment environment.

Pushing people back into poverty will do nothing to grow employment in our community. It will do nothing to support the small businesses who are reopening in our community. When most people who are relying on the JobSeeker payment don't have the money to go to the shops, to grab an extra coffee or to buy the school supplies that they need, that will hurt our small businesses. It's time for the government to do the right thing and permanently increase the base rate of the JobSeeker payment. We don't need a Christmas cut, we need a permanent increase.

The budget left Australians on JobSeeker aged under 35—almost one million Australians—out of the budget and ineligible for the government's wage hire subsidies. Again, we know that older Australians represent the largest cohort on JobSeeker. These are the people who also face the most difficult challenge in finding work because of the structural barriers in front of them and age discrimination in our workforce. Just yesterday, I was contacted by a distraught member of my community who lives in Diamond Creek. She was made redundant this year as a result of the pandemic. She is now on the JobSeeker payment and she is struggling to cover her mortgage payments. She is acutely aware of how discriminatory the government's JobMaker program is. She told me: 'People of my age group have simply been left out to dry and thrown in the trash. Why would an employer, in the very limited job market, employ me over a person under 30 years of age whereby the government will financially assist the wages of a younger person?' She has really summed up the flaw in the Morrison government's support here. She also forwarded me an advertisement for a job she had applied for. The job criteria stipulated: 'Preferably you are under 30 years old and receiving one of these three forms of welfare in the last 12 months—JobSeeker, youth allowance or the parenting payment—so that the JobMaker grant is eligible.' So here's a woman desperate to work and doing what she can to apply for jobs. She is being left out of being able to apply for these jobs because of the discriminatory way this government has put together its JobMaker program. All the while, she won't know what payment she'll be receiving beyond Christmas this year because this government refuses to put in place a permanent increase in the rate of JobSeeker. It's unacceptable.

This is the reality facing thousands of middle-aged Australians who currently find themselves out of work and looking for jobs in a highly competitive market. The odds really are stacked against them. The Morrison government is just making it even harder for them to be considered for a new role. In Jagajaga at the moment there are almost 7,000 people relying on the JobSeeker payment. This is an increase of 4,130 people in our community who have been relying on unemployment payments since the start of this pandemic. These are people whose lives have changed drastically in the last few months, and the JobSeeker payment is what they are using to keep their families going, to pay their bills, to pay their health care, to make sure every day they can get up and keep going. At the same time as they are struggling to readjust their circumstances during a pandemic, this government is ignoring their need for certainty. These members of our community deserve to know what support they will receive and how they will pay their bills after Christmas. It is needlessly cruel of the Prime Minister and his social security minister to refuse to provide them with this certainty. These people need a permanent increase to the JobSeeker rate.

Labor's amendments to this bill will also create a requirement for the government to do more to support age pensioners, disability pensioners and carers. These people have experienced increased costs during this pandemic. I know I have been contacted by many who feel they have been left out in the Morrison government's response. They deserve security, and there is capacity for the minister to better support these people. Of course, we know the government often forgets about pensioners. The government were caught out by Labor on the pension freeze for 2.5 billion pensions, and that's the only reason they acted on it. Labor fought this disrespectful and cruel freeze. The reality is that pensioners planned their twice-yearly indexation, one on 20 March and the other on 20 September. The government was first caught out on their pension freeze in August. The freeze took effect in September, and yet the government made pensioners wait for the October budget before announcing any kind of relief. The government have had a long track record of cutting or attempting to cut the pension. And I note they still haven't adjusted deeming rates, which remain significantly higher than interest rates. This is punishing pensioners. We absolutely need to do more for pensioners—for age pensioners, disability pensioners and people relying on carers payments.

This bill is adjusting how some families qualify for paid parental leave. To be eligible, a person must satisfy the work test, and the existing work test requires a person to have worked 10 of the 13 months prior to the birth or adoption of a child and at least 330 hours in that 10-month period. I have been contacted by families who are concerned about how this work test would operate in the pandemic and how it may actually cut them out of a payment that they were expecting when they first got pregnant and thought about how they were going to support their child financially. Sitting here as someone who is expecting a child in two months, I feel very fortunate that I'm not worrying about how I will support her or him financially. But I am really aware that there is a lot going on in those months before a child is born. So these people really deserve certainty. Again, it's a shame that it's taken the government so long to act on this, when Labor called for the government to temporarily suspend the work test as early as April this year so that families would know that they wouldn't miss out, so they would have that time to plan and not add this financial stress to all the other stresses and lists that are in your mind as you plan a birth. Families do need certainty about their access to paid parental leave during these challenging times, and it's disappointing it has taken the government this long to make this adjustment. It really has been an excruciating wait for so many families.

This bill also temporarily amends the circumstances in which a person may be regarded as independent for youth allowance. In May Labor called on the government to provide case-by-case amendments to the youth allowance parental income test. That was in May, and we're only just getting around to it now. That's because we were concerned that tertiary students would miss out on youth allowance and would be unable to afford to continue their studies. I have heard this concern from a number of young people in my community—young people who are facing such disruption in their lives, who have gone to uni, who have gone online for learning, who have lost their casual jobs, who are in such a different position to where they expected to be at the start of this year. Many of them did not expect that they would be forced by financial circumstances to go back and live with their parents. They are really distressed about the economic situation they find themselves in. They are concerned about how they are going to be able to complete their studies. They are concerned about being a burden on their families.

These are not ordinary times, and what we don't want to see is students deciding that they need to drop out of study because they can't afford it, because we haven't made this change. Again, it is disappointing that the government has taken so long to act on this issue and has created a long and needlessly anxious period for our students. Currently in my community there are 466 young people relying on youth allowance. I want to make sure they are supported to get a good education, that they don't feel like their finances are going to drop them out, and so this is a very important change.

Throughout this pandemic, Labor has been supportive of measures that support people who need it most in our community. What we have at the moment is the need for certainty. People in our community on JobSeeker need certainty. They are doing it tough. They are the people who face the worries that many of us are fortunate not to have to think about, and there are too many of them at this time. These people do not deserve to return to a rate of $40 a day. They need certainty from the government. I know we had one answer from the Prime Minister yesterday in question time about what might be happening and another answer today in estimates from the relevant minister, but, as the shadow minister said in her speech about this bill, it's incomprehensible that the government hasn't already been thinking about what it might do with the JobSeeker payment beyond Christmas. That's only seven weeks away.

If the government is already thinking about it, if these plans are being put in place, be honest with the Australian people about the level of support you are going to give them beyond Christmas. People need to plan their lives. People need to know where they'll be living, how they'll be paying their rent, how they'll be supporting their kids to go to school next year. These are major life decisions. They don't get made with two weeks notice. It's up to the government now to do what it needs to do to support these people on a permanent basis and provide a permanent increase to the JobSeeker rate.

Ms McBRIDE (Dobell) (12:27): I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill and the amendment moved by the member for Barton. The bill, as others have said, will introduce budget measures, including two further one-off economic support payments of $250 each. These payments will be made to recipients of the age pension, disability support pension, carer payment, carer allowance and others, with the first payment being received from 30 November and the second from 1 March 2021. These payments are to those who received the first two one-off economic support payments of $750 each. While these payments are welcome, the budget doesn't do enough, especially for the most vulnerable. It doesn't go far enough for carers, for example, who will only receive an extra $500 over six months. That's less than $20 a week, which is not enough to meet the extra cost they have faced as a result of the pandemic.

It's no surprise, then, that many carers are feeling overlooked and left behind by this government. This is why Labor will seek to create an obligation on the minister to take actions that will have the effect of extending the supplement until March, in line with JobKeeper. The minister has the power under the Social Security Act to continue extending to supplement in three-month periods for as long as the economic impacts of the pandemic remain. People are relying on the coronavirus supplement, and they need certainty. They don't need a cut, certainly not now.

In May Carers Australia, in conjunction with Deloitte, released the report The value of informal care in 2020. The report findings estimate there are almost 2.8 million informal carers in Australia. This year these carers are estimated to provide 2.2 billion hours of care to family and friends. This represents an increase of over five per cent since 2018. Of this figure, 906,000 are primary carers and many of them—70 per cent, in fact—are women. Most hours of informal care are provided by primary carers. These individuals are estimated to spend an average of 35 hours per week providing care, and a quarter of them spend more than 60 hours a week caring for somebody else.

While carers are doing it because they love their friend or family member, it takes its toll and it's a significant burden on carers, forcing many to either reduce their hours of work or withdraw from work altogether. It is estimated that the employment rate for primary carers is less than 25 per cent in comparison to the wider population, and, according to the recent report, the total cost to replace all informal care in 2020 would be $78 billion. The estimated earnings lost by primary and non-primary carers combined was $15 billion, and there's a significant gap, about 18 per cent, in the employment rates between primary carers and other Australians.

Carers sacrifice a lot to look after their loved ones, and the onset of the pandemic has added significantly to the responsibilities that carers face every day, as formal support has fallen away and costs have risen. The Caring Fairly Coalition's 'Caring during coronavirus' survey highlighted the impact of the virus on the carer community. It will be no surprise to hear that 60 per cent of carers reported losing 'some or all of the support services for the person they care for', and four in five said that, as a result of this, their mental health had deteriorated since COVID-19. Nine out of 10 carers have experienced increased stress in their role as a carer, and close to half reported losing some or all of their regular income. The most vulnerable people—and those caring for them, who are often living with conditions or disability and need support themselves—have been overlooked by this government.

A recent survey by Mental Health Carers Australia on the impacts of COVID-19 on families and carers of NDIS participants living with psychosocial disability found that the provision of NDIS supports for participants, carers and families had 'dropped significantly' during COVID-19. Many, about six out of 10, said that the lockdown had impacted NDIS supports that they received, and a similar number said that they had not been in contact with their NDIS provider regarding their plan during this time. The survey found that families and carers had 'stepped into the breach left by providers', and it was, as I mentioned earlier, having a detrimental impact on their mental health and their wellbeing. Carers were concerned about their family's mental health, and they were particularly concerned about their own emotional and mental health and wellbeing. Half of carers said that their caring roles had increased significantly, to beyond what they could cope with, despite their resilience. Unsurprisingly, most carers were aged over 50, and nearly all respondents to the survey were women. For many, the day-to-day expenses had increased by over a half, and most of the carers, as we know, are retired or working part time because of their caring responsibilities.

The last finding of the survey was particularly concerning. We know carers are an at-risk group. As I said, they're caring for people who have a disability or are frail aged or have a complex and chronic health problem. But also, many people might not realise, the carer themselves often is experiencing those same hardships or difficulties. Whilst being so at risk and more vulnerable to COVID, they are also more likely to be struggling financially than other Australians.

The 2020 National Carers Survey report confirmed the strain that our carers are being put under. Most of the carers who responded were experiencing 'high or very high psychological distress', and many felt 'highly socially isolated'. Caring in itself is isolating; a lot of support and friends fall away, but this has been heightened during the pandemic. Many of the carers said that they 'never get time out from their caring responsibilities'—never, not at all. Less than half have enough time to keep on top of their other responsibilities, the day-to-day responsibilities that we all have to deal with. Many of them have found it really difficult to get information and to organise services to support the person that they care for.

This is why we're moving an amendment to extend these supplements for the most vulnerable people, people like carers who have gone above and beyond throughout the pandemic and who are facing the very real human, social and economic impacts of the virus. The other thing that they've had to deal with and that they're getting really disillusioned by and overcome by is having to deal with government agencies—whether it's aged care, the NDIA or Services Australia, agencies that should be on their side and should be supporting them—and having to deal with multiple agencies, particularly when they have very little time because of their caring responsibilities. It's not just the participant—the aged person or the person with disability—that's impacted; it's their carer and it's their families and friends as well.

I want to talk today about Christine. Christine is someone I know well. She's a carer for her 40-year-old son, Matt, who has quadriplegia. Matt applied for supported disability accommodation in September 2019, and it was approved in January, much to the family's relief. His mum had peace of mind with the SDA, the supported disability accommodation, because of what might happen to Matt without it, should she, in her words, 'fall off the perch'? Christine was forced to follow up repeatedly until Matt's supported living package was approved last September, and they were told it would arrive within 48 hours. The funding never came through. They never got it. So Christine was really worried about the supported living package. There was just silence from the NDIA. When, finally, the NDIA contacted Christine, she was told her son would be moved to a concierge model. I'm not sure if people are familiar with this model. It's more like the former group-home type of model, with a much lower ratio of support worker to participant. So Matt was told, just when he was about to move in, that he'd share one support worker with nine other residents. The support worker would be downstairs and would divide their care time between all of the residents over the course of the day. That just isn't safe, and, for Matt, it's just not suitable for his higher and complex needs. He was absolutely devastated. After hearing the news, he thought about throwing his bus pass into the lake and, as he said, 'Catching a one-way ride into the city,' because he was sick of being a burden to his own family. Carers like Matt's mum, Christine, have gone above and beyond for the people they care for, and it's no surprise that they're feeling that the government hasn't provided enough support for them during the pandemic.

The budget also missed an opportunity to permanently increase JobSeeker. With 160,000 more Australians expected to lose their jobs by Christmas and 1.6 million Australians on JobSeeker, the government missed a significant opportunity in the middle of a crisis to deliver certainty for some of the most vulnerable and at-risk people in our community, people doing it really tough—people in regional communities like mine, outside the big cities. The government could permanently increase JobSeeker. In communities like mine, at the peak of the pandemic there were 36 jobseekers for every vacancy. It's down to 17 now, but it's still higher than the national average. There are not enough jobs, particularly in regional areas or for someone who's trying to make a start. Australians who are recipients of these benefits really need much better support. That would then provide direct stimulus into local economies, really kick-starting them. What's going to happen when JobSeeker is cut? We've tried to find more information from the government, but either they don't know or they just don't want other people to know.

The other people who have really been left behind are older Australians. In my community, one in five people are aged over 65. It's a really popular place for older people to live, but the budget's left Australians on JobSeeker aged over 35—almost 1 million Australians—out and ineligible for its higher wage subsidy. Older Australians represent the largest group of people on JobSeeker, and they also experience some of the most difficulty finding work, because of structural barriers or age discrimination or other problems that they face when trying to re-enter the workforce or continue in their career.

There are working people who are older, but there are also those who are receiving the pension. The government was caught out on the pension freeze, and that impacted 2.5 million older people. That's the only reason they acted—because they were caught out. It's cruel, at this time in the middle of a global pandemic, to have older people feeling more vulnerable financially. There is a known link between financial insecurity and mental health problems, and we know the consequences of that, the very real human consequences of financial insecurity. The reality is that pensioners plan for the twice-yearly indexation on 20 March and 20 September. It's something that they take that into account when they're planning their year ahead. The government was caught out in August and the freeze took effect in September, and pensioners had to wait until this month before knowing there would be any kind of relief. It's just part of this long track record. How can you rack up over a trillion dollars in debt and leave the most vulnerable people out, whether it's carers or people living with disability or older people—people who deserve dignity, people who deserve to be treated with respect and people who need certainty now more than ever?

The government still hasn't adjusted the deeming rates, which remain significantly higher than interest rates.

I now want to turn to paid parental leave. As I mentioned before, my community is a popular place for older people to live but it's also a really popular place for young families. It's more affordable, it's outside the big city and it has room for families to grow. But at the moment there's a lot of uncertainty over rising costs, and people need much more certainty. We know that to be eligible for paid parental leave a person must satisfy the work test. The existing work test requires a person to have worked 10 of the 13 months prior to the birth or adoption of a child and at least 330 hours in that 10-month period. We were really concerned that, during the pandemic, families would miss out on PPL because of job losses or cuts to their hours making them ineligible. That could leave them up to $15,000 worse off, and it is money families can ill afford to lose, particularly right now when there is so much uncertainty—when we don't know what's going to happen next week, let alone by Christmas. We moved amendments in the Senate for the work test to be suspended, but the government voted them down. Families need certainty and security, and they need to know that they can access their PPL, particularly during these really challenging and difficult times. It's disappointing that the government has taken so long to make this adjustment. It's been a really long wait for many people.

The other group the government has either overlooked or doesn't care about is young people. In May, Labor called on the government to provide case-by-case exemptions to the youth allowance parental income test. I know many members have had calls from parents—and I have as well—who've been impacted by this. People are really concerned that higher education students will miss out on youth allowance or be unable to continue studying. Study is always important, but especially right now, in regional communities with a really tough job market, young people need the chance to get the skills to start a career and have some certainty. These are not ordinary times. We don't want to see students forced to drop out because they can't afford to stick it out.

In my community currently there are over 2,800 people accessing youth allowance, and they need proper support from this government. They need to know that the government cares, that they matter, and that the government is going to do something about it. It's disappointing that the government has taken so long to act on this and other issues and provide proper support to vulnerable Australians in the middle of a crisis.

Ms MADELEINE KING (Brand) (12:42): I am pleased to rise today to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020. I echo the words of the member for Barton in calling for substantive and important amendments to better support Australians who are unemployed or facing extra costs because of the impact of coronavirus. This is the right thing to do. Labor is moving amendments to this bill to create an obligation on the minister to extend the $250 per fortnight coronavirus supplement until March, in line with JobKeeper, and to create an obligation on the minister to better support pensioners—including age pension, disability support pension and carer payment recipients—who are facing increasing costs in protecting their health because of the coronavirus pandemic. Labor is also proposing important amendments to create an obligation on the minister to announce a permanent increase to the base rate of the JobSeeker payment above the $40 a day it is currently set at—that is, the $40 a day that those currently on JobSeeker can expect to return to living on come December because this government is unwilling to make a commitment to the more than 1½ million unemployed people in this country.

