All changes made to the description and title of this division.

View division | Edit description

Change Division
representatives vote 2020-12-02#5

Edited by mackay

on 2020-12-11 12:50:26

Title

Description

  • The majority voted in favour of a motion to *disagree* with [amendment (3)](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:
  • The majority voted in favour of a motion to *disagree* with [amendment (3)](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:
  • > *proposes to permanently strike out the minister's ability to exempt people from the liquid assets waiting period. This amendment will remove this part of the bill so that exemptions can still be made. Labor has consistently opposed the reintroduction of the liquid assets waiting period in the midst of a pandemic. The government should not have reinstated the 13-week liquid assets waiting period in September. Most Australians are shocked to find out that, with as little as $5,000 in the bank, people have to wait to receive unemployment support.*
  • ### Amendment text
  • > *(3) Schedule 1, items 39 to 41, page 7 (lines 10 to 15), omit the items.*
representatives vote 2020-12-02#5

Edited by mackay

on 2020-12-11 12:03:53

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 - Liquid assets waiting period

Description

  • <p class="speaker">Linda Burney</p>
  • <p>I move Labor amendment (3):</p>
  • <p class="italic">(3) Schedule 1, items 39 to 41, page 7 (lines 10 to 15), omit the items.</p>
  • The majority voted in favour of a motion to *disagree* with [amendment (3)](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:
  • > *proposes to permanently strike out the minister's ability to exempt people from the liquid assets waiting period. This amendment will remove this part of the bill so that exemptions can still be made. Labor has consistently opposed the reintroduction of the liquid assets waiting period in the midst of a pandemic. The government should not have reinstated the 13-week liquid assets waiting period in September. Most Australians are shocked to find out that, with as little as $5,000 in the bank, people have to wait to receive unemployment support.*
  • ### Amendment text
  • > *(3) Schedule 1, items 39 to 41, page 7 (lines 10 to 15), omit the items.*
  • <p>This amendment proposes to permanently strike out the minister's ability to exempt people from the liquid assets waiting period. This amendment will remove this part of the bill so that exemptions can still be made. Labor has consistently opposed the reintroduction of the liquid assets waiting period in the midst of a pandemic. The government should not have reinstated the 13-week liquid assets waiting period in September. Most Australians are shocked to find out that, with as little as $5,000 in the bank, people have to wait to receive unemployment support. It's very noisy in here.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Steve Georganas</p>
  • <p>Could I ask the members who are not in their seats to leave the chamber. The chit-chat is far too much to be able to hear the speaker.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Linda Burney</p>
  • <p>The Prime Minister should drop his cruel plan to make people wait 26 weeks to get unemployment support if they have modest savings. This false economy means people are forced to run down to their last dollar and makes it more likely they will face hardship, like struggling to pay their mortgage or keeping a car on the road. It also means people are more likely to need to rely on other services like food banks and emergency relief. If people have no buffer at all, it means they can't meet medical bills, they can't keep up with the mortgage while they look for work and they can't afford to move. This has a huge impact on relationships and on mental health. That is what this parliament should really be focused on&#8212;people, and helping them get through the tough times before the pandemic does finally subside. It should not be our role to make matters worse when people are already facing a dark hour.</p>
  • <p>Labor has called on the government to continue the liquid assets waiting period suspension. I hope those opposite will have the courage and the sense to support this amendment, which will allow people who have built up a modest buffer to keep some control and some dignity when they face unemployment.</p>
  • <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p>
  • <p>The question is that opposition amendment (3) be disagreed to.</p>