senate vote 2020-11-09#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-07-29 13:07:02
|
Title
Description
-
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2020-11-09.174.2):
- > *That Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the [Social Security (Coronavirus Economic Response—2020 Measures No. 14) Determination 2020](https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2020L01093), made under the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Act 2020 and the Social Security Act 1991, be disallowed.*
- This means that the motion failed.
### What does this motion mean?
- ### What was the purpose of this motion?
- West Australian Senator [Patrick Dodson](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/patrick_dodson) (Labor) [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2020-11-09.174.2):
- > *Labor is seeking to disallow part 1 of schedule 2 of the Social Security (Coronavirus Economic Response—2020 Measures No. 14) Determination 2020. When making this determination, the Minister for Families and Social Services has reinstated the liquid assets waiting period for people accessing unemployment payments. This move will force thousands of Australians in need to wait up to three months before they can access JobSeeker. The liquid assets waiting period was suspended in March, due to the pandemic, in order for struggling Australians to access the support they needed quickly. Reversing this now is an unnecessary and cruel move at a time of unprecedented hardship for so many Australians.*
- ### What does 'disallow' mean?
- To disallow a legislative instrument - like this Determination - is to stop it from having legal force. In this case, the motion was to stop a particular Part of the Determination from having legal force.
-
-
|
senate vote 2020-11-09#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-07-29 13:03:13
|
Title
Regulations and Determinations — Social Security (Coronavirus Economic Response — 2020 Measures No. 14) Determination 2020
- Regulations and Determinations - Social Security (Coronavirus Economic Response — 2020 Measures No. 14) Determination 2020 - Disallow
Description
<p class="speaker">Patrick Dodson</p>
<p>I move:</p>
<p class="italic">That Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Social Security (Coronavirus Economic Response—2020 Measures No. 14) Determination 2020, made under the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Act 2020 and the Social Security Act 1991, be disallowed.</p>
<p>Labor is seeking to disallow part 1 of schedule 2 of the Social Security (Coronavirus Economic Response—2020 Measures No. 14) Determination 2020. When making this determination, the Minister for Families and Social Services has reinstated the liquid assets waiting period for people accessing unemployment payments. This move will force thousands of Australians in need to wait up to three months before they can access JobSeeker. The liquid assets waiting period was suspended in March, due to the pandemic, in order for struggling Australians to access the support they needed quickly. Reversing this now is an unnecessary and cruel move at a time of unprecedented hardship for so many Australians. Under the liquid assets waiting period, people with as little as $5,500 in the bank will have to wait to receive unemployment payments. Those with $11,500 or more will be forced to wait up to 13 whole weeks. Liquid assets can include savings, loans to family members not yet repaid and superannuation that has been accessed earlier; in other words, in a time of unprecedented crisis, the government expects Australians to run down every last dollar before they can access unemployment benefits.</p>
<p>To reintroduce the liquid assets waiting period is a false economy. It means that people will be more likely to rely on unemployment relief or emergency relief, on food banks and on other government funded supports. It makes it harder for people to look out for their families during this tough time and for people to get back on their feet. Forcing people to run down every last dollar puts families under unnecessary strain. It is easy for people who have financial buffers to dismiss its importance. Try collecting cans for a week or a month and then see whether it's so easy. I fear too many people on the other side simply do not know what it's like for the cupboards to be bare, for the fridge to be empty, to have nothing but bills in the hallway, for the car to be broken down or have no fuel, to have to make a choice about which bills to pay and which ones to keep juggling, to ignore a sore tooth before a trip to the dentist because a trip to the dentist is simply out of reach. What does this government expect people to do if the fridge blows up, if the car needs new tyres or if the family has medical bills? What if you need to travel for a family emergency or a funeral? Forcing people to use up their modest savings before they can access unemployment support is bad for people's health—for their mental and their physical health.</p>
<p>Reintroducing the liquid assets waiting period is particularly cruel, and it hits doubly on people who have withdrawn their super. Under the government's early access program, many Australians, when faced with uncertainty, dipped into their super and have kept that money in the bank just in case they need it. It's common to hear people talk about their plans to put money back into super in the future if they can. But the government has played a cynical trick on Australians who have taken out their super early, forcing them to run that down too before accessing unemployment support—the very same support that could have been accessed earlier if super had not been withdrawn. It's a cynical move by the government to allow people to withdraw their super because they are worried and insecure, and then, if they do lose their job, to deny them support for 13 weeks. This is not designed to help people who have lost their jobs in the recession. It is simply designed to transfer the cost onto the individuals who can least afford it, by robbing them from their futures.</p>