The government are willing to put Australia into $1 trillion of debt but not willing to help the most vulnerable people, whose welfare payments are set to go, once again, below the poverty line after this Christmas. They say they'll look at this later in the year and make considered decisions, but the Liberals and Nationals were all too happy to make the ill-considered decision to extend the $715 million airline support package to the owners of luxury jets. The Liberal-National government will not commit to increasing the JobSeeker payment to help Australian families live above the poverty line after Christmas, but they are all too willing to send tens of thousands of dollars to help out Crown casinos, Clive Palmer's Mineralogy, Leppington Pastoral Company and other members of Australia's business and financial elite—maybe some that a few members of this place hitch a ride across the country with from time to time. There's nothing for JobKeeper and nothing for jobseekers, but roll on the gravy train for good old 'MateKeeper'.

The legislation we are debating today implements measures outlined in 2021 budget, and they'll have an immediately positive impact on those affected by it as soon as next month. That's why we support the passage of this bill through the House. It implements two further one-off economic support payments of $250 each to recipients or holders of the age pension, disability support pension, carer payment, carer allowance, double orphan pension, family tax benefit, pensioner concession card, Commonwealth seniors health card and certain veterans payments and cards. These two payments are due to be made in November this year and March next year. These payments are being made out to the same group of Australians who received the first two one-off economic support payments of $750 each. Make no mistake: this money is needed, and it's needed now.

The group of Australians that this bill supports are among the most vulnerable in the country, and, with only a matter of weeks until Christmas, people are relying on these supplements, and they need this certainty and hope into the new year. Those on JobSeeker deserve clarity in the lead-up to what will be a very uncertain Christmas for many of us after a very challenging year. We must be clear: today the 1.6 million people on JobSeeker can only expect to go back to surviving on $40 a day come mid-December. This is the prospect for unemployed Australians today in the midst of a global pandemic as they approach Christmas. This is why Labor is moving an amendment to extend the coronavirus supplement until March in line with JobKeeper and requesting that the government announce a permanent increase in the JobSeeker payment.

With 160,000 Australians expected to lose their jobs soon and around 1.6 million Australians on JobSeeker, the government has missed a huge opportunity to deliver hope and certainty to those Australians who were really doing it tough by delivering a permanent increase to JobSeeker in the budget. The budget was only delivered a few weeks ago. It's the budget that no-one is talking about anymore and the budget that delivered Australia $1 trillion in debt, which is $1,000 billion in debt, but no plan to increase JobSeeker payments beyond December. Merry Christmas. Honestly, what a bunch of wasters those opposite can be—paying $30 million for a $3 million block of land, publicly funding Cartier watches, blowouts in the NBN, handouts for owners of private luxury jets and $10 million on an Australia logo they've since discarded. It is staggering. They're $1 trillion in debt, and they can't properly commit to the support of Australia's most vulnerable people—those that cannot get jobs because the jobs simply aren't there.

Speaking of jobs, I'd like to touch on a large group of Australians that this Liberal government has somehow missed when putting together their budget on what they call jobs. I'm talking, of course, about those Australians on JobSeeker aged over 35. These people—almost 1 million Australians—were left hung out to dry in this budget. They're the largest cohort on JobSeeker, and yet they are ineligible for the government's wage hire subsidy. It's disgraceful, and it makes no sense. It's another group of Australians—one million of us—left behind by this government.

There is another group of older Australians that this government has left behind. Let's not forget the dismal record of the Liberals and Nationals in regard to Australian pensioners. This Liberal government was caught red-handed by Labor on the pension freeze that they've permitted for almost 2.5 million pensions, and, really, it's only because they were caught out that they have acted on it. The reality is that pensioners plan for their twice-yearly indexation—one on 20 March and one on 20 September. The government was first caught out on their pension freeze in August. The freeze took effect in September, and they made pensioners wait until the October budget a few weeks ago before announcing any kind of relief at all. My office in Rockingham received countless calls and emails from pensioners left bewildered at such an unkind and uncaring act by this government wrought upon the pensioners of this country.

The Liberal government have a long track record of cutting or attempting to cut the pension, and Labor has an equally long track record of defending Australia's pensioners at every turn. I want everyone to be very clear about how the Liberal-National government have treated Australian pensioners. In 2014, they tried to cut the pension indexation—a cut that would have meant pensioners would be forced to live on $80 less a week within 10 years. In the same year they cut $1 billion from pensioner concessions, support designed to help pensioners with the cost of living. They axed the $900 seniors supplement to self-funded retirees receiving the Commonwealth seniors health card. They also tried to reset deeming rate thresholds, a cut that would have seen half a million part-pensioners worse off. In 2015, they did a deal with the Greens—can you believe it?—to cut the pension to around 370,000 pensioners by as much as $12,000 a year by changing the pension asset test. In 2016, the government tried to cut the pension to around 190,000 pensioners as part of a plan to limit overseas travel for pensioners to six weeks. In that same year, they tried to cut the pension for over 1.5 million Australians by scrapping the energy supplement for new pensioners. The government's own figures show this would have left over 563,000 Australians who are currently receiving a pension or allowances much worse off. Over 10 years, on their own figures in excess of 1.5 million pensioners would have been worse off under the government's plans.

The Liberals and Nationals spent five years trying to increase the pension age to 70. Pensioners have paid their taxes and contributed their entire lives to this nation. They deserve our respect, and the simple fact is they are not getting it from this government and they never have. I will always defend the pensioners of Brand from the thoughtless attacks of this Liberal and National government, and I will always fight to ensure pensioners and senior citizens are treated fairly.

Despite significant concern and sustained advocacy from pensioners, the government still hasn't adjusted deeming rates, which remain significantly higher than interest rates. They are used to determine how much pensioners earn from their secured financial assets, typically savings, for the purposes of determining their eligibility under the income test for the pension. The upper deeming rate is 2.25 per cent and the lower deeming rate is 0.25 per cent. With a cash rate nearing zero, it's difficult to see how pensioners could reasonably earn 2.25 per cent on their savings in these times. So we see pensioners are being short-changed by the government's unreasonable and unrealistic pension deeming rates.

This bill is welcome, but the process is symptomatic of the Liberals' approach to government, only moving on an issue when they're literally dragged to the table, maintaining a status quo approach when it's clearly not benefiting as many people as it should, only acting on a problem when they've been caught out making a mistake and then sometimes not even acting to address the problem. We can see that if we look at sports rorts, the crisis in aged care and the revelations of 'watchgate' earlier in the week. It's always the announcement, never the delivery, pointing the finger and taking a hands-off approach, telling Australians that, when it's too hard, it's someone else's problem. That, in my opinion, is small-minded and unacceptable.

As my friend and colleague the member for Rankin observed recently, imagine the tragedy if Australia and Australians endured this remarkable and painful time and failed to learn anything from it, if we do nothing different after than we did before. But here we are with a government continually adopting bandaid solutions to issues which need far more than that. This Liberal and National government has missed the boat on the chance to deliver meaningful reform. This government's short-term approach has delivered $1 trillion in debt and no plan to create the jobs Australians need, and we know the jobless rate won't go back to pre-crisis levels for more than four years.

So what happens in the meantime? Well, don't ask your federal government, because they clearly have no idea. If the government did have an idea or a notion of doing the right thing, there wouldn't be a need for Labor to move an amendment to this bill and call on the government to extend the coronavirus supplement until March. We wouldn't need to ask for the government to announce a permanent increase in the JobSeeker payment. But they haven't got a clue and they don't really care. So, while we support this bill, we must require this amendment to help the people this government are all too willing to leave behind. It is the right thing to do.

Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (12:54): I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020. It is one of the first bills that this House is looking at following the budget that we saw delivered just a few weeks ago. Usually after a budget in this place we are inundated with bills that do things and change things. Usually we go to our meetings, when we go through the bills, and we have a pile of them and it takes us hours. It has been quite different this time, in spite of all the talk by the government about unprecedented times and the COVID recession and with all of the chest beating and flag waving about how wonderfully they're managing it. But we've actually seen very little so far.

This bill does some really important things, some very small important things, and we absolutely support it, because it will provide some assistance. But, in many ways, this is the kind of bill that you see when the departments are cleaning up things that they didn't notice. This is, in many ways, like the tax law amendment bills that we see when small changes are made that fix up small things the government missed or were slightly wrong about in previous legislation. It's almost administrative in its approach, and that's not what we need at this point.

What we have at the moment is 1.6 million unemployed Australians. We have many, many more on JobKeeper, because they're holding their job at the moment with a wage subsidy from the government. We have incredibly tough times coming down the road, as we see more people join the unemployment queue—not less, but more—by the government's own figures. And yet what we have here is a small collection of measures that essentially have been called for by the opposition and people that represent and work with people who are on Centrelink-style benefits, sometimes for months. Through much of this crisis these very issues have been pointed out.

Finally, we see a bill for them. It's late and with very small measures—although some are important for the people who will receive these small benefits from them. There are essentially four measures in this. The first one is for the pensioners who were well and truly left behind when the government enacted it's really rather cruel pension freeze. Pensioners had been looking forward to their indexation on 20 March and 20 September for a long time—I think last time there wasn't an increase was way back in the 1930s—but there wasn't one in September. That's in spite of the fact that pensioners have had increased costs in their lives—for example, because they can't necessarily catch a bus and are getting their groceries delivered. There are all sorts of costs associated with keeping themselves safe in their homes through this pandemic, and yet they had a pension freeze on 20 September. The government knew about it from August and yet only now are we seeing any kind of compensation from the government, which is two $250 extra payments between now and the end of March. That's something. We're going to pass it—absolutely. We're going to support it. It's better than nothing, but, really, this government has an appalling record on pensions.

This government really has quite an appalling record on pensions. I just want to work through that. They've been obsessed with cutting the pension since they were first elected. In the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government, almost every year in every budget there was another attempt to cut the pension. In 2014, they tried to cut pension indexation. That cut would have meant pensioners would have been forced to live on about $80 a week less in about 10 years. In the same budget, they cut $1 billion from pensioner concessions. Those of us who were in this House will remember the state governments temporarily stepping in to assist pensioners who lost a whole range of concessions at that time. Those states, of course, stepped out again, so pensioners are worse off now because of those cuts.

In 2014 they also axed the $900 seniors supplement to self-funded retirees receiving the Commonwealth seniors health card. In 2014, they also tried to reset the deeming rate thresholds that would have seen half a million part pensioners made worse off. Then, in 2015, in giving up on making the cuts to full pensioners, they moved to part pensioners in a real way and did a deal with the Greens to cut the pension to around 370,000 pensioners by as much as $12,000 a year by changing the pension assets tests. In 2016, they tried to cut the pension to around 190,000 pensioners as part of a plan to limit overseas travel for pensioners to six weeks. In my community I have people that have come to Australia from all over the world. They'll have six weeks to go back and visit extended family. In many cases six weeks after they have saved up so that when they retire they can make their last trip back to Greece. They tend to go for a year. They might go for longer. They've saved up for years to make that trip and suddenly they find out that if they go their pension will be cut.

Then in 2016 they tried to cut the pension for over 1.5 million Australians by scrapping the energy supplement for new pensioners. The government's own figures show this would have left 563,000 Australians who are receiving a pension or allowance worse off. And over 10 years in excess of 1.5 million pensioners would be worse off. And, of course, they've spent five years trying to increase the retirement age to 70. This is a government with an extraordinary history of doing the wrong thing by pensioners. We are seeing in the House again today how long it has taken them to address this cruel freeze, which they knew about in August.

As I said, there are four aspects to this. The first one is the pensions adjusting for that cruel freeze. The second one—it's quite extraordinary that the government missed this for so long—is an adjustment to the work test to ensure parents who were impacted by the coronavirus recession who lost hours of work will not miss out on paid parental leave. In order to qualify for paid parental leave you have to work a certain number of hours. Those on JobKeeper were already covered, but those who lost their jobs through this unprecedented COVID-19 recession—as the government calls it—through no fault of their own would not be qualifying for paid parental leave, which is quite extraordinary. People, including the opposition, have been calling for months to fix that and finally they have. At the height of the pandemic the opposition was calling on the government to adjust the means testing for youth allowance so students wouldn't fall through the cracks, the third one is they're finally making that adjustment. The fourth one is adjusting support for families who lose a child to stillbirth or before their first birthday and, again, we really welcome those changes. They should have been there a long time ago but finally they are there.

Again, four elements: the pensions, paid parental leave for people who've lost their jobs, youth allowance adjustments so that students wouldn't fall through the cracks because of what's been going on in this recession and support for families who lose a child to stillbirth or before their first birthday. Again, we will support all of those things.

I want to talk about some of these areas in more depth. The first one I want to talk about is the thing the government has clearly and totally missed on this, which is the opportunity to permanently increase JobSeeker. In my electorate of Parramatta there are 12,053 people relying on JobSeeker or youth allowance. Before the pandemic that was 4,900 so it's a 245 per cent increase in people on JobSeeker. For all the government's talk about how if you make JobSeeker too high people won't apply for work, for all of that sort of stick approach, it's as if they don't understand what has happened in this economy. They don't understand what has happened to these 12,053 people, and because they don't understand they've left those people believing that the JobSeeker payment would be cut to $40 a day at the end of this year. That's where we are at the moment. That's what is in the budget. It's back to the old dole or Newstart—whatever you called it in the past. It's back to $40 a day.

I find it hard to understand why a government would look at the Australian people, and look at these 12,053 people in my electorate, who've lost the jobs because of COVID and see the worst aspects of them and see people who might continue to not work because JobSeeker is too high. I can tell you that many of these people that I talk to have been working all their lives. They have got mortgages. They pay rent. They've got long-term leases. They've got car payments to make. They've got kids in school—sometimes kids in private school. They have got child care to pay. They're not going to hang around in the unemployment queue, even with JobSeeker as it is now, if they can get back into paid work. That's what they want to do. Reducing JobSeeker down to $40 a day has the opposite effect to inspiring or stimulating people to go back to work. The lack of certainty at this point is a disaster. Lack of certainty for people on JobSeeker, who don't know at this stage what the rate will be after 31 December, is even more destructive than uncertainty for business, because the two are related. Let's consider what happens if, at the moment, you don't know what your rate of JobSeeker will be after 31 December.

Say there are two people and one partner has lost their job. They don't know whether they can afford to keep paying the mortgage. They don't know whether they will be able to or not after 31 December, because they don't know what the rate will be. They don't think they can keep the childcare spot open any longer. They can't afford to pay for a childcare spot if they're not working. They know that, if they give up the childcare spot and then get a job, they won't be able to get the spot back again. They don't know if they have to go and live with their parents. If they go and live with their parents, their children will be in a different school zone and they will have to drive them to school, but they've got car payments and they don't know if they'll be able to make them.

So, just for a moment, can I ask the government to look at the people in my electorate that are on JobSeeker, and at that 245 per cent increase in particular, with many who were already on JobSeeker. Look at them as people who are trying to get their lives in order and do the right things for themselves, their families and the rest of us, and consider what it is they need to manage what, for many of them, is the worst crisis they have ever encountered, an unexpected crisis. They didn't expect this. They thought they had secure jobs and they made arrangements with their lives based on that assumption, and COVID, like a giant freight train, came and knocked everything they thought away. Look at those people and see the good people that I see. Look at those people and see people who want to do the right thing, who want to go back to work and do what they need to do.

It is crazy for a government to set its regulations and its rules for the worst characteristics of a small number of people and, in doing so, make it harder for the great majority of great people. And it makes no sense anyway, because rule breakers break rules. It doesn't matter what rules you introduce; the rule breakers are still going to break them. So can we have an approach to governing which is actually about people trying to do the right thing? That would be much more sensible.

There are also a few interesting things in this legislation for young people. Young people are doing it tough. They perhaps are being hit harder than any other group in our society at the moment. Youth unemployment in the Parramatta region is now 15.7 per cent. It is incredibly difficult for people in the Parramatta region. That's not counting all the international students that aren't included in the figures because they're not receiving JobSeeker, and all the skilled migrants that aren't included in the figures. So there are many, many more than that. The government is making changes that we've called for and that many advocates for young people have called for, in that the concessions to the paid work test for people seeking to demonstrate independence for youth allowance and Abstudy purposes are going to be changed. This is quite complex language and, when you read it, you think, 'Huh?' But I will read it: 'The six-month period between 25 March 2020 and 24 September 2020 will be automatically recognised as contributing 30 hours per week towards the independence through work test, regardless of the hours worked. The independence through work test requires a person under 22 to work an average of 30 hours a week for 18 months out of a two-year period in order to be considered independent. In line with changes to the general independence through work test, young people from regional and remote areas applying for youth allowance under the concessional workforce independence criteria will be taken to have met the required criteria between 25 March and 24 September 2020. A person claiming youth allowance as a student will be deemed independent if they earn $15,000 through employment in the agricultural industry between 30 November this year and 31 December 2021.'

That is really quite complex, particularly for a young person who has just been getting by studying. They have done their paperwork and they think things are fine. My question for this government is always: How are you letting people know? Where's the big fanfare announcement for this? How are you telling young people that there are options for them which will make them more independent and help them out? How are you telling them? I can tell you, you're not. You really need to do better.

Mrs PHILLIPS (Gilmore) (13:09): I'm pleased to rise today to speak on this very important bill. The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020 has the opportunity to further support our community as we deal with the economic challenges of this year. I support many of the measures in this bill today and I know they will make a significant difference to people in my electorate who are struggling. Many people have told me the difference the first two economic support payments made to them, and I also know from my many months of visiting many hundreds of local businesses that it made a difference to our local economy too. When people have enough money to get by, when they aren't rationing their food to pay their bills, they might go to their local butcher, baker or small grocer rather than try to save at the biggest stores. They might spend money on fresh vegetables for once—what a treat. They can spend where they couldn't before, and that helps local businesses.

