Division Description Changes — Bills — Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Extension of Coronavirus Support) Bill 2020; Consideration in Detail — 2nd Dec 2020

Change	Division
representatives vote 2020-12-02#4 Edited by mackay staff on 2020-12-11 12:49:55	Title Description The majority voted in favour of a motion to disagree with [amendment (2)](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/32f9c2b2-1ee9-4d5f-b741-8e194c4befdc/&sid=0000), which means it failed. According to Barton MP [Linda Burney](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/barton/linda_burney) (Labor), the amendment "will remove the government's drop-dead date of 31 March 2021 for the rate of unemployment payments to return to the old Newstart rate." The majority voted in favour of a motion to disagree with [amendment (2)](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/32f9c2b2-1ee9-4d5f-b741-8e194c4befdc/&sid=0000), which means the amendment failed. According to Barton MP [Linda Burney](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/barton/linda_burney) (Labor), the amendment "will remove the government's drop-dead date of 31 March 2021 for the rate of unemployment payments to return to the old Newstart rate." ### Amendment text > (2) Schedule 1, Division 2, page 3 (line 12) to page 5 (line 25), omit the Division.
representatives vote 2020-12-02#4 Edited by mackay staff on 2020-12-11 12:19:06	Title Bills — Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Extension of Coronavirus Support) Bill 2020; Consideration in Detail Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Extension of Coronavirus Support) Bill 2020 - Consideration in Detail - Return to old Newstart rate Description ~~<p class="speaker">Linda Burney</p>~~ ~~<p>I move opposition amendment (2):</p>~~ <p class="italic">(2)   Schedule 1, Division 2, page 3 (line 12) to page 5 (line 25), omit the Division.</p> The majority voted in favour of a motion to disagree with [amendment (2)](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/32f9c2b2-1ee9-4d5f-b741-8e194c4befdc/&sid=0000), which means it failed. According to Barton MP [Linda Burney](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/barton/linda_burney) (Labor), the amendment "will remove the government's drop-dead date of 31 March 2021 for the rate of unemployment payments to return to the old Newstart rate." ### Amendment text *> (2)** Schedule 1, Division 2, page 3 (line 12) to page 5 (line 25), omit the Division.* <p>This amendment will remove the government's drop-dead date of 31 March 2021 for the rate of unemployment payments to return to the old Newstart rate. Going back to $40 a day is something that so many people have told me is striking fear into their hearts. They are already planning for it, already shuffling bills, already working out where to go when they can no longer afford the flat they have been sharing for the last six months because the coronavirus supplement has helped them afford stable housing and already working out what medical and dental appointments to skip and what school, sport and other activities they will have to tell their kids they simply can't participate in.</p> <p>Currently, the government has the power under the Social Security Act to keep paying the coronavirus supplement as long as there is the impact of the pandemic. Families will be carrying the economic scars of this recession for years. The Department of Social Services expects the number of people relying on unemployment support to remain elevated across the entire forward estimates and for some time to come. In this context, I simply cannot understand why the government is so keen to take away this power, which can only be used to help people by continuing the coronavirus supplement. Of course no-one can force the minister's hand, and the existence of this power does not guarantee that the government won't stick to their current policy of cutting unemployment payments all the way back down to the old Newstart rate in March. But at least this amendment would still keep that option available to the government, and there is no reason for the government to oppose these changes. I have written to the minister. I have spoken with the minister and asked her to seriously consider this.</p> <p>In March this year the government thought it was a good idea for this power to last until the impact of the pandemic had faded, but now they want to repeal it early. Nothing has changed except perhaps that hearts have hardened. There is nothing that anyone but the government can do to increase payments—that is the reality of the parliament. Only the government can move bills to make amendments that increase expenditure, and the government, by definition, has the numbers in this place.</p> <p>There are so many opposite who have acknowledged that the old base rate of Newstart is too low, including the member for New England; the member for Cowper, who said that going back to $40 a day was cruel and unusual punishment; Senator Canavan in the other place; Senator Dean Smith; the member for Monash; and the member for Fisher. I ask those opposite a simple question: if you know that this needs to change, why won't you support this amendment, which will at least hold open a glimmer of hope that the rate of unemployment payments won't go all the way back down to $40 a day in March? This section doesn't need to be in this bill. If it were removed, the beneficial elements of what is proposed here, like the extension of the more generous partner income test, would still be able to go ahead.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p>~~ ~~<p>The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.</p>~~

~~Linda Burney~~
~~I move opposition amendment (2):~~
(2)   Schedule 1, Division 2, page 3 (line 12) to page 5 (line 25), omit the Division.
The majority voted in favour of a motion to *disagree* with [amendment (2)](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansardr/32f9c2b2-1ee9-4d5f-b741-8e194c4befdc/&sid=0000), which means it failed. According to Barton MP [Linda Burney](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/barton/linda_burney) (Labor), the amendment "*will remove the government's drop-dead date of 31 March 2021 for the rate of unemployment payments to return to the old Newstart rate.*"
### Amendment text
> *(2) Schedule 1, Division 2, page 3 (line 12) to page 5 (line 25), omit the Division.*
This amendment will remove the government's drop-dead date of 31 March 2021 for the rate of unemployment payments to return to the old Newstart rate. Going back to $40 a day is something that so many people have told me is striking fear into their hearts. They are already planning for it, already shuffling bills, already working out where to go when they can no longer afford the flat they have been sharing for the last six months because the coronavirus supplement has helped them afford stable housing and already working out what medical and dental appointments to skip and what school, sport and other activities they will have to tell their kids they simply can't participate in.
Currently, the government has the power under the Social Security Act to keep paying the coronavirus supplement as long as there is the impact of the pandemic. Families will be carrying the economic scars of this recession for years. The Department of Social Services expects the number of people relying on unemployment support to remain elevated across the entire forward estimates and for some time to come. In this context, I simply cannot understand why the government is so keen to take away this power, which can only be used to help people by continuing the coronavirus supplement. Of course no-one can force the minister's hand, and the existence of this power does not guarantee that the government won't stick to their current policy of cutting unemployment payments all the way back down to the old Newstart rate in March. But at least this amendment would still keep that option available to the government, and there is no reason for the government to oppose these changes. I have written to the minister. I have spoken with the minister and asked her to seriously consider this.
In March this year the government thought it was a good idea for this power to last until the impact of the pandemic had faded, but now they want to repeal it early. Nothing has changed except perhaps that hearts have hardened. There is nothing that anyone but the government can do to increase payments—that is the reality of the parliament. Only the government can move bills to make amendments that increase expenditure, and the government, by definition, has the numbers in this place.
There are so many opposite who have acknowledged that the old base rate of Newstart is too low, including the member for New England; the member for Cowper, who said that going back to $40 a day was cruel and unusual punishment; Senator Canavan in the other place; Senator Dean Smith; the member for Monash; and the member for Fisher. I ask those opposite a simple question: if you know that this needs to change, why won't you support this amendment, which will at least hold open a glimmer of hope that the rate of unemployment payments won't go all the way back down to $40 a day in March? This section doesn't need to be in this bill. If it were removed, the beneficial elements of what is proposed here, like the extension of the more generous partner income test, would still be able to go ahead.
~~Tony Smith~~
~~The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.~~