I am also pleased to see concessions to the paid work test for young people to demonstrate independence for youth allowance and Abstudy purposes. Young people in my electorate have had their income and their ability to work even more crushed than many of their peers around the country. When we lost the summer trade during the bushfires this year, it hit young people particularly hard. They weren't able to work in their local cafe or at the local pub, because there were no customers. No customers means no shifts. When many rely on this income to get them through the year, that can be particularly tough. Another aspect of this bill that I find particularly encouraging are temporary incentives to encourage young people to undertake seasonal agricultural work during the upcoming harvest season. A student claiming youth allowance can be deemed independent if they earn $15,000 through employment in the agricultural industry between 30 November this year at 31 December next year.

My electorate on the NSW South Coast is famous for our food and wine—our locally grown produce. Without the usual influx of international backpackers, who are renowned for spending a harvest or two working on local farms, many farmers were feeling concerned about how they would get through this year. I know that many of our local farmers will be grateful for this small incentive to encourage more young people onto their farms. I do worry a little bit, though, as this bill doesn't address some of the structural issues that prevent local young people from working on these farms: issues like public transport, for one. But it is still a positive move nonetheless.

I also welcome the changes to paid parental leave and particularly the changes to improve payments for parents with a stillborn child. The loss of a child—any child at any point—is heartbreaking and difficult to fathom, and I am pleased to see additional support being provided to parents during what is already a very difficult time for them. Labor has been calling for these changes for some time and we welcome them now.

While there are many measures that I welcome in this bill, as I have just outlined, I also want to reflect on what this bill does not do. I am disappointed to say once again that this bill represents another missed opportunity by the government to fix some of the errors so far in responding to the pandemic. Once again our pensioners are being left behind, forgotten by this government, who time and time again have cut their payments and turned their back on them. These are pensioners that are facing increasing health costs as a result of the pandemic, who have lost super, who have lost savings. They are pensioners who have struggled to get by and who feel like they have been left behind by this government. This is hurting real people in my electorate.

Peter, from Tuross Head, wrote to me only this month. Peter said:

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has seen us all scrambling to survive. My problem is in regard to the people the government have missed – self-funded retirees.

Before you think ah yes the rich people of Australia, let me give you an example. I belong to this cohort.

I retired at age 60 after 40 years of full time work. For the past five years I have lived below the poverty line.

My superannuated pension is barely sufficient, given I pay rent that entails approximately 60 per cent of my income.

While I'm sure there are many permutations out there in the real world, I feel I've been punished for retiring early, even after 40 years of work.

That is Peter's story.

It is heartbreaking to hear, but Peter is not alone. Geoff, from Meringo, was receiving a part-pension. During the bushfires he and his wife were evacuated four times. They lost power for days, had their water supply compromised and lost the contents of their fridge and freezer. So in February they applied for the $1,000 disaster support payment. Geoff was promptly kicked off the pension, along with all his concessions, for doing so. I was able to help Geoff resolve this issue and reinstate his pension, but in the meantime he missed out on his concessions for his car registration, prescriptions and rates, costing him much more than $1,000. What a cruel and heartless thing to go through—first the bushfires and then having to fight to get help and keep his pension.

Many people have told me they feel the government discriminates against self-funded retirees and those receiving part pensions. Take the deeming rates, for example. Deeming rates are used to determine how much pensioners earn from their secured financial assets—typically their savings—to determine their eligibility for the pension. The upper deeming rate is 2.25 per cent. With the cash rate nearing zero per cent, it is really difficult to see how pensioners could reasonably be earning 2.25 per cent on their savings. This is simply unreasonable and unrealistic of the government, and it is hurting pensioners in our community. The government's record on helping pensioners is not exactly rosy. Since being elected in 2013 they have tried to cut pension indexation, which would have forced pensioners to live on $80 a week less within 10 years. They cut $1 billion from pensioner concessions, axed the $900 senior supplement to self-funded retirees receiving the Commonwealth seniors healthcare card, tried to reset deeming rate thresholds that would have seen half a million part-pensioners made worse off, cut the pension to around 370,000 pensioners by as much as $12,000 by changing the pension asset test and tried to cut the pension for over 1.5 million Australians by scrapping the energy supplement for new pensioners. The government have made attack after attack after attack. There is no real help for pensioners in this bill, there was no real help in the budget and there has been no real help to deal with the pandemic. The economic support payments are welcome, but the simple truth is that they aren't enough.

Another lost opportunity in this bill is the opportunity to permanently increase JobSeeker. There is no argument about this anymore; we know it is true. Forty dollars a day is not enough to live on. Forty dollars a day forces people in our local communities to live below the poverty line. In my electorate of Gilmore there are more than 10,000 people receiving JobSeeker and youth allowance. That's more than 4,000 additional recipients since December last year. The Prime Minister has said, 'If you are good at your job then you will get a job,' but the reality is that there are not enough jobs for everyone. That is a fact. In regional areas it is even more true. It doesn't matter how good you are at your job, when you're competing with hundreds of applicants and there aren't enough jobs to go around people will be left behind. Linda, from Sanctuary Point, says,

I currently am on Newstart (JobSeeker) and have been for three years after sustaining an injury. Centrelink say that although I have lower limb disablement, I can do 15 hours work, therefore I cannot receive a disability pension. It is very difficult to find appropriate employment, therefore once I have paid weekly rent of $270, I am left with $50 which covers minimal food, and bills, just forget it, it's not that I don't want to pay them, there is no money left from my Newstart. Of course Newstart desperately needs to be increased.

Julie, from St Georges Basin, had some powerful words on this issue when she wrote to me back in May. I thank Julie for sharing with me her story of how she came to be on Newstart, now JobSeeker. After she spent a hard life struggling to raise her children and get by as a single parent, her life took a turn, and she had to ask for help. I want to share Julie's story in her own words, because it is so powerful. Julie says:

I feel the stigma and the shame around being unemployed is the fault of the government. Government do not want to have to pay people to do nothing and that is understandable. However, there are only a small percentage of people on benefits that want to be on benefits. I am not here to speak on their behalf. I am here to speak on behalf of the unfortunate cases, the battlers, the struggling students, the traumatised and suffering, the aging and the disempowered. This group are the majority that have been affected by the crippling Newstart system.

The increase has absolutely helped many through the pandemic and has helped many put and keep a roof over their heads, pay bills and eat more regularly. My cholesterol has increased from eating starchy foods because they were cheap but lately, I have been able to buy more fresh fruit and vegetables. At my age and needing to go on unemployment benefits has been one of the most depressing stages of my life, and I have had a few. The operation that led to me being on welfare was traumatic and depressing enough. The constant fear that I will not be able to provide for myself is affecting my physical and mental health. The recent fires and now the virus have affected us all. The feeling of hopelessness hangs over my head. Returning Newstart to the original $40 a day I feel will have many thinking what is there to live for? If only to struggle to survive and be isolated more?

That was what Julie had to say—a woman who has spent her life contributing to our economy but now has breast cancer. She is scared and she feels abandoned by our government. This is the human face, the reality of the government's dogged pursuit of $40 a day. It's not quite the picture many people have, I am sure.

We are suffering through our first recession in 30 years. The number of people in situations like Julie's is only set to increase, and the Morrison government wants to force them to live on $40 a day. It just isn't good enough. Local people deserve better. When people aren't living on the poverty line, they can help keep our shops open; they can do more than barely scrape by so they contribute more to our economy. If our shops are open, guess what—there are more jobs. Who would have thought! Supporting people when they're doing it tough actually helps people out of doing it tough. It contributes to our economy. It creates jobs. It creates opportunity. It's benefit, benefit, benefit—just what we need during a recession. So why is the government stubbornly refusing to do it?

There was ample opportunity in the budget for the government to create jobs in my electorate. We could have improved the Princes Highway, built the Mogo Adventure Trail Hub, the Kiama Arts Precinct and the much needed Eurobodalla Regional Integrated Emergency Services Precinct, and invested in social housing projects, like the one at Bomaderry, and local hospitals, in Milton and the Shoalhaven and the new Eurobodalla Hospital. All of these projects would have created new jobs and stimulated our regional economy. So why didn't the government invest in them when it had the chance? Regional areas have been left behind by a Liberal government that doesn't seem to care.

It is for these reasons that I wholeheartedly support Labor's amendment to this bill. Local people on JobSeeker deserve the same certainty as people on JobKeeper. At the very least—and it really is the very least—those on JobSeeker should be able to continue receiving the coronavirus supplement until March, just like JobKeeper. We owe people like Julie that much. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change things for the most vulnerable in our community. It is simply tragic that the Morrison government is wasting it—wasting the opportunity to help pensioners, to pull people out of poverty and to create regional jobs on the South Coast. What a waste. We can do better. I call on the government to listen to stories like these, take a good look around and decide to seize this opportunity for real change before it's too late.

Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (13:24): Today Labor is trying to use this parliament to put an obligation on the minister to better support pensioners. We are moving an amendment to the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020 to put an obligation on the minister to support the millions of people around Australia who rely on a pension to be able to survive. In Dunkley, almost one in five people in our community is on the age pension, the disability support pension or the carers pension. Close to 25,000 people rely on that pension. I am proud to be standing here today to support the amendment moved by the shadow minister to make this government do more to help those people as we go through one of the worst economic crises this government has seen a century and a global pandemic.

I've had local pensioners contact me to say they don't know how they're going to pay the electricity bill, they don't know how they're going to put petrol in their car, they can't keep their private health insurance and they don't know how they're going to put the next meal on their table. We are a rich country. We are a country that is supposedly built on 'the fair go', which to me and my community means concepts of support and equality, particularly for people who can't always, as the Prime Minister would say, have a go. The Prime Minister likes to say that, if you have a go, you get a go. There are so many in our community who have had a go over and over and over again and are now on an age pension—which isn't allowing them to have a go, let alone live in anything above poverty. There are other people in our community who, through no fault of their own, have a disability or an ailment which means they don't have the capacity to have a go in the same way somebody born into opportunity, wealth and structural advantage has. Those people need support; they deserve our support. That's what our country is about. There are people in my community who are carers, who dedicate their lives and their time to caring for other people—people who are sick, people who have a disability, people who are foster children. They are giving them a better start in life. Those people are having a go but, under this government, they're not getting a go—and more needs to be done.

I've had pensioners say to me that the $250 supplement before Christmas feels to them like an insult. Their pension indexation has been frozen, their meagre savings are going nowhere, the cost of living has risen—and this government hasn't done what it needs to do to help those people get through the crisis that we are going through. To the 25,000 residents of my electorate who rely on the age pension, the disability pension and the carers pension: I've heard you. I've heard your phone calls, your visits and your comments on Facebook. I've heard your cries for just a bit more help to be able to live in dignity. My colleagues and I are urging the government today to hear that too and do more for Australian pensioners.

Labor's amendments today, if they find the support of the House, will also require the minister to announce a permanent increase in the base rate of the JobSeeker payment. There are more people in this country than ever who don't have a job—not because they don't want one, not because they haven't worked hard to get the education and skills required to get one, not because they haven't spent most of their lives running their own small business and always looked after themselves, but because of circumstances outside of their control. Those people face the prospect of having to live on $40 a day in a broken job market where there aren't enough jobs—even when there are jobs, they are often for only a few hours a week—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Vasta ): The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43 The debate will be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.

Mrs MARINO (Forrest—Assistant Minister for Regional Development and Territories) (16:48): I present the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, NAIF, annual report 2019-20.

Mr HASTIE (Canning) (16:49): On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Review of the mandatory data retention regime:a review of the mandatory data retention scheme as prescribed by part 5-1A of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979.

In accordance with standing order 39(e) the report was made a Parliamentary Paper.

Mr HASTIE: I am pleased to present the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's Review of the mandatory data retention regime, the MDRR, as required by section 187N of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, the TIA Act.

In 2015, the coalition government inserted part 5-1A of the TIA Act in order to enact new obligations on telecommunications and internet service providers to retain prescribed metadata for a period of two years for the purposes of access by national security authorities, criminal law enforcement agencies and enforcement agencies. It also requires service providers to encrypt the retained metadata, subject to certain exemptions, and outlines which enforcement agencies have access to the information and documents available under the scheme.

In its report, the committee noted:

… the technical difference between the mandatory data retention regime … allowing access to metadata and access to telecommunications data as provided for in sections 280 and 313(3) of the Telecommunications Act. In practice telecommunications data kept under the mandatory date retention regime can, after the two year retention period has expired and as long as it is still being kept, be accessed by a wide range of agencies under section 280 and 313(3) of the Telecommunications Act.

Therefore, in addition to reviewing the MDRR, the committee also looked at access to telecommunications data under the Telecommunications Act.

The committee's report makes 22 targeted recommendations that increase transparency around the use of the MDRR and increase the threshold for when data can be accessed under the MDRR and, importantly, does so in a way that does not have a great effect on law enforcement's and ASIO's ability to do their very important work. In addition, the committee makes recommendations that reduce the currently very broad access to telecommunications data under the Telecommunications Act.

We as the committee take our job very seriously. Our first priority, always, is the safety of the Australian people and making sure that our operational agencies have what they need for our national security. But we're also a parliamentary committee, and foremost in our minds in this review were the principles of transparency and accountability. It may be that the government and operational agencies advise us that some of the recommendations in our report pose difficulties for ongoing operations; we accept this. We're a parliamentary committee, as I said. We don't pretend to have detailed expertise or insight into operations, but we strive for accountability and transparency. That's our job as an oversight committee, particularly when dealing with the accessing of personal data of Australian citizens. We want to strike the right balance between national security and personal liberty, so we look forward to ongoing discussions and engagement on these questions and to working out the best possible balance, upholding national security and personal liberty with the government and the relevant agencies.

After reviewing the evidence, the committee had no major concerns over ASIO's access to data under the MDRR. For that reason, most of the committee's concerns were around access to data under the MDRR by law enforcement agencies. Importantly, the committee did not recommend any changes to the current two-year retention requirement. What the committee would like to see is more reporting on this access, and, as mentioned, an increased threshold for that access. To this end, the committee has recommended that the Department of Home Affairs should, within 18 months of this report, develop guidelines for data collection to be applied across the mandatory data retention regime to achieve the intended outcome of facilitating better oversight, including an ability for enforcement agencies and Home Affairs to produce reports for oversight agencies or parliament when requested. This should include the section of the TIA Act used to access the data; the case number associated with the authorisation; the specific offence or offences that the investigation is related to; if the authorisation related to a missing person case, the name of the missing person; and brief reasons why the authorised officer was satisfied that the disclosure was reasonably necessary. In addition, the committee has made recommendations that the law enforcement access to data kept under the MDRR will only be available in the following circumstances: voluntary disclosure, locating a missing person or the investigation of a serious offence or an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a state or a territory, that is punishable by imprisonment for at least three years.

I mentioned the access to the telecommunications data under the Telecommunications Act. This was a matter to which the committee gave great thought. In order to reduce the number of agencies accessing telecommunications data in this manner, the committee has recommended the repeal of Section 280(1)(b) of the Telecommunications Act which allows for access where, 'disclosure or use is required or authorised under law'. It is the exceptionally broad language in this subsection that has allowed the access that has concerned the committee. I hasten to add that Section 280(1)(a), which requires disclosure where telecommunications data is required in connection with the operation of enforcement agency, is a section that the committee has made no recommendation on. Law enforcement will still be able to access telecommunications data via the Telecommunications Act when it so requires.

As I'm sure the House will appreciate, in this speech it's difficult to go through all 22 recommendations, that's why we have a report. It's good reading. Suffice to say, the recommendations all strive towards increased transparency and accountability with the accessing of telecommunications data of Australian citizens, whilst not affecting the important work of those agencies who are tasked with protecting and keeping Australians safe.

Before I close, I would like to acknowledge, as always—up there on the screen—the member for Holt, my deputy chair. He is always great counsel and helpful in getting these reports out of the committee, also the member for Isaacs, who has just popped up as well. I want to make, on my side, a particular mention of Senator Fawcett, who was around for the last report and provided a lot of insight and help with this report.

Mr DREYFUS (Isaacs) (16:57): [by video link] by leave—In late 2014 the government introduced the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2014 into the parliament and referred it to the intelligence and security committee for inquiry and report. While its 2015 report concluded that the introduction of the mandatory data retention regime was justified, the committee was not satisfied that the regime in its original form was subject to adequate safeguards and oversight. That is why the committee made 43 detailed and bipartisan recommendations to improve the bill. For example, in 2015 the committee recommended that the proposed mandatory data retention regime be amended to: (1) limit the number of agencies that could access telecommunications data without a warrant to prescribed law enforcement agencies and ASIO, (2) better protect journalist sources and, (3) provide for increased privacy protections and more rigorous oversight. The government accepted each of the committee's recommendations.

It has now been over five years since the mandatory data retention regime became law. Over that time many concerns have been raised about how the regime has operated in practice. Loopholes have been identified, gaps in oversight have emerged and the adequacy and effectiveness of key safeguards have been called into question. For that reason the committee's review—which began last year and formally concluded in April of this year—was timely.

Before I mention a few of the committee's key recommendations, it's important to place the mandatory data retention regime in context. Significant intrusions into privacy by government—such as the search of a person's home, opening a person's mail, installing a listening device or obtaining a saliva sample—generally require agencies to obtain a person's consent or a warrant from an independent issuing authority. By contrast, agencies do not require a warrant to access telecommunications data under this regime. Consistent with the position we took in 2015, the committee has not recommended the introduction of such a requirement now, but, make no mistake, when an agency obtains a person's telecommunications data without consent, that is a significant invasion of that person's privacy. The absence of a warrant requirement therefore makes it especially important that the powers to access telecommunications data be subject to rigorous oversight, and that they only be exercised in appropriate circumstances by properly qualified individuals. To that end, as this report makes clear, all committee members agree that the mandatory data retention regime is not currently up to scratch and a number of changes need to be made.

I do not have time to go through each of the 22 recommendations in the committee's report, but I would like to mention a few of them. The committee has today recommended that section 280(1)(b) of the Telecommunications Act 1997 be repealed. This should not come as a surprise and nor should it be controversial, but it is, nonetheless, significant. The committee received evidence that with assistance of that provision, at least 80 non-law enforcement authorities have been accessing the telecommunications data of Australians outside the framework of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act. Those authorities include local councils and the RSPCA.

As I alluded to earlier, in 2015, the committee recommended that only prescribed law enforcement agencies and ASIO should have access to telecommunications data. Moreover the committee clearly intended that such access should be governed by the framework set out in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act. The government accepted that position in 2015 and it was on that basis that the mandatory data retention regime was passed by the parliament. The way in which section 280(1)(b) of the Telecommunications Act 1997 has been used by dozens of authorities across Australia is therefore completely at odds with the way in which the mandatory data retention regime was intended to operate. It should be repealed urgently.

In addition, the committee has recommended significant improvements to existing record keeping and reporting requirements to facilitate greater oversight and public scrutiny and better decision-making by authorised officers. The committee has recommended that the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act be amended so that, among other requirements, only individuals who have completed a compulsory training program and who have the requisite experience, knowledge and skills be authorised to access telecommunications data.

The committee has recommended that the government prepare national guidelines on the operation of the mandatory data retention regime by law enforcement agencies to ensure greater clarity, consistency and security in respect of requests for and the collection and management of telecommunications data. The committee has recommended amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act to increase the existing thresholds for ASIO and law enforcement agencies to access telecommunications data, and, recognising the ongoing difficulty in distinguishing between content and metadata, the committee has recommended that the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act be amended to delineate more clearly between content and metadata. Those are just some of the committee's recommendations.

It is true that in one respect Labor members believe the committee should have gone further in seeking to balance the legitimate interests of law enforcement on the one hand with the protection of privacy on the other. That is the subject of an additional comment by Labor members. I would stress that this is very much an additional comment, not a descent, and, rather than dwelling on that single area of this agreement, I want to use my time today to talk about the many more areas of agreement between Labor and Liberal members of this committee.

The report which the chair of the intelligence and security committee has tabled today is the product of a lengthy and ultimately very productive dialogue between 11 individuals from both sides of politics. That dialogue was informed by nearly 50 submissions from agencies, industries, civil society organisations and members of the public. I thank the member for Canning, the member for Berowra, the member for Goldstein, Senators Stoker and Abetz and, in particular, Senator Fawcett, for the constructive and considered way in which they approached this important review.

Finally, I would also like to thank the many submitters to this inquiry for their detailed, thoughtful submissions and the staff of the secretariat for the support that they continue to provide to committee members. Thank you.

Mr BYRNE (Holt) (17:04): [by video link] by leave—I am very pleased to speak on this report as a longstanding member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. In reflecting on my contribution today, I went back to the report that basically started this all, that basically created the foundation for the mandatory data retention regime which we are discussing today in this committee's report. It started with this. I want to read it to you because it highlights the work of the committee and how much influence this committee has had in the shaping of the mandatory data retention regime and also illustrates why it's important for this committee's recommendations to continue to be taken into consideration by the government given that the committee has had a substantially very positive influence on the legislation that has been brought forward post this original report. Mandatory data retention came before my committee in a letter that was sent to me by the then Attorney-General Nicola Roxon. Data retention was stipulated in these 2.5 lines:

… tailored data retention periods for up to 2 years for parts of a data set, with specific timeframes taking into account agency priorities, and privacy and cost impacts.

Our committee was asked to look at that. That was the information that the committee was given on mandatory data retention.

This was in 2012. May 2012 was when the Attorney-General sent that letter of request to the committee of which I was then chair. So what effectively happened was that the genesis of the mandatory data retention was in 2.5 lines. It was up to the intelligence committee of the day—and I refer here to George Brandis, who was the shadow Attorney-General, and Philip Ruddock, who was my deputy chair—to extract that out of the then Attorney-General's department, also working very collaboratively with the law enforcement agencies. I would like to pay tribute here to the former Director-General of ASIO David Irvine and the person that was formerly involved at the AFP that I worked with, Mike Phelan, who is now CEO of the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. Without those two individuals and without the collaboration between the committee and the intelligence and security agencies, we would not have had the foundation that was enunciated, delineated and clearly articulated in the report that was tabled in 2013.

I point out this history because it is always good to learn about history when we look at these things. We should always reflect back on history. At the start of 2014, our intelligence agencies and security agencies didn't believe that we would legislate a mandatory data retention regime in this country. What changed all of that was the threat that was posed to Australia by the emergence of ISIL. Then the whole game changed. But we should always remember that history can turn very, very quickly. At the start of 2014, when this government actually had what it called a 'regulation day', they were going to abolish the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor—that was a thing that was being put forward. The second thing that was being put to me by agencies was their lack of confidence that there would be a mandatory data regime. ISIL changed everything. We then contemplated that legislation in 2014, and in May 2015 there was a very comprehensive report that drew extensively from the 2013 report on our intelligence committee. We set benchmarks. We agreed with the agencies that they needed these powers to actually perform their duties and that, to keep our country safe, we needed to give law enforcement agencies the powers to prosecute the people that we want prosecuted to protect our country and our civil society. But there must always be as a founding principle of any new legislation of this type corresponding civil liberty concerns and corresponding oversight powers that match the new and extraordinary powers that are given to agencies.

I'd like to point out that very few other places in the world have as comprehensively mandated a regime as Australia has with this regime. When we were first looking at this, we were looking at the United Kingdom and the United States. They do not have in their legislation anything that is as closely mandated as this data retention regime, and I would submit that that is because of the work that was done by the PJCIS in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015. That laid the groundwork and improved the legislation. When we got the legislation in 2014, it needed significant improvement. The report in 2015 significantly improved the mandatory data retention regime and made it workable.

In keeping with that trajectory, this report also further improves on that legislation. It improves safeguards. It also gives confidence to the agencies. One of the things that the agencies are concerned about—and it's in this report, in testimony from both ASIO and the AFP—is that 87 parties, outside of those parties that are mandated under the data retention regime, could in fact access metadata. I remember, when we first looked at this in 2012, I didn't want the RSPCA to be able to access my metadata or the metadata of any Australian. But under the existing law, as it stands, they can. And they don't need to use it. They're not a declared law enforcement agency. They are just one of a host of agencies—of 87 that have been identified—that can use and have been using another provision of the telecommunications act to access metadata outside of the metadata regime. One of the strongest recommendations of this committee, which I would be very disappointed if the government didn't accept, is that that loophole must be closed. As Mike Burgess said, the metadata was created for a set number of agencies—security agencies and law enforcement agencies—to be able to get a prescribed set of information that is kept by telecommunications companies. It wasn't intended that the RSPCA, local councils or any other body were able to do that, and I think the public was justifiably concerned, and so were we.

One disappointment for me in listening to the evidence was that the department that was supposed to be monitoring this, the Department of Home Affairs, did not bring this to the committee's attention. Given than the committee has done so much work in terms of its involvement in the architecture of the subset of data that was kept in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015, you would have thought that the Department of Home Affairs would have had the courtesy to inform the committee of a substantial breach of the metadata regime by agencies. That disappointed me a very great deal.

The recommendations in this report—this unanimous report with an additional, helpful comment provided by the Labor PJCIS members—will in fact strengthen this world-leading regime even further and offer further protections for that data, target it better and, most importantly, protect people who are accessing the data. The report talks about the number of people that can access it, and we quantify it. We insist on a unified regime where people have to go through a set procedure before they can seek the data from a telecommunications company. These things are not protecting just civil society; they're protecting the security agencies, their personnel and the police forces as well.

The report itself is a tribute to the bipartisanship that exists on what I think is the most important committee in this parliament. There have been many, many reports produced by this committee that have resulted in better laws that make our country safer, and both groups on the PJCIS, both Labor members and coalition members, work together to make that happen. That sometimes gets lost in rancour when we're having a party-political stoush like I saw yesterday. The key thing is that this is a bipartisan report with an additional comment, not a dissenting report.

I'd also like to pay tribute to the young man who chaired the committee. That's Andrew Hastie, the member for Canning. He's had an enormous workload. He has an enormous workload on those very broad shoulders of his, and we are very lucky to have a chair who has the patience, diligence and tenacity of this young man. I think he'll look at the legislation that's been passed in his tenure as chair, and it will reflect very well on him and bode very well for his future.

So I commend the report to this House. I would also like to thank other committee members, in particular the shadow Attorney-General, who did a huge amount of work on this, and my fellow committee members the shadow minister for home affairs and Senator Jennifer McAllister for coming together and working for a solution. What we recommend here will even strengthen a regime which has been used and which keeps Australians safe but does have appropriate safeguards and oversight. Thank you very much for your indulgence, Deputy Speaker.

Mr HASTIE (Canning) (17:15): I move:

That the House take note of the report.

Debate adjourned.

Mr HASTIE (Canning) (17:15): I move:

That the order of the day be referred to the Federation Chamber for debate.

Question agreed to.

Ms MURPHY (Dunkley) (17:16): The Hansard green tells me that, when I finished speaking just before the 90-second statements before question time, I was speaking about the JobKeeper supplement, but, before I return to that, looking at the Hansard green prompts me to put on the record how amazing everyone who works in Hansard is. We wouldn't be able to do our jobs the way we do them without their assistance. Given the fact that I can look a few hours later at where I was in my speech, they are absolutely incredible, so I wanted to thank them for everything that they do for all of us.

I want to return to the issue of what we used to call unemployment benefits or Newstart and, in the current trend to put 'job' before everything, we now call JobSeeker. I want to set the scene about how my community in Dunkley has fared in 2020, during the global pandemic, the restrictions and the recession. In June the Grattan Institute produced a report about job losses, and in Dunkley we suffered the third-worst level of job losses in Victoria, with a drop of about eight per cent of jobs since the start of the COVID pandemic. In September the Department of Social Services released the most recent available statistics about people who are on JobSeeker and youth allowance, and in my community in Dunkley from March to July of this year there had been about a 45 per cent increase in people who are now reliant on JobSeeker and about a 51 per cent increase in young people now reliant on youth allowance.

Of course, we all know that in Victoria, in Melbourne and in my community in Dunkley, Frankston and surrounds we've had an extended stage 4 restriction since July, so I am, unfortunately, expecting that these statistics will be worse for us when we see the next lot come out. One of the things that's revealed from the statistics, which, of course, are people, is that it's all areas of our community that have been hit. Frankston South saw a 65 per cent increase in JobSeeker and a 68 per cent increase in youth allowance. Skye and Sandhurst saw a significant jump as well: an almost 60 per cent increase in JobSeeker and a 73 per cent increase in youth allowance. As I said, these aren't just numbers; these are people, often people who have run their own businesses and weren't able to sustain them. Sadly, in terms of youth allowance, a lot of young people who worked at the Peninsula Aquatic Recreation Centre—which the federal government refused to extend JobKeeper to because it was an entity under the local council—didn't get JobKeeper at all, and they were casuals. A lot of these people—

Mr Tim Wilson interjecting—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr S Georganas ): Order! The member for Goldstein will cease interrupting. There are plenty of opportunities in this place to have your say.

Ms MURPHY: This is a chamber of debate, but, when you're trying to stand up for your community, you have to try to talk over the top of people like the member for Goldstein, who just yells out at you. The fact is that a lot of people in my community who are now on youth allowance were working in casual jobs and had been there for less than 12 months, and they were deliberately excluded from JobKeeper by the federal government, of which the member for Goldstein is a member. And that's the truth.

Honourable members interjecting—

Ms MURPHY: It's alright. People in Victoria know what's important. And what's important is having someone who stands up here and fights for them. What's important is putting the pressure on this government to make sure that all of these people who are now on youth allowance and JobSeeker allowance are able to pay their rent, to buy food to put on the table, to pay their electricity bills, to look for work and to live lives of dignity above the poverty line. Sadly, they're not going to be able to do that unless the members opposite, who are part of the federal government, agree to support Labor's amendments to this legislation.

Our amendments will create an obligation on the minister to extend the $250 per fortnight coronavirus supplement until March, in line with JobKeeper. Cuts to the coronavirus supplement will cut more than $4 million a fortnight from Dunkley's local economy. So the people who live in my community will suffer and the economy of my community will suffer, which means the businesses in my community will suffer. I don't hear so much yelling out now.

There are 1.6 million Australians on JobSeeker. At least 160,000 more are expected to lose their jobs between now and the end of the year. It is not the right time to be withdrawing allowances for people who are doing it tough, and it is absolutely not the right time to leave people who are currently supporting themselves and their families on JobSeeker in absolute limbo about whether they are going to be put back onto $40 a day come December. This government can't hold an answer consistently between the morning and question time about whether or not JobSeeker will be returned to $40 a day, below the poverty line, for people who just want to find work but can't because there aren't enough jobs available. There are 13 people receiving unemployment payments for every one job vacancy.

Labor's amendments are to make this government look after the people of my community and the people of Australia and to announce a permanent increase to the base rate of JobSeeker—what we used to call Newstart. It cannot go back to $40 a day. There were a number of people on the opposite side of the chamber who agreed with that. They need to stand up for their convictions and continue to agree with that and to agree with Labor and vote for our amendments, which mean that Australians won't be put back onto $40 a day.

Apparently, the best form of welfare is a job, but this government doesn't want to provide people with the basic financial assistance they need to be able to look for a job. I've had women sitting in my office crying, telling me that they want to go back to work and they can't because they've got to look after their children. Often I have heard about women looking after disabled children. They have to pay the rent. They have to put food on the table. Where is the money going to come from for them to do everything else they need to do to be able to find a job? It would be absolutely cruel to decrease JobSeeker in December, let alone put it back to $40 a day. We have to do better than that.

I spoke earlier about pensioners, and I reiterate what I said before. We have many, many pensioners in my community who are crying out for support. I am pleased that the bill adjusts the paid parental leave qualification tests. There have been improvements to paid parental leave in the last 12 months. But there is a lot more to be done. We need to give men more support to feel that they can stay home with their children, particularly in the earlier years, which will also allow women to get back to work. If we want to have a cultural shift in this country, where men's and women's workforce participation reaches something akin to equality, we need to look at the sorts of paid parental leave schemes that we see in Scandinavia and in countries with 'use it or lose it'.

In conclusion, nothing will stop me from standing up for my community, not being yelled at inside this chamber or outside this chamber, because the people who want to work need to know that we are here fighting for them and for their businesses. (Time expired)

Mr BANDT (Melbourne—Leader of the Australian Greens) (17:26): [by video link] This bill, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020, is about social security payments and the level of social security payments that people should get. When we're in the middle of the biggest recession that many of us have seen in our lives, where we have one million people unemployed and where there are 12 people looking for every one vacant job, it's good that we're debating that. But I start from a simple proposition, which the government doesn't seem to agree with. In a wealthy country like ours, no-one should be living in poverty. In the middle of a recession, which is not the fault of anyone living in this country, we should be looking after each other. We should be making sure that no-one—and especially no child—in this country is forced into poverty by government actions and by government cuts.

About a million children are going to be affected by the government's recent cuts to JobSeeker. We have a million people who are finding themselves out of work in the middle of a recession, because businesses have closed down while we're fighting a virus. What does the government do? It doesn't bring in a bill to lift those people out of poverty, but it does have time to fast-track tax cuts for millionaires. The government has made sure that people who've kept their job throughout this recession and who are earning over a million dollars a year get a tax cut of a couple of thousand dollars, which is going to rise to over $11,000, but people who are unemployed, through no fault of their own, get a kick in the teeth. We know from statements from the government over the last couple of days that, once it considers that the coronavirus is under control, the government is going to cut their payments. It's going to cut the payments of people who are on social security, while millionaires will get a cash handout. Clive Palmer does not need extra money in his pocket, frankly, but the government is quite happy to give millionaires and the super wealthy a tax cut, a cash handout, while those who are doing it the toughest are going to have their payments cut, with less money in their pocket to deal with the essentials.

For many, many years this government has deliberately kept people in poverty. These are people who are looking for work. The government has kept them in poverty and forced them to live below the poverty line. Then, when the recession came along, caused by the coronavirus, what did the government do? All of a sudden it realised that millions of people in this country were going to see just how appallingly the government had been treating people without a job, and so it lifted the level of what was called Newstart and then changed to JobSeeker; it lifted the level of unemployment assistance. For people who had been living on $40 a day for many years, trying to make ends meet, for everyone who had been skipping meals and skipping the essentials of life because living on $40 a day is no way to survive, for people who had been unable to afford the haircut, the extra set of clothes or the training course to increase their chances of getting a job, that lift of JobSeeker to $1,100 was a blessing. Because, for the first time, many people in this country, including many children, were able to live a life above the poverty line. But now the government cannot wait—cannot wait!—to cut that back to $40 a day. $40 a day is not living; it is barely surviving. In a wealthy countries like ours, instead of finding billions of dollars to give tax cuts to the millionaires and the already well-off, we should be prioritising the million unemployed. We should be standing up for the million unemployed, not for the millionaires. And we should be standing up not only by directly investing in projects that would create jobs but also by ensuring that the level of social security payment is above the poverty line. If the government can find billions of dollars to give tax cuts to millionaires, there is no excuse for having the level of unemployment assistance in this country being anywhere below the $1,100 that it has been.

The government must return JobSeeker to where it was, and that is especially the case in my state of Victoria, where, having now endured the restrictions that we've all lived through, because we know that getting on top of the virus is critical, the jobs just aren't there. The jobs just aren't there—we're opening up, but it's going to be a while before things get back to normal. In my area of Melbourne, for example, a lot of people are employed in the entertainment and hospitality sector. Let's take the entertainment area and the arts and creative industries. They rely on getting a lot of people in the one room. It's the business model. It's the business model of the comedy festival, it's the business model of the various arts festivals, it's the business model of every live performer, and it's the business model that so many pubs and live music venues rely on. It is not clear when we are going to be able to get back to having those industries on their feet, because we've still got a virus to get on top of. In this situation, we should not be cutting JobSeeker. We certainly shouldn't be cutting JobKeeper, either, because the jobs just aren't there. But, in dealing with this bill, when it comes to dealing with people who are unemployed, we should not be cutting JobSeeker. It is going to hurt people in Victoria.

The government has been very happy, as I've said, to write big cheques for billionaires and for large corporations, and, in the budget that was just passed, the government found $99 billion a year in subsidies to big corporations or the well-off. That's $99 billion a year. For example, when Gina Rinehart's companies take their trucks to the bowser on a mining site, they pay the tax that everyone else in this country pays when they go to the petrol station to fill up. But then, come tax time, Gina Rinehart's companies get a huge big cheque back from the taxpayer for all of the tax they paid. So, in other words, everyone else has to pay 40-odd cents of tax a litre on petrol when they go to the bowser, but Gina Rinehart's mining companies get it tax-free and get a multibillion-dollar tax refund between all of them, every year, courtesy of the public. I think that Gina Rinehart could pay the same for her petrol as everyone else in this country. In return, we could use some of that money to make sure people don't live in poverty.

That's what this bill should be about. This bill should be about the priority of making sure Australia, especially as we come out of a recession, becomes a more equal society, not one where we take billions of dollars and give them to the mining billionaires, but one where we say that people who are doing it tough are going to get looked after. If the government was serious about creating jobs for people, then they would be using the money not to give tax breaks to big corporations and cash handouts to corporations, many of which have stayed very profitable during the coronavirus recession, but they would be using that money to directly invest to create jobs. It's $99 billion a year in handouts to big corporations and the like. Let's put that money into building public housing, so that we not only solve the homelessness crisis but create jobs, including apprenticeships. Let's put that money into free education, so that everyone who's dealing with the crisis at the moment doesn't have their fees doubled, as this government has proposed, and the cost of a degree is zero. We could do that instead of giving billions of dollars to big corporations, and that would help create jobs. We could expand our aged-care sector by putting at least one registered nurse in every setting and on every shift, but also expand the number of staff that are available there so that we provide good-quality care and stop running it at a profit, which, again, helps just the billionaires. That would create more jobs. So let's expand education. Let's expand care. Let's build infrastructure like public housing or high speed rail—then you create jobs.

Instead, this government is stuck in a trickle-down mentality of giving $99 billion a year in subsidies to big corporations in the hope that some of it will trickle down and find its way into jobs. We have had 30 or 40 years of this trickle-down fantasy and we know it doesn't work. Before this crisis started, we had high unemployment and under-employment. Nearly one in three young people in this country was without a job or without enough hours of work. It was before the coronavirus crisis started. Those people, instead of being supported by the government, are being punished. They are being forced to live on $40 a day. Some young people have been forced to live on even less. Some people haven't been entitled to any assistance at all. And now, as the numbers go higher in the middle of a recession, what does the government do? The government cuts their payment and refuses to put money into direct job-creating, nation-building, planet-saving projects. Instead, it gives $99 billion a year to big corporations and the like.

We are facing a crossroads. We could come out of this crisis with something to show for it. We could build legacies for future generations—we could deliver high-speed rail, half a million public housing homes and free education for this country and bring unemployment down to two per cent, genuine full employment, which is what it was between World War II and the 1970s—or we could go down the government's road, which is cutting social security payments, giving handouts to big corporations and subsidising coal and gas, and just hope that some of it ultimately trickles down. Not only would Australia come out of that more unequal, but it would take us longer to recover from the recession.

I say this to the government: if you're serious about this mantra of yours that the best form of welfare is a job and everyone who wants a job, if they are good at it, can get one, then offer a job guarantee. Offer a guaranteed job to everyone in this country, if they want it, working on a nation-building, planet- saving project. If you do that, that might be a future where people could learn skills, earn a decent wage and deliver something of lasting benefit to their country. That might be something people would get excited about. That was the approach that the US government took when they were getting their way out of the Great Depression. They didn't think, 'We just need to give billions more to big corporations and hope that, by repeating the mistakes of the past, things will be fixed up in the future.' No, they invested in planet-saving, nation-building projects. If we did that, we'd be in a position to offer a job guarantee to young people. You could have a free education, an income above the poverty line or a guaranteed job working on one of these projects. That's what we could be offering.

Instead, our het-up Treasurer, who likes to shout at Victorians and condemn them after all that we been through, says his unemployment target is six per cent, which means two million people either without a job or without enough work. When we get to six per cent, he is going to start cutting even further. That's the government's approach. The government's approach to getting out of this recession is to deliberately choose high unemployment and low wages. People who don't have a job, like those this bill is focused on, are going to be living below the poverty line.

I said that this bill was about the level of social security payments. There are measures in this bill that go a way towards redressing some of the inequality in our society. Those measures in this bill, which have been dealt with and outlined before, are measures that the Greens will support because they make slightly better a very bad situation for very many people. But, like everything with this government, they come in and they say, 'We understand that people are hurting, we understand that people want a more equal society and we understand that the Australian people want someone to stand up to the big corporations and the very wealthy and make them pay their fair share so that we can invest, create jobs and have a more equal society.' The government know that, so they pay lip service to it. But, when you delve into the detail, you realise they are still pushing people into poverty. Every chance that they can get, they are pushing people into poverty. They pretend to be about jobs, jobs, jobs, and then they come down with a budget that locks in six per cent unemployment and much higher rates of underemployment.

The level of unemployment coming out of a recession is a is a deliberate choice that the government is making to keep millions and millions of people unemployed and underemployed. We could have full employment again in this country. We could get back to two per cent unemployment, which it was between World War II and the 1970s, if we had the courage to ditch this trickle-down economics fantasy that the government is wedded to and start investing in those job-creating, nation-building, planet-saving projects. Not only would we tackle the unemployment and the jobs crisis but we would tackle the climate crisis and the inequality crisis in this country as well. That is why we are pushing a Green New Deal—a government led plan of investment and action that will tackle those multiple crises, not this trickle-down fantasy of the government that sees $99 billion a year going to big corporations, tax cuts to millionaires and kicks in the teeth to everyone else.

Ms KEARNEY (Cooper) (17:41): [by video link] When I was elected in a hard fought by-election in 2018, I promised the people in my electorate real change—change that can only be delivered by a party of government that is committed to change for the better. I'm a member of the Labor Party, because, in this great country, all major social change has been brought about by Labor. I am proud to stand here as a Labor member of parliament with the legacy this great party carries and to stand with the wonderful member for Barton, who is moving a substantial legislative amendment to this bill, which calls for a permanent increase in JobSeeker, better support for pensioners, and certainty for people relying right now on JobSeeker.

From the full employment policies of the wonderful postwar government of Chifley to the NDIS and paid parental leave policies, to name only two, of the last Gillard Labor government, it will always fall to Labor to make people's lives better. Those in conservative or neo-liberal governments, like the Morrison government—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): Order. I'll ask the audiovisual people to get the member for Cooper back online.

Ms KEARNEY: [by video link] We must remember that they did not want to introduce wage subsidies, something the PM called very dangerous; they did not want to give people paid pandemic leave; and they did not want to support flailing industries. We had to fight for all of that, and still they've left many workers and people out of the important support they needed. Ultimately, they've had to admit that their economic policies of old do not support the whole of society, only a privileged few—like well-paid CEOs who use public funds to buy their mates gifts or to do their tax returns, like mates of theirs being appointed to highly-paid public roles and like ministers trying to rort the system for personal gain. These they protect, promote and support until it gets found out or gets too hot to handle any longer.

How quick the Prime Minister was to demand the CEO of Australia Post step down when she was found out, but not once did he admonish his own minister caught up in scandal after scandal. How is it we saw no action on the wrongdoings at ASIC until, again, all was made public? There were sports rorts, scandals, relief funds promised but unspent and infrastructure projects yet to begin, and today we hear that they are prepared to subsidise expensive private jet costs for their rich donating mates like Clive Palmer. As long as they like the lies that Mr Palmer peddles on their behalf, they will happily let taxpayers pay for his indulgences. And that's just in this horrible year.

As we've pointed out in this House over and over, this country had been going downhill long before the pandemic hit. With insecure work, record-low wages growth and rampant underemployment, this government was overseeing the weakest growth since the global financial crisis. As the shadow Treasurer said in his post-budget address:

This pandemic has entrenched the disadvantages of age, gender, geography and education. It has magnified structural weaknesses in growth, investment, dynamism and productivity. And it has exposed the unfairness and uncertainty inflicted by years of cuts to essential services, growing casualisation and financial insecurity.

The government's budget missed the greatest opportunity of recent times to rebuild this country fairly and securely.

So here we are again today. Yes, there are some good things in this bill before the House that we will support. But, once again, it has taken a long time and lots of pressure for the government to initiate these changes. Labor called on the government months ago to change the work test for paid parental leave and for there to be exemptions to the youth allowance parental income test. The delay has caused considerable anxiety and distress, and it's disappointing that they've taken this long to act.

We know that this government have dreadful form when it comes to supporting pensioners, with the cruel pension freeze and a long track record of cutting, or attempting to cut, the pension. They still haven't adjusted deeming rates, which remain significantly higher than interest rates, meaning pensioners are being short-changed by the Morrison government.

Once again, here we are, with Labor moving amendments to improve this bill because the government are giving with one hand and taking away with the other, offering a little extra here and there with this bill, for example—important changes, I grant you—but always taking more away than they offer—cutting pensions, cutting JobKeeper and cutting JobSeeker.

One hundred and sixty thousand Australians are expected to lose their jobs and 1.6 million Australians are receiving JobSeeker. In my electorate of Cooper, close to 12,000 people are relying on JobSeeker to get by. They are local folk who, through no fault of their own, find themselves without a job. Some are people this government could have kept in a job had they extended JobKeeper to their industries, like the workers laid off from La Trobe University or the many, many people in Cooper who work in the entertainment and arts industry or casuals and so many women. With one job for every eight jobseekers out there right now, a statistic that is in reality much worse given the number of employed people who are looking for more work to get by, for all of those people the situation is dire. There just aren't enough jobs. Even if you pulled yourself up by your blooming bootstraps, there still wouldn't be enough jobs.

Given that, the member for Barton has moved that the $250 coronavirus supplement be extended until March. But she is also moving for a permanent increase in the base rate of JobSeeker and better support for pensioners, disability support pensioners and carer payment recipients. The passing of these amendments would mean that JobSeeker payments would continue at their current amount until March next year, in line with JobKeeper, when the situation can be reviewed again. This will give people a better Christmas and less uncertainty moving into the new year. And everyone knows that it would be unthinkable to push the JobSeeker payment back to pre-pandemic levels—$40 a day is impossible to live on. It would be an act beyond forgiveness and definitely beyond the boundaries of responsible government.

JobSeeker has to be permanently increased, and the government could commit to doing that right now. Constituents have told me that the extra money means being able to live without anxiety and treating the kids to a new book or a new pair of shoes, let alone a decent meal. One single mum told me it has meant she has been able to finally focus on setting up her own business, something she's been trying to do for a long time but has never had the means to really settle into and make work. Imagine that: assisting someone to actually make their own way; making sure people can eat, be healthy, be well-dressed, be mentally well and ready to get out and find work where they can. God forbid this government would want to do that.

When it comes to unemployed people the Prime Minister and his government are only interested in chasing illegal and immoral robodebts and driving people further into poverty and, indeed, desperation. The Prime Minister has often tried to draw on the bow of Australian values, but they do not know the true meaning of Australian values and it makes me furious when they pretend they do. Their values are all about dog eat dog, or kick you when you're down. If you are poor, sick, uneducated, unemployed, young, old, female, from a migrant background, then bad luck it's your fault. The Treasurer let the cat out of the bag when he said he drew on Thatcher and Reagan for inspiration—the idea that governments should step aside and let markets rip. Decades of Thatcherism and Reaganomics has created the inequality and insecurity we face today. Wealth didn't trickle down to the masses. It flowed all the way into the deep, deep pockets of a very privileged few.

On the other hand, the Leader of the Opposition, in his budget reply, spoke of his mentor John Uren, a truly great man. The member for Grayndler said he draws his values from what John Uren told him was a simple code for survival: the healthy look after the sick, the strong look after the weak and the young look after the old. I know whose values I trust more. To channel our Labor leader again, we say that with the right plans, the right policies, the right leadership, and strength and fairness we can beat this recession. We can launch a recovery and we can build a future where no-one is held back and no-one is left behind. These amendments will go a long way to ensuring that.

Dr FREELANDER (Macarthur) (17:52): I rise today of course to speak on Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020 and in favour of the amendments moved by my colleague the member for Barton. I rise to speak on behalf of my community. My community is doing it pretty tough. I'm very honoured to represent the electorate of Macarthur and it's a community that I know and I love. Macarthur is a wonderful place to live and to work and its people are undoubtedly its greatest asset. Whilst some people say we're all in this together, I know that that's not true. I know that many people are being affected much more severely than others. In Macarthur many people are doing it tough and they have been for some time. We've had high levels of unemployment, particularly high levels of youth unemployment, and high levels of under-employment for a long time. I've long called for increases in support for those people so stressed.

The resolve of my community to band together and to support those in need is nothing short of inspirational. We have a number of community organisations, charities and local residents and businesses who are working harder than ever to support their neighbours in these very difficult economic times. I'm extremely proud to be their voice. There are far too many to name, but I would like to give a quick mention to Rose Versteeg and her team at the Arts Centre Cafe in Campbelltown Arts Centre. Working in conjunction with the team at We Are Community incorporated, a fantastic local charity, the Arts Centre Cafe has been generously cooking hundreds and hundreds of meals to donate to the homeless and those in need, including students. It is acts like this which demonstrate the true community spirit which is alive within the Macarthur community. I thank Rose, her team and We Are Community for their ongoing selfless efforts. People are doing it tough in Macarthur and the reality is that companies like Rose's and charities like We Are Community are doing the heavy lifting because the government is leaving people behind.

We are in the midst of the worst recession in almost a century, however, people in Macarthur have been doing it tough before that. Our unemployment and under-employment rates have been above the national averages for some time. People struggle to keep up with the cost of living. The Liberal-National Party governments, both here and in Macquarie Street, have done nothing to ease the pressures on Macarthur's families and businesses. Many of the people I saw as children are really struggling with a whole range of issues, with things like work, and they have been for some time. Many kids with learning difficulties that I've cared for struggle to find meaningful work. They struggle to find a roof over their heads, which in the 21st century in Australia is really astounding. The Berejiklian government in Sydney has really slugged the people of Macarthur with extortionate new taxes like tolls on old roads in the middle of a recession. This single policy failure will cost commuters in my electorate almost $3,500 every year. Those opposite and their colleagues in state parliament are out of touch with struggling communities. They have absolutely no idea about the needs of my community.

Before us we have a piece of legislation which deals with the social security framework in Australia at a time of unprecedented demand for our social security supports. As I remarked in the Federation Chamber earlier this week, people are accessing welfare in many cases for the first time in their lives. These experiences are really opening people's eyes to the difficulties that people who are struggling have when interacting with the social security system. They're being made to wait on the phone, sometimes for hours. They're not having their calls returned. They're not having important information passed on to them. They're made to feel sometimes like criminals—this was said to me on the phone only yesterday by a constituent who was really struggling to interact with Centrelink—and this is a tragedy.

Those opposite have no idea of these problems. Many of them come from multigenerational privilege. Let me tell you, multigenerational privilege does something to you. It means you come from a family that never has to interact with social security. It means that you always have steady employment. It means you always have a roof over your head and food in your mouth. Many people who are struggling in Australia these days don't have that.

We think that many people are underreporting the difficulties they're facing and the difficulties they're having when interacting with Centrelink because they just do not want to be treated so denigratingly again. People are becoming increasingly aware of the inhumane experiences they're being put through. The system under the coalition has been designed intentionally to repel some people from putting in a claim and seeking the assistance that they are entitled to. Those who are able to get through to Centrelink after spending hours on hold are often made to navigate a complex and very burdensome system. Those who have been successful in making a claim are often made to feel subhuman and even criminal if something goes wrong. We can do a lot better.

For years we've been told about how important small government is when, in fact, the business of government is about supporting the population. That may mean putting on a few extra social security staff, but that's what the government should be doing. It should be supporting people, not punishing people. Social security is meant to support those in need, to provide a leg-up to those who are in need of assistance. It's not supposed to beat people while they're down. We are not a poor country, yet we've seen the gap between rich and poor get larger and larger. We can afford to treat people, particularly those who are struggling, a whole lot better than we presently do. I've long been advocating for a permanent increase in the rate of the formal Newstart, or dole, now euphemistically called JobSeeker when there are not enough jobs to go around. That is very important for people to be able to put a roof over their heads, food in their mouths and feel at least that they're being treated as human beings.

The legislation before the House today is yet another missed opportunity for this government on this front. It's time for a plan for the future. A plan for the future means a plan for the future not just for property developers or billionaire business owners but for those who are really struggling to find a job and to interact with society as a whole. The need is long overdue, and I cannot understand why this government continues to torture people by not allowing them to plan for a decent future and be supported. We're told, 'Maybe the Treasurer and maybe the Prime Minister and maybe a few other members opposite think it is okay to increase the JobSeeker allowance on a permanent basis,' but they refuse to commit to it and they refuse to allow people to plan for the future.

The legislation before the House, as I said, is yet another missed opportunity, amongst many missed opportunities, to plan for the future. We know that they're putting us $1 trillion in debt and yet we have no real plan for the future, particularly for those most disadvantaged. With 1.6 million Australians on JobSeeker, the government has missed a huge opportunity to finally deliver much-needed certainty to many desperate Australian families. The coalition ought to finally have committed to raising the rate. The old rate by general consensus across the parliament is not enough to live on. It's not enough to live on. It is not enough to provide a roof over one's head. It is not enough to allow people to interact in society in general. With more Australians expected to lose their jobs by Christmas, I fear that the Liberal-Nationals government will continue to leave people behind by their lacklustre approach to welfare support. The government is leaving far too many Australians behind throughout this pandemic, and it's most disappointing that they have, yet again, not sought to rectify this in the legislation today.

I want to thank my friend and colleague the member for Barton for her timeless advocacy. Unlike those opposite, she understands that people in her community are doing it tough. The member for Barton knows there needs to be a permanent increase to the JobSeeker rate and that people who are reliant on this payment deserve some form of certainty around their futures. This is particularly true for young people. Many of the kids I have cared for, now young adults, are struggling. They're struggling to get a job, struggling to get an education, struggling to get a roof over their heads and struggling to feel that the government does actually support them like the way the government supports others.

The member for Barton also understands that an increase to the JobSeeker rate makes economic sense, because the money that is given to people on the JobSeeker rate will all go back into the economy. The economy is floundering, and was doing so long before the current recession under the watchful eye of those opposite. It may not always be obvious from the streets of Toorack or Point Piper, but some people in Australia are doing it tough. A simple stroll down Queen Street in Campbelltown will tell you that. Those opposite would see empty businesses—many that had been there for quite a long time—that is, for years. If they ever cared to look, they'd see shops struggling to keep their doors open. One way those opposite could inject desperately needed money into the economy is through ensuring that people had a permanent increase to JobSeeker and a roof over their head by funding an increase in social housing. We know this money would flow through to support struggling local businesses and support desperately-needed jobs, so why won't the government finally take some committed action? They can find enough money in their trillion dollar debt to provide subsidies to billionaires and to property developers and to a whole range of chances and urges, but they cannot find enough money to make sure that people can put food on their table and a roof over their heads.

We are in desperate need of a job creation plan from this government not just for young people but also for middle-aged people and older people. They continue to ignore my request and the advice of experts to fund desperately needed job-creating and nation-building projects in the rapidly growing areas of south-west Sydney like Macarthur. There are many more jobseekers than there are job vacancies. There are simply not enough jobs to go around. Thanks to the government's continuing failure to provide jobs in our areas of need, we know that this will not improve in the immediate future.

Some Australians are doing it tough and are facing great uncertainty in the lead up to Christmas. The least the government could do is ensure we have a permanent increase to the rate of JobSeeker to ensure people do not fall even further behind and so that they feel that they do have a future and that the government, as a whole, does support them. And yet the reality is the reverse for many of the people in my electorate, because of the government's beloved trickle-down economics. People who have less money in their pockets have less money to spend supporting local businesses. Less income means small and family businesses have less money to spend on wages and local jobs. The government's tax handout to billionaires, like Rupert Murdoch, will not provide a single job in my electorate, but a permanent increase to the rate of JobSeeker has the potential to support and create countless jobs all over the economy. We risk losing even more jobs in December when JobSeeker is cut. Those opposite can't or won't quantify the number of livelihoods that they are placing at risk by winding back this support.

The pandemic is far from over. We have a long time to go in this pandemic. Those opposite are very optimistic about the development of a vaccine. Let me tell you, having spoken to many of the medical experts in this field, a successful vaccine is a long way off. The pandemic, as I said, is far from over and we're still in the midst of this economic crisis. The coalition has abandoned entire sectors of our society. It is now winding back critical financial support, like the JobKeeper program, for struggling Australians far too early. We have a trillion-dollar debt on our hands and the government refuse to find money, despite this unprecedented debt, to provide certainty to Australian families, yet they can easily find enough money to give a subsidy to a billionaire in New York.

Families and businesses in my community are being left behind thanks to so-called trickle-down economics—if such a theory really does exist—and the twisted priorities of this out of touch government. Its recent budget left much to be desired. It completely ignores whole sections of my community, from the arts community to the university community to international students. Many, many people feel they are being neglected by the Morrison government. In fact, this latest budget only makes matters worse for jobseekers over the age of 35, as if they are somehow different to younger jobseekers. People over 35, let me remind you, often have young families and are often trying to support a mortgage, and they need to be supported as well. The coalition government have left even young jobseekers worse off. They have closed their eyes to almost one million Australian jobseekers, pretending they don't exist. Older Australians have also done poorly. Once again, the government is not providing them with support. (Time expired)

Mr BRIAN MITCHELL (Lyons) (18:07): I rise today to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020 and the amendment moved by the member for Barton. This bill implements several measures from the budget—the very disappointing budget—including a further two economic support payments of $250 to pension recipients; concessions to the paid work test for people seeking to demonstrate independence for youth allowance and Abstudy purposes, allowing parents whose employment has been impacted by the coronavirus Morrison recession to more easily access paid parental leave; improved stillborn baby payments and infant death payments; and temporary incentives to encourage young people to undertake seasonal agricultural work during the upcoming harvest season, among other things.

These are important measures. Labor will not delay support flowing to those who need it. But the story of this bill is the story of this government: it announces big, delivers little. No doubt, as we move into a post-COVID world and must deal with the effects of the Morrison recession, this type of support is needed more than ever. With another 160,000 Australians expected to lose their jobs by Christmas and 1.6 million Australians on JobSeeker, the government missed a huge opportunity in the budget to deliver certainty for Australians doing it tough by delivering a permanent increase to JobSeeker. With more jobseekers than there are job vacancies, there simply aren't enough jobs for everyone who needs one—it's simple maths.

It is even more difficult to find a job in our regions, the result of the government's failure to deliver a jobs program for the regions. In Tasmania there are 21 jobseekers for every available job. There aren't jobs available for them, yet this government seeks to punish those people. ABS figures released last week show that more than 50,000 Tasmanians either are looking for a job or can't get the hours they need to make ends meet. The number of jobs in Tasmania has fallen by 2,200 since August. Our unemployment rate is now at 7.4 per cent, up a full percentage point from last month—it's going the wrong way. We are all hopeful that the reopening of borders will improve the desperate job situation in Tasmania, but hope doesn't pay the bills. Hope doesn't pay the rent. It doesn't put food on the table. It doesn't put clothes on the kids. A jobs plan is needed, not a wing and a prayer.

In Tasmania the jobs crisis is also a wages crisis. Tasmanians have experienced a fall in wages of 4.9 per cent, when the average fall nationwide has been 3.3 per cent, and it's important to note that that drop comes off an already lower average wage in Tasmania. Tasmanian average wages have fallen $71 a week, from $1,448 to $1,377, while national wages have fallen $56 a week, from $1,714 to $1,657. What used to be a $266-a-week wages gap is now a $280 wages gap. A $71-a-week drop is no small thing for a Tasmanian wage earner on average wages. Little wonder that food charities such as Loaves and Fishes have seen demand for their services skyrocket by 70 per cent over recent months.

And it's not just unemployed people and students who are seeking food charity. It's a whole new cohort of what the Americans call the working poor: a class of people that we had hoped never to see in this country. They are people whose wages are so low that they do not meet the cost of living. These charities are depending on farmers, on supermarkets and on individuals to donate food to give to people. That's not the sort of society that we should be. I take my hat off to all those people involved in those charities. They are wonderful people. But we should do better as a nation and as a parliament so that this isn't the way people need to make ends meet.

This is the first recession in three decades, and people are hurting. The failure to deliver a permanent increase to JobSeeker means that Australians on social security will have less to spend on local and small businesses. Millions of dollars are being sucked out of local economies because of the cuts being made to JobSeeker and with JobKeeper coming off in March. Millions upon millions of dollars will be sucked out of local shops, out of local economies, causing a jobs spiral in local economies when these payments are cut off. Local and small businesses will have less to spend on wages and jobs. It will be a vicious cycle and vicious spin.

I know that many social services organisations in Tasmania share these concerns. TasCOSS's chief executive officer, Adrienne Picone, has said that the Morrison government failed to rise to the occasion in refusing a permanent increase to JobSeeker. She says of the budget:

It had the potential to provide much needed security and confidence to the more than 39,000 Tasmanian job seekers and 120,000 of our friends, family and neighbours surviving day-to-day on inadequate incomes, but the Morrison Government has failed to rise to the occasion.

This budget fails to build the resilience of Tasmanians and the Tasmanian economy to withstand future crises, and will increase inequities in health, education and access to essential services in our state.

Anglicare Australia Executive Director Kasy Chambers shared similar sentiment, saying the 'budget has left people on the lowest incomes high and dry.' She said:

1.6 million Australians are out of work. With this downturn due to last for years and so many Australians losing their jobs, record numbers of people are at risk of poverty and homelessness.

There were simple solutions to these problems: raise the rate of JobSeeker for good, and invest in social housing. One-off payments to people on the age and disability pensioners will provide some relief, but they don't go far enough.

I am particularly concerned about the impacts on older workers and those looking for work. This budget left Australians on JobSeeker aged over 35—almost one million Australians—out of the budget and ineligible for wage-hire subsidies. Older Australians represent the largest cohort on JobSeeker. In Tasmania in the month of September, of the 35,000 JobSeeker recipients, more than 22,000 were over 35. The majority of the 7,588 JobSeeker recipients in my electorate fall into this older cohort, who are locked out of the wage-hire subsidy. They will be competing for jobs directly with younger people who do qualify for the subsidy.

On this side of the chamber we have no argument with any measure that will support the hiring of young people, but you don't do it at the expense of older people who've got families to support. You don't lock them out, not now. Structural barriers and potential discrimination often mean that older workers will have difficulty finding work. Don't get me started on Restart, which is for over-50s. It's a dismal failure, with a 95 per cent fail rate in terms of projections. If you want to talk about Restart, maybe turn it off and turn it on again. My office has been contacted by many people in their 30s, 40s and 50s who are increasingly despairing over the difficulties they face finding work. They rely on the JobSeeker payment like they never have before to support their families, to put food on the tables, to go to the doctors and to send their kids to school. For many, this is the first time they've had to rely on any type of government support. With the way the budget has been structured for older workers, I fear that, for many, it will be the last time they'll ever work in their lives. We are talking about people in their 40s who will be competing directly with younger people for a job, and I do fear very much that willing and able people wanting to work will simply not have the opportunity to find work again.

Take Narelle, for example. Narelle is a hairdresser from Perth, in the north of my electorate. She contacted my office back in March as the effects of the coronavirus really started to hit Tasmania. She'd had to close her hairdressing business and was at a loss as to where to go for support. She had never before found herself in the situation of needing to engage with Centrelink or seek government support. She had supported herself her entire working life. My office was able to help Narelle with navigating the myriad social security systems, and ultimately she got access to the JobSeeker payment and, with it, some sense of financial stability in a time of great uncertainty.

You can imagine the feelings of anxiety that such a situation must have caused Narelle and the millions of Australians like her who have found themselves unemployed, just like that, as a result of the pandemic. This is why Labor is calling on the government to extend the $250 per fortnight coronavirus supplement until March, in line with JobKeeper. We know it can't last forever. There's not a bottomless pit of money. We understand that. But we are in the midst of the first recession in 29 years. Now is the wrong time to be taking money out of the economy, and it's certainly the wrong time to be taking money off people who are in desperate straits.

In her second reading amendment, the shadow minister, the member for Barton, made the point that it is cruel for the government to deny JobSeeker recipients some clarity around their financial future. It is completely unreasonable to make people wait until mid-December before there is a decision announced on the JobSeeker payment. Australians who receive JobSeeker deserve to be able to make financial decisions—to plan their household budgets, to plan what they can scrape together for the kids for Christmas, to have some certainty about what is coming in and what is going out. They deserve to be able to live their lives.

We know that the Prime Minister has some sort of plan for JobSeeker. He told us as much in question time yesterday. He just doesn't respect people who receive JobSeeker enough to tell them what it is. He's more than happy for those people to wait until it's in his political best interest, in terms of the media cycle, to announce a rise in JobSeeker rather than do what is right for Australian families who need this money and this certainty now. He's looking after his own interests, not the interests of the Australian people.

The amendment moved by Labor today requires the minister to announce a permanent increase to the base rate of the JobSeeker payment, something that we have consistently advocated for. It is clear that we cannot go back to forcing Australians to live on $40 a day. Yet that is the prospect that 1.6 million Australians face, come 31 December, if things don't change. It took a global pandemic for this government to even consider raising the rate, and Australians on JobSeeker have been lifted out of hardship as a result, many living above the poverty line for the first time in a long time. By failing to deliver a permanent increase to JobSeeker in the budget, the government missed the economic and social opportunity to deliver lasting structural change for vulnerable Australians while boosting local business and local jobs.

I want to come briefly to the issue of pensioners, who have been almost completely ignored by this government, apart from a couple of one-off payments. Deeming rates are used to determine how much pensioners earn from their secured financial assets, typically savings. The upper deeming rate is 2.25 per cent and the lower deeming rate is 0.25 per cent. Deputy Speaker Wallace, if you can find a bank that has accounts available for pensioners that is paying two or 2½ per cent interest on savings, let me know who they are and I will send my pensioners all the way to them. If they're in Queensland or New South Wales or South Australia or anywhere else, you tell me where those banks are and I'll send my pensioners there. It is absolutely reprehensible—it is unconscionable —that this government is telling pensioners that they're earning 2.25 per cent on their savings, and they are robbing them of a decent pension as a result. They are short-changed by the government's unreasonable, unrealistic, reprehensible and unconscionable pension deeming rates.

Pensioners won't forget this government's record on cutting the pension. This government is obsessed with cutting the pension. The government has attempted to cut the pension in every budget every year. In 2014, the government tried to cut pension indexation. In 2014, the government cut $1 billion from pensioner concessions. In 2014, the government axed the $900 seniors supplement. 2014, the government tried to reset deeming rates thresholds. In 2015, this government did a deal with the Greens to cut the pension to around 370,000 pensioners. In 2016, the government tried to cut the pension to around 190,000 pensioners, as part of the plan to limit overseas travel. In 2016, this government tried to cut the pension for another 1.5 million Australians by scrapping the energy supplement for new pensioners. The government's own figures show that this would have left 563,000 Australians who are currently receiving a pension or an allowance worse off. Over 10 years, more than 1.5 million pensioners would be worse off.

This government has spent five years trying to increase the pension age to 70. It will be OK for you and I, Deputy Speaker, to work until we're 70, but not for somebody who's on the tools in a factory, or in a shop on their feet all day, or in an aged-care home pushing a cleaner. It's not OK for them to work until they're 70. Pensioners have paid their taxes and contributed their entire lives. They deserve our respect and they certainly deserve this government's respect, and they're not getting it. (Time expired)

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wallace ): I thought you were going to try to argue that I was 70!

Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (18:22): I am very pleased to contribute to the debate on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020, and I am especially pleased to rise in support of the amendments from the member for Barton, which would ensure that the Morrison government provides more support to vulnerable Australians in the deepest recession in almost a century.

This bill legislates two one-off payments of $250 for people who receive income support payments. Anyone who got the first economic support payments of $750 earlier this year will be eligible, including age and disability support pensioners, carers, family tax benefit recipients and some veterans payments recipients. These bills will also make it easier for people to meet the eligibility criteria to receive the higher independent rate of Austudy or youth allowance. This will mean that many young Australians who have had their hours cut or lost their jobs during COVID shutdowns will still qualify for the increased payments. This is a sensible measure, especially when you consider that more than half of the initial job losses were for people under the age of 30.

The bill also makes a number of changes to accommodate for the impacts of coronavirus and to create incentives to work. It extends a time frame to meet the paid parental leave work activity test from 13 months prior to the birth or adoption to 20 months. It creates incentives to encourage young people to take on seasonal farm work. It gives the minister the power to determine the average weekly earnings trend figures for child support while the official figures are suspended. It allows young people to qualify for the independent rate of Austudy if they earn $15,000 or more working in agriculture in the coming year, and it improves payments for people who have a stillborn child or because a child dies before their first birthday.

Labor have been calling for a number of these changes for some time now, so we are very pleased to see them included in this bill. But this does not make up for the fact that jobseekers look set to lose the coronavirus supplement in just two short months. That's why Labor today has moved those amendments which would oblige the minister to extend the $250-per-fortnight coronavirus supplement until March to at least ensure it is in line with JobKeeper. This is absolutely fundamental. It says everything you need to know about this government—that it would seek to punish those on JobSeeker by slashing this important payment while planning to retain the payment for those on JobKeeper. Why are those 1.6 million Australians somehow less important?

The coronavirus supplement has returned dignity to so many people's lives. It has meant they haven't had to choose between purchasing nutritious meals for their family, filling prescriptions, heating the home or paying their rent. Cutting the supplement isn't devastating just for the individuals who rely on it to survive, though. It's a massive hit to regional economies, especially to the local small businesses who have been hit very hard already by the pandemic. In the middle of the most perilous economic times in living memory, the government has a responsibility to keep our economy moving. The government talks up tax cuts as the answer. But the reality is that tax cuts benefit you more the more you earn, and those who earn more are far more likely to save more and spend less. In contrast, jobseekers spend every dollar just trying to keep their heads above water. Unlike those who have the luxury of a regular wage, people on JobSeeker are very unlikely to be able to squirrel away money for a rainy day. Instead, they're much more likely to spend with local businesses and keep money circulating in those local economies.

But extending the coronavirus supplement isn't enough. Jobseekers also deserve some certainty. They need to know that they're not going to get plunged back into poverty. The idea that JobSeeker could be returned to $40 a day—it simply cannot happen. It is unthinkable that JobSeeker would snap back to this rate at any point, let alone in the midst of a recession. Groups as divergent as the Australian Business Council, the Australian Industry Group, the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia and ACOSS have all recognised that the former rate of JobSeeker does nothing but entrench poverty, cripple people's quality of life and make it virtually impossible for them to find work. Frankly, when you get the Business Council lining up with ACOSS in any area of policy development, you know you've got an urgent policy imperative on your hands.

Labor have been advocating for an increase to the abominably low rate of Newstart since before 2019, and we continue to do so today. People mustn't be forced to return to living in poverty. The Morrison government has been the only opponent of this necessary change. This needs to stop—and it would with Labor's amendment, which would require the minister to announce a permanent increase to the base rate of JobSeeker.

Another concern that Labor has about this bill is the meagre support it provides to pensioners. Pensioners have been doing it tough in recent months. On top of the very real personal toll of being in a high-risk group during a pandemic, they have also seen the cost of living rise, while their income has been stalled or reduced. Health costs have climbed. Many have seen their investment earnings drop dramatically, as interest rates near zero. Then they got hit with the news that there will be no indexation of the pension for the first time in 25 years. Remember, this doesn't just affect this year's pension but every one that comes after it, because each year's indexation builds on the last one. Two lots of $250 doesn't even come close to making up for the financial hit that pensioners have endured. Regretfully, this failure to support pensioners is part of an ongoing pattern of neglect and cost cutting by this Liberal government.

Let's not forget that consecutive Liberal governments have axed the $900 seniors supplement; changed the pensioner assets test, ripping away $12,000 a year from around 370,000 pensioners; cut $1 billion out of pensioner concessions; tried to cut indexation so that pensioners would lose $80 a week within 10 years; and tried to scrap the energy supplement for new pensioners—remember that? Indeed, they have tried to cut the pension each and every year since they took office in 2013. It's clear the Liberals can't be trusted to protect pensioners—people who have contributed and given back to our society their whole lives. That's why we need Labor's amendments, which would oblige the minister to better support pensioners facing increased costs because of COVID-19.

We don't want to hold up payments, and many of the changes in this bill are reasonable and sensible, as I made clear at the outset, so Labor will support it. What's not reasonable or sensible, however, is that pensioners and jobseekers are being dudded by this government. Two payments of $250 aren't going to help pensioners, who are already living with the triple hit of having their pension indexation axed while their income is dropping and their cost of living continues to increase. Two payments of $250 aren't going to provide the certainty to the 1.6 million Australians on JobSeeker who desperately fear being plunged back into poverty when their payments get slashed in just two short months time. I know there are government members who have spoken out on this issue, and I urge them to support Labor's amendments. But, whatever happens here today, the fact that the government is pulling support from jobseekers and those on JobKeeper in the middle of a pandemic is utterly unacceptable.

COVID-19 has thrown into stark relief the fault lines in our society. It has shown us what has been working and what we urgently need to improve. We saw the damage done by decades of hollowing out the Public Service, funding cuts and allowing the private sector to free range over key parts of our economy. When the Morrison government started out in its response to the pandemic with a seemingly sensible and humane approach, Australians were shocked but cautiously optimistic. Wage subsidies bolstering public service and increases to JobSeeker all seemed to demonstrate that the government had finally understood the principles of inclusive growth—that, if our economy is going to work for any of us, it needs to work for all of us. We dared to dream that the pandemic might also usher in a new period of reflection and self-improvement, where the government recognised that some of the fundamental principles that underpin its approach have not been working. But I fear that the Liberals' foray into compassion and economic understanding seemed to be a temporary affliction, because their spots are coming back one by one.

Indeed, what we are seeing right now is that, rather than demonstrating that they've learnt the lessons of COVID-19, the government is instead using the pandemic as a cover to double down on the very problems that we had in the first place. I am very worried that these cuts to income support herald a return to the failed philosophies of neoliberalism; of slashing wages and conditions; of cutting funding and reducing services; of handing over fundamental functions to the private sector and trusting the market to simply look after itself; of removing protections of citizens against the unethical actions of private companies; and, of course, of taking from those who can't afford it and giving to those who don't need it. It's little wonder that the Treasurer included Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan as his sources of inspiration. This government needs to be very, very cautious before going any further down this path.

As I mentioned, the Morrison government demonstrated early on that they are capable of acting with compassion and ensuring that vulnerable Australians have the support they need during this crisis. It's time for government members to do this again, to support Labor's amendments today. You know it's the right thing to do. You know it is a tried and tested pathway to recovery from a devastating pandemic and a shocking hit to our nation's economy. It is unthinkable to those 1.6 million Australians that the government has managed to rack up more than $1 trillion worth of debt, and is on a trajectory to clock up $1.7 trillion of debt, yet cannot find it in its heart to help those whom it will push back into extreme poverty if it carries out its intention to slash these payments in just two short months time. That's what happens. There are many vulnerable Australians already dealing with entrenched barriers in our society, but forcing a shocking financial hit at a time when people are at their most vulnerable would be unforgivable.

I don't think any Australian who is listening to this debate today and has been following the debate closely throughout this pandemic would feel, in any good conscience, that they would want to stand alongside this government as it announces its intention to strip a basic fundamental living allowance from our most vulnerable Australians during a pandemic. It is tough enough at any time, but during this pandemic it is totally unforgivable. I don't believe the government can do that. I remain forever optimistic that the government will see a way to ensure that there is a permanent increase to JobSeeker, that it becomes a liveable allowance for Australians and that Australians in receipt of JobSeeker will be able to live with dignity and have enough money to actually look for work. That is the outcome we seek to achieve in a nation like Australia. (Time expired)

Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (18:37): I rise to speak in favour of the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020 and also the amendments moved by the member for Barton. I was happy to second the amendment earlier today, and reserved my right to speak until this moment. I cannot believe that we are standing here talking about changes to the Social Security Act, many of which are overdue, yet do not have a proposal from the government to increase or maintain the most significant payment, the coronavirus supplement. We are seven weeks away from thousands of Australians on JobSeeker and youth allowance being forced to go back to the old Newstart rate or the old youth allowance rate. We will see thousands of Australians forced back into poverty if this government doesn't act soon. That is why Labor has put forward this amendment calling on the government to at least keep the current COVID supplement rate, that extra $250 a fortnight, going until March. Line it up with JobKeeper. We believe there needs to be a permanent increase in the base rate in an ongoing way. The pandemic has proven that the old rate was just unliveable, and the newer rates have really changed people's lives. We've heard stories in our electorates of people who have been able to live with dignity, secure a roof over their heads and look for work—and not simply survive, not be destined to poverty, which is what the old Newstart rate did.

I want to share a couple of examples from my electorate of people who have spoken out about how their lives have changed and how petrified they are that this government will do nothing and simply let them fall back to the old rate in seven weeks time. Peter Austin said that, with the increased JobSeeker payment, he was able to buy warm clothes and shoes this winter. He said he was able to go out and buy some food and even put petrol in the car. This is the reality. They're not people who are living on millions. They're not people who are spending it on expensive trips or luxury items like watches. They're spending it on the basics. He said: 'It might not seem like much, but to me it was a lifeline. Every fortnight the old JobSeeker payment would go on bills. I was always trying to find some way to survive. I'd usually have to dip into what little super I had.' He said that he felt like he was being kicked constantly by this government. He had worked hard his whole life and this was not the Australia he grew up in. In that moment when he found himself unemployed at 65, those few years away from retirement, he felt abandoned. He said, 'I'm not living a lavish lifestyle; I'm just getting by.' The supplement that he is receiving is helping him, and yet what this government wants to do, pre Christmas, is kick him back to that old rate.

Melissa Anthony is a single mum in her 30s receiving the single parenting payment and she also qualifies for the supplement. She said the current payment increase allowed her to pay a little bit extra into her utility bills and her mortgage so she could have a small financial buffer, because she just doesn't trust this government and what will happen in the future. She also acknowledges that the job market has been severely impacted by COVID-19 and, no matter her previous experience or her previous roles, she doesn't know whether she'll actually gain a job, because of the competition. Melissa says that the base rate of JobKeeper must permanently be raised and supports what Labor is doing. She said that the misnomer out there that this will entice people not to work is simply a furphy, that having a higher rate keeps people out of poverty and allows them to look for work. With the increase, Melissa, who has a six-year-old child, has said she has been able to build a buffer, pay her council rates and actually smile and not stress about money.

Then there's Sharon. Sharon was on the old Newstart rate and spoke bravely to the media about her experience. She, unfortunately, is becoming the new face of who is on JobSeeker. She is in her 60s, unemployed and looking for work and also, prior to the supplement being introduced, was homeless. She said that the higher rate has made a world of difference. She said: 'All of a sudden I went from facing poverty, being homeless and being quite frightened to receiving enough money to keep a roof over my head and to start thinking about other issues, like finding work and addressing health issues. The extra money has given me a sense of normality. It is just enough to get by and I'm worried what will happen if I go back to the old rate. Will I be able to afford my new home?' These are real people and real stories. These are people who are saying, 'Don't push me back to the old rate.'

We are in a situation, because of the COVID-19 recession, where jobs are hard to come by. Sure, there are jobs available in my electorate. I see the job ads pop up on my Facebook feed. A lot of them are in hospitality and are for part-time or casual work. They also call for people with skills and experience in hospitality. It's hard to have experience in hospitality when the sector has been closed. But that's what they're looking for. I raise this because it's hard for Melissa, Sharon and Peter to apply for jobs in a sector where they don't have the experience. In the markets they've come from there simply aren't jobs. This government is not doing enough to help with retraining. There is a real disconnect between the people looking for work and the jobs that may be available.

The other part to this motion that I really hope the government supports is an obligation for the minister to better support pensioners. There was huge disappointment in my electorate when the government announced all pensioners would get is an extra $250 one-off payment. It doesn't increase the base rate. Increasing the base rate helps pensioners keep up with the cost of living helps. Everything is going up. If you take out child care, if you take out luxury items, if you look at the cost of fuel, if you look at the cost of basics, such as energy or food, CPI is going up—yet the pension did not. When people found out that all they got was an extra $250 in my electorate, I was told things like, 'It might help me pay for part of the summer energy bill,' or, 'It might help a little bit with Christmas, but it's not going towards supporting me to survive going forward.' Many of our age pensioners worked hard and started work in a world where there was no superannuation. They entered the workforce under the belief that they were paying it forward—that they paid their fair share of taxes, and, when they retired, there'd be a decent pension to live on.

I've also been contacted by people on the carers pension, the carers payment and the disability pension, all of whom are saying that costs have increased for them and that they need extra support from this government. They are disappointed. As one person said to me, 'Is this an attempt at a bribe—that I might be happy with this one-off payment?' They get the importance of a regular increase to their base rate. They get how that will make a difference.

I also really support the call for this government to announce a permanent increase to the base rate of JobSeeker. How much more evidence do they need that this rate needs to go up—that we as an economy and as a society cannot afford to have people fall back to the old Newstart rate? If you really want to see us come through this recession, the economic data is in: you increase JobSeeker and you increase these payments, and that money flows through the economy. It will have a better impact on our economic outcome in this country than very big tax cuts at the top end of town.

In relation to the bill that's before us—and we support the bill as it's been put forward—I do want to make a couple of comments. I cannot believe it's taken the government this long to put forward the required changes around paid parental leave. The fact that this bill backdates these changes to March 22, when the pandemic first hit, demonstrates just how slow this government can be when it comes to supporting families. There are babies that are now six months old. It's hard to believe that it's taken them that long. We've had how many sitting days since 2 March? It's not like we haven't been here, yet we're only dealing with these changes now. Because the government have delayed and brought this change in now, it will create complexity and confusion. Some families may have debts and others may be owed money. Tax time is going to be a nightmare for many.

It's disappointing it took so long for the government to extend support for new parents—people who had their babies in the most difficult of times and who've been through the last six months where, in states like my state, there have been no parent groups because of COVID, there has been no Tumble Tots because of COVID and there has been no opportunity for family and friends to get together. They've struggled on their own. When they've needed a government to help them, the government hasn't been there.

I've also got some concerns about the changes to youth allowance. I do support encouraging young people, if they want to do a gap year or to work in agriculture to earn a bit of money, to qualify for youth allowance. But I do have to ask the government whether they have actually put in place the safeguards. We know that the agricultural industry is riddled with exploitation. So, if young people take up this opportunity to work through November to December and take that gap year, the first question is: Will they earn the $15,000? Will they be exploited? Will they be properly paid? Will they be safe? Perhaps more of our young people would have the gap year in Australia if this government did more to clean up the industry and ensured the safety of people. I don't criticise all farmers; many farmers are doing the right thing. But there is an underbelly of exploitation in our agricultural industry. One of the reasons we've become so reliant upon overseas workers—undocumented workers and backpackers—in this industry is because it is riddled with exploitation.

I also can't believe that it's taken the government so long to bring forward the changes around concessions for people demonstrating independence when it comes to youth allowance and Abstudy. Again, this measure is backdated to 25 March 2020. I do welcome the improvements to stillborn baby payments and infant deaths. I couldn't imagine not coming home with Daisy last year—to be one of those parents in that tragic situation of not coming homing with their newborn. I couldn't imagine the heartbreak and the trauma. The least that we can be doing is supporting these payments so that they're not worried about money. It also gives me an opportunity to say that we need to be doing more: more research, more support, more funding for health care in this area for families so that they don't have to go through this heartbreak of losing a baby towards the end of their pregnancy or in the first year of their life. I feel for those families. I know that many in this place have spoken of their own personal grief of personal connection.

These changes before us are needed. Some of them are overdue. Some of them may help in terms of agriculture and helping people claim youth allowance but it's still quite small stuff. The government isn't doing enough of the big, bold reform to really help people, particularly when it comes to our social welfare system. I strongly urge them to back our amendment around JobSeeker. One million job-seekers have been left out. Older workers are not supported by this government in terms of finding real job opportunities. Pensioners missed out with only 250—That's it? That's all they get when you spend a trillion dollars plus in a budget? It's missed opportunity to help the hundreds of thousands of people who are on JobSeeker—but not a jobs plan.

We want the government to do better. They are the government until the next election. The foundations we put down now are what will determine whether this is a long and deep recession or a shorter recession. If we support them through a strong social welfare system they will then support the rest of us. It's not an old saying: you give someone on a low income a dollar and that dollar gets spent in their community. Supporting people on youth allowance and on JobSeeker supports local business. As I said, it's good for our economy, it's good for our community, it's good for these individuals and their families. I strongly urge those opposite to adopt Labor's modest, and I say modest, amendments going forward.

Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (18:52): I'm very pleased to support the member for Barton's amendment to the Social Services and other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus And Other Measures) Bill 2020 and to speak on some of the measures that it contains. I want to start with the positives. The one thing that I'm really pleased to see in this bill is changes to the tests to be eligible for paid parental leave. It is extraordinary, as we've heard here today, that these changes had to be backdated. This is something that should have been in place right from the start. It was always obvious that people's work patterns were going to be interrupted, particularly the work patterns of pregnant women. We have no idea what coronavirus does to pregnancy and newborn babies, and certainly back in March we had even less idea. We've still got so much to learn about it. So it was always going to be an impact for women in that situation.

I was contacted recently by Louise who has been struggling with these issues about trying to meet the eligibility criteria for paid parental leave. Her baby is not due until December. She had a tough start to the year, in fact her father died in March, just as coronavirus was really taking hold. And not long after she found out she was pregnant. That in itself was a joy because it wasn't something that she had expected to happen easily. The advice to her from her GP, the supporting practitioners she had around her and the school that she taught at was that she should err on the side of caution so she did. But when it came to filling in the form that asked why she was off early, in terms of eligibility for paid parental leave, there wasn't even a box to tick to say, 'Well, that would be because of COVID.' The system hadn't even caught up with the fact that there was a problem.

She has been really distressed because she is only about 35 days short of the number of days she has to have worked to be eligible for paid parental leave, but missing out by 35 days means she misses out on the whole amount, and that means being up to $15,000 worse off. It's not something that she was looking forward to having to cope with. Right now, as a pregnant person who's not working—and she's not eligible for JobSeeker—the family income is already taking a hit. But with this legislation she is very hopeful, even confident, that she will be able to access paid parental leave. So I really welcome this amendment, because there are many Louises who, since March, have been wondering: 'What's it going to be like? How long am I going to have to survive on my partner's income?'

The other positive thing I see in this legislation is around youth allowance. Again, this has to be backdated, because the government has belatedly realised that, oh yes, there was a problem there. I know things had to happen fast, but there were certain obvious place to look, and supporting people who are the most vulnerable through our social security system ought to have been a key priority for the government. The changes to youth allowance will obviously support young people. For those who want to do working holidays and gap years, I hope that this facilitates those sorts of arrangements and allows them to meet the independence criteria more easily.

The key part of this legislation relates to people who are unemployed. I think that everyone in this place has recognised, whether they've admitted it or not, that $40 a day is not enough to survive on, let alone thrive. It's certainly not enough to be actively jobseeking and preparing yourself for the workforce. Yet we're here talking about a reduction to a benefit that has, as we've heard, transformed people's lives. It has allowed them to get on top of debt and plan in advance for certain events and certain bills. I've heard such stories in my own electorate. Yet we've got a minister and a Prime Minister who are refusing to give any certainty to this same group of people, saying: 'We'll tell you later; we'll tell you in December. We're just working on it.'

What we've had this week is the minister not being able to rule in or out future permanent rises but then stressing that what she was looking at was temporary assistance, temporary measures, temporary conditions and temporary supports. That's not going to do anything for the mental health of people on unemployment benefits. It's not going to do anything to give them confidence for the future. It's not going to do anything to allow them to plan, to maybe think about how to take the next step. I'm really struggling with the idea that the government has asked us to support something that is very temporary, rather than focus on the impact on the individuals. I think we all recognise the difference it makes to someone's hip pocket.

I want to look at the difference it makes for our economy, because that's the other major consequence of the government not getting this right. We learnt just today that the number of people on unemployment payments will surge to 1.8 million by December, 300,000 more than the previous projections. That's from the Department of Social Services in Senate estimates today. We've also had it confirmed that the number of people who will find themselves on unemployment payments will be higher in 2024 than it was before the recession. The projections are 1.3 million in 2021-22, one million in 2022-23 and then 900,000 in 2023-24.

To put that into context, there were 813,000 people relying on unemployment benefits in December 2019. This obviously shows us the jobs crisis is going to get worse, yet has been there no plan for jobs from this government. For the people who rely on benefits, for every person who doesn't have enough to live on, social security benefits flow through to our local economies. They flow through to my local businesses—the hairdressers, the coffee shops, the supermarket, the petrol station. Every single business in my community relies on there being a flow-through of funds, and we all know that people who are on social security benefits flow all that money through into the economy. So it is a very short-sighted move to say, 'Let's squeeze these individuals.' Even setting aside the impact it has on them individually—on their health, their families, their mental health—think about what the consequences are for our economy. I'm conscious that there is a perception that businesses are struggling to employ people. There's no doubt that it is a patchy recession and there are uneven consequences. But that's not a good enough reason to make everybody suffer, which is what concern about not having ongoing permanent support does. If JobKeeper can be sustained till March, why can't JobSeeker be sustained at least until then? Why can't we see levels commensurate with what we're putting into other things? This inconsistency is very hard to fathom.

I drew interesting conclusions from the latest Deloitte Business outlook, which talks about 2021 looking more like a usual recession rather than the sort of recession that we're seeing. We may or may not still be in a recession technically, but we all know the consequences of a recession: it gets cleaned up on paper a long time before it gets sorted through in the community. The report talks about families and businesses facing a cash crunch between now and the end of March 2021 as JobKeeper and JobSeeker are dialled back, so it reinforces the idea that while the recession arrived fast it's going to leave us slowly. Measures that pull back support too fast are absolutely going to mean there will be a cash crunch.

As I said, it is going to be different in different areas. I look at the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, in my electorate of Macquarie. My wonderful manufacturers of teardrop caravans, Frank and Olga, are doing really well. They are in one of those businesses that are really thriving in this environment. They're in South Windsor. Frank took a punt. He built seven of his teardrop caravans not knowing whether or not it was a good decision. It has proved to be a fabulous thing to do. They're being bought sight unseen online. But that isn't the case for every business. People aren't necessarily in businesses that have been able to thrive in this very peculiar and difficult set of circumstances.

Deloitte concludes that right now we need continuing government support. The government need to be going hard and going smart. That is what Australia needs right now. My concern is that this is not smart. It will be devastating for many individuals and their families, but it may also be devastating for our economy. What's absolutely appalling is that the Prime Minister has no plan to get even close to full employment—not even a hope of it, let alone a plan for it. They are the considerations I would urge the government to have.

The last point I want to make is about pensioners, because they are also covered in this bill. The pension freeze was a shock for pensioners. The rise wasn't going to be very much but it was factored into their expectations—a permanent small bit regularly to help them manage the additional costs they face. There is no doubt that COVID has cost people more money, not just pensioners but also people with disabilities, carers—there's a whole group of people who simply have had to hand over more money—yet what they're going to see is two lots of $250. That isn't sufficient, and I'd really ask the government to consider more compassion for people who really have no choice but to accept what they're given.

So these are some of the limitations of this bill. As I say, I wanted to start with the positives, but there are so many more things that could have been achieved by a piece of legislation such as this, and I only wish the government was able to put itself in other people's shoes and think about what would not only work not for those individuals but then flow through and support local economies like mine in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury.

Mr GEORGANAS (Adelaide) (19:05): We'll be supporting the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020 but also speaking in support of the amendment that the member for Banks has put up. I think there was a missed opportunity by the government to permanently increase the JobSeeker payments. We know there are over 160,000 Australians expected to lose their jobs and 1.6 million Australians on JobSeeker, so we really feel the government has missed a huge opportunity to deliver a permanent increase to JobSeeker in this budget and deliver some certainty for Australians that are doing it tough.

With more jobseekers than each job vacancy—and you can see that, for every position that's advertised in the papers, on the net or wherever, there are hundreds that are vying for that position. There are simply not enough jobs to go around for everyone who needs one. That is the simple fact. It's even more difficult to find a job in the regions and outer suburbs. I suspect a lot of this also has to do with the issue of delivering a good, proper jobs program for our regions and our areas where there is high unemployment. In my electorate, the unemployment rate in the northern suburbs is way above the average rate, with youth unemployment close to 15 per cent, and for those people the prospect of actually finding any work is pretty low. To be cutting the JobSeeker payments at this time will do more damage to those people than anything that is being proposed in this bill. We know that Australians are doing it tough. It's an anxious, uncertain time that people are facing, especially those people on JobKeeper or who are unemployed.

People on social security will have less to spend on local and small businesses. Local and small businesses will have less to spend on wages and jobs. The reality is that, if we want our businesses to grow so they can employ people, we need to put money in people's pockets so they can actually spend it in the economy to be able to stimulate that economy. I've made this point on a number of occasions. If you give someone on JobSeeker a small increase or payment, that will go straight back into the economy because, with those extra few dollars that they will get, they will go out and buy the pair of shoes they've been putting off for six months because they can't afford them. They will go off and buy the shirt that they needed because their old shirt was getting so old but, because the payments were so low, they couldn't afford to buy another shirt. That money goes straight into the economy. That's why I think stopping the extra increase in JobSeeker in December is a big mistake by this government.

I'd like to know how many jobs will be lost when JobSeeker is cut in December. We've sought this information from the government. We've asked numerous questions, but the government either doesn't want to tell the opposition or doesn't know. One million jobseekers will be left out—especially older workers. The budget has left Australians on JobSeeker at an average age of 35 or over—almost one million Australians—out of the budget and ineligible for its wage-hire subsidy. Older Australians represent one of the largest cohorts of jobseekers. If you look at all the statistics on people over the age of 45 or 50 who have lost their jobs, the prospect of getting another job is very low. When GMH shut three years ago, most of the people who lost their jobs relocated to other jobs or upskilled, but the majority of workers aged 50-plus are still unemployed. It's difficult to find work because of structural barriers and the age discrimination that takes place.

The other area of concern is pensioners. The government were caught out by Labor on the pension freeze for 2.5 million pensioners, and that's the only reason they have acted on it. Pensioners were meant to get the indexation, and it was the first time in years that it wasn't passed down to them. Now the government is passing on some sort of increase, but the reality is that they missed out on that indexation. We argued against the government's pension freeze and raised it in here, and the Leader of the Opposition raised it. The reality is that pensioners plan for their twice-yearly indexation, which occurs on 20 March and 20 September. So the government were first caught out on the pension freeze in August, the freeze took effect in September, and they made pensioners wait for the October budget before announcing any kind of relief.

This government have a long track record of cutting or attempting to cut the pension. They still haven't adjusted deeming rates. This is a big issue. Many pensioners contact me about issues they have with deeming rates. Deeming rates remain significantly higher than interest rates. Deeming rates are used to look at how much pensioners earn from their secured financial assets—typically, in most cases, savings—and this is used for the purposes of determining eligibility under the income test for pensioners. The upper deeming rate is 2.25 per cent, and the lower deeming rate is 0.25. With the cash rate at nearly zero per cent, it's difficult to see how pensioners can reasonably earn 2.25 per cent on their savings. So, on the one hand, they didn't get their indexation. On the other hand, they're punished by being short-changed by the unreasonable and unrealistic pension deeming rate.

Pensioners also won't forget this government's record on cutting the pension. The government are obsessed with cutting the pension, attempting to cut it in every single budget every year. In 2014, they tried to cut the pension indexation, a cut that would have meant that pensioners would have been forced to live on $80 a week less within 10 years. In 2014 they cut a billion dollars from pensioner concessions that were designed to help pensioners with the cost of living. Also in 2014, they axed the $900 seniors supplement for self-funded retirees receiving the Commonwealth seniors health card. Again in 2014 they tried to reset the deeming rate thresholds, a cut that would have seen half a million part-pensioners made worse off. In 2015 they did a deal with the Green to cut the pension to around 370,000 pensioners by as much as $12,000 a year by changing the pension asset tests. The assets test threshold has usually gone up over the years. This time they cut it and they dropped it, taking thousands of pensioners by surprise, as they had done their budgets for every year, with many losing as much as $12,000 a year through that particular change. In 2016, the government tried to cut the pension to around 190,000 pensioners as part of a plan to limit overseas travel for pensioners to six weeks. In 2016 the government tried to cut the pension for over 1.5 million Australians by scrapping the energy supplement for new pensioners. The government's own figures show this would have left over 563 Australians who are currently receiving a pension payment or allowance worse off. Over 10 years, in excess of 1.5 million pensioners would have been worse off. They spent five years trying to increase the pension age to 70. Pensioners have paid their taxes and have contributed their entire lives, and they deserve our respect in this place. As I said, pensioners deserve better than that.

This bill is adjusting how someone qualifies for paid parental leave. To be eligible a person has to satisfy the work test. The existing work test requires a person to have worked 10 of the 13 months prior to the birth or adoption of a child and at least 330 hours in that 10-month period. The concern during the pandemic was that families would miss out on the paid parental leave payment because of job losses and of having their hours or days of work reduced, which would have made them ineligible, leaving a lot of people up to $15,000 worse off.

Labor, on this side of the House, called for the government to temporarily suspend the work test as early as April this year so that families would not miss out. Then in June we moved amendments in the Senate for the work test to be suspended, but this government voted it down. Families need certainty, just like pensioners need certainty when they're doing their budgets. People who are unemployed need to be able to afford to actually look for work. Families need certainty about their access to paid parental leave during what is one of the most challenging times in the history of our nation. It's disappointing that it's taken the government this long to make this adjustment. It's been an excruciating wait for so many families.

This bill will also temporarily amend the circumstances in which a person may be regarded as independent for youth allowance. In May, once again, the opposition, Labor, called on the government to provide case by case exemptions to the youth allowance and parental income test. We were concerned that tertiary students would miss out on the youth allowance and would be unable to afford to continue their studies. These aren't ordinary times and we don't want to see students discontinuing tertiary studies because they cannot afford them. It's disappointing that the government's taken this long to take on this issue as well. It has been, again, a long and anxious period for our students.

This is the worst time for the government to be cutting support for people who have lost their jobs or are unemployed. Unemployment is still going up and predictions are astronomical between now and Christmas. It's time the government does the right thing and increases the base rate of the JobSeeker payment—in other words, the amount that they were on before coronavirus and are about to go back on. It's about $40 a day, which means that they cannot afford to look for work. Just while I was sitting there I thought I would look up the bus fares in South Australia. It can be anything up to $5 for a bus fare. When there is a requirement upon you to have a certain amount of interviews per week and per month, which can work out to about 10, that's $50. If you're going to ten appointments a week and you need to catch a bus, that's $50. On top of that you'd need a mobile phone to be able to get your text messages, if you're being asked to go to an interview, and to be able to get emails. Just to buy a phone it will cost you around $1,000. One of the most minimum cards you can get is around $30 a month, which gives you limited access to internet and email. What we're doing is basically making it harder for people to look for work, even though there is a requirement on them to look for work. This is not a time to be doing that. This is a time when we should be offering all our support and help and be thinking and planning job creation.

Job creation is about creating work so that these people can actually work. There's no better welfare than actually having a job—we all know that—but we need to be able to stimulate the economy and create work. At this point, from what I have seen, there's no job plan. There is nothing that is stimulating the economy. If you look back to the economic crisis that we had in 2009, the Labor government then actually injected money into the economy. Whether it was one-off payments or school halls, it got people working. It ensured that we were the envy of the world when it came to the economic crisis. And we kept the economy going. In this case, all we are seeing is subsidies for big business. A lot of that money won't get spent. As I said, if you give a millionaire $100 it will sit in their bank account. If you give $100 to an unemployed person it will go straight back into the economy. It will be spent on vital things that they need for everyday life. If you give $100 to a family on a very low income they'll use that money immediately for things they've been putting off for weeks and months on end because they can't afford to buy them.

Mr ZAPPIA (Makin) (19:20): I'm pleased to be able to follow my South Australian colleague the member for Adelaide in this debate. I also note that my other South Australian colleague, the member for Spence, is here in the chamber. So it seems that the South Australians are holding up the numbers here well and truly tonight.

The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Coronavirus and Other Measures) Bill 2020 varies or eases the criteria under which certain government payments, including youth allowance, parental leave support and stillborn baby leave support, are made. The changes are likely to be temporary and are in response to the abnormal situation presented by COVID-19 across this country. The legislation also provides for two payments of $250 to a range of government payment recipients, similar to the two payments of $750 made earlier in the year. The changes are welcome but they simply don't go far enough. Too many Australians struggling because of COVID-19, through no fault of their own, are again left behind by this legislation—as have so many Australians been left behind by the Morrison government's previously announced COVID-19 support measures and, more recently, left out of the Morrison government's budget.

COVID-19 has hit Australia hard, despite the claim that Australia has done much better than most other countries, and there is very likely much more pain and hardship to come. Regrettably the Morrison government support measures don't provide those in need with long-term security or certainty about their future. This government has always sought to cut support payments, with its mantra being that the best form of welfare is a job. Whilst there may be some optimism about a COVID-19 recovery and some jobs growth, the reality is that, for the one million or so unemployed Australians and the nearly two million underemployed Australians, some of whom have never previously been unemployed, job prospects over the months ahead still remain grim. Australians who have never before struggled have, for the first time in their lives, had at times to rely on community support to get by.

The Foodbank Hunger Report 2020, which relies on a survey carried out between June and July of this year, which was effectively in the middle of the COVID-19 crisis, exposes the extent of the struggles within communities across Australia. Foodbank last year provided some 210,000 meals a day to people in need, predominantly through some 2,400 charities across Australia. Foodbank also supplies 2,500 school breakfast programs nationally. So it's an organisation that understands need across this country very well. I want to refer to some of their findings in that report. In 2019, 15 per cent of Australians experiencing food insecurity were seeking food relief once a week. In 2020, that figure had doubled to 31 per cent. Almost three in 10 Australians experiencing food insecurity in 2020 had never experienced it before COVID-19 hit this country. It says two newly food insecure groups have emerged as a result of COVID-19: the casual workforce of this country and international students—again, two sectors that previously were not regular clients of Foodbank and not people that were in need. And two in five people who experience food insecurity still do not seek any form of help whatsoever.

Of the people who need government assistance, only 38 per cent suggested that JobKeeper and JobSeeker had helped their situation, and 62 per cent said that they were still not receiving all the help that they needed. The survey also says:

Almost 35% don't know how they will cope or expect they will not cope well at all when this additional support is no longer available.

Those findings, I believe, speak for many, many other Australians who perhaps did not participate in the survey and who do not seek out community support, even though they might need it as much as anybody else.

In particular, what that report found was that it was young people who were bearing the brunt of the COVID-19 pandemic across this country, and, again, that's because it is young people who are most likely to be the casual workers of this country, working part time or working in temporary jobs. Again it is young people who appear to be getting left behind at a time that they probably need the greatest amount of support.

We currently have around 1.6 million people on JobSeeker across this country. The government's own figures project that perhaps another 160,000 will join the unemployment queues by Christmas. For them, the end of the $250 supplement at the end of the year will be a huge blow. Unless this government decides to continue some kind of additional support, they will be left on about $40 a day. It is simply inadequate. It has been inadequate for years. It is particularly inadequate when the people receiving Newstart, who were previously taxpayers with families, have children to support, partners to support, mortgages to pay and the like. And they are in this situation essentially because of circumstances that are beyond their control.

Even worse, for almost one million of them, getting a job has now been made even more difficult by this government, because they are over 35 years of age; as such, they will be competing for jobs against people under 35, whose employers will receive a supplement from the government to assist them to employ them. So they will effectively be competing on an unlevel playing field for whatever jobs are available. As I said earlier, for many of them, the jobs that might have been available to them in the past that they are competent for and skilled to do may not be available for some time to come. I can only imagine the uncertainty that they face, having to support their families and the like as they head towards Christmas. It is something that I believe will add to what has already become a major problem for this country, and that is the mental stress and mental strain on people as a result of the situation that they now find themselves in.

So I say to the government it is time that the Newstart payment was increased and increased permanently. It makes sense to do so. Businesses have been calling out for that to happen. It is good for the economy, and, quite frankly, it is good for the government, because, if the economy is stronger, then ultimately the government's ability to balance its budget is stronger. One of the very reasons why the government, quite rightly, brought in all of these stimulus measures in respect of the COVID-19 pandemic was to keep the economy strong while supporting families, and it has been proven to do exactly that. So, if the government do it in a time of need, then there is no reason why they can't continue to do it even after the so-called need period has ended. I urge the government to consider a permanent increase to the Newstart payment.

Debate interrupted.

Debate interrupted.