<p>On top of all this, the government still has plans in the parliament to double the liquid assets waiting period to 26 weeks. That's right: the government has a bill before the parliament right now to make people with modest savings wait 26 weeks before accessing unemployment support. The government may say that they do not have any immediate plans to force this new cruelty on people who lose their jobs, but why then is this plan still in the budget and still in the parliament? Reintroducing the liquid asset waiting period and extending it to six months will only make this recession deeper and longer than it needs to be. The government's so-called payments integrity bill has been stitched in this parliament for far too long. It is time they withdrew it and did away with the cuts to pensions and payments it contains.</p>
<p>The other part of this instrument reduces the rate of the coronavirus supplement from $550 per fortnight to $250 per fortnight. Unfortunately, the Senate doesn't have the power to disallow this part of the instrument without depriving people of the supplement all together, but I consider this is an important opportunity to reflect on the impact of the government's decision to reduce the rate of the coronavirus supplement and, even more importantly, on the government's failure to provide any certainty that will continue past the end of this year. This is a snapback to the tyranny that existed before the pandemic. People need reassurances and stability, not uncertainty and insecurity. By the end of the year, 1.8 million Australians are expected to be on unemployment support. This is 300,000 more people than the government estimated before the budget, and it is one million people more than at the end of 2019.</p>
<p>The budget provided no certainty as to what support would be available for them after 31 December. On 1 January, unemployment support is scheduled to return to its old base rate of $40 per day. Labor acknowledges that the rate of unemployment support is inadequate and that it will crush some people. It is not just Labor that acknowledges this; it's business groups, community groups and even members of the government. It's so inadequate that it is acting as a barrier for people finding work. People are unable to afford new clothes to go to job interviews, internet bills to search for work or transport costs to attend interviews. If you continue to disincentivise and devalue the poor and marginalise people, why should they hope ever to find a job? It's also placing people at risk of hardship and poverty and, more seriously, despair. At a time when the country is facing a recession, unemployment is on the rise and so many ordinary Australians are struggling to get by this is nothing short of cruelty.</p>
<p>The budget was a missed opportunity for the government to do the right thing and deliver a permanent increase to the JobSeeker unemployment payment. Instead, 1.8 million Australians face an anxious Christmas, uncertain and unable to plan for the future. This is not just cruel but bad economic policy. The cuts to the coronavirus supplement will cost local jobs and push people into poverty. We know that Australians receiving social security spend at local small businesses. Taking money from those most likely to spend in local economies will mean unemployment will be higher and for longer periods. While the government has admitted that it doesn't know the economic impact of its decision to cut the coronavirus supplement, Deloitte Access Economics estimate that 145,000 Australian jobs will be lost as a result of the government's scheduled unemployment cut in December.</p>
<p>In the midst of this recession and in the budget the government has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver lasting structural change while boosting local jobs and local businesses. Instead, it is increasingly clear that the government has no plans to create jobs. The government's planned Christmas cut to the coronavirus supplement risks losing more, making the recession deeper and longer. Unemployment is painful and unfair. Hundreds of thousands of Australians will bear the impact of the recession for years to come. Those most vulnerable people—people with disabilities, carers and older Australians—will be impacted the most.</p>
<p>In the last sitting week Labor moved amendments in the House to the government's coronavirus and other measures bill to expand support to age pensioners, disability pensioners, carers and Australians on unemployment support. Labor's amendments called on the government to continue the coronavirus supplement beyond December instead of delivering a cruel Christmas cut to 2.2 million Australians. The government used their numbers to vote those amendments down in the House. We'll be seeking to move similar amendments when the bill is debated in the Senate.</p>
<p>While there is nothing we can do to reverse the cuts to the coronavirus supplement in this determination and it is ultimately up to the government in the House of Representatives whether to continue the supplement past December, we will do all that we can to oppose the unfair reinstatement of the liquid assets waiting period. That is the purpose of this disallowance motion. Now is not the time to force people to draw down on their savings before they can access support. Now is not the time for the government to be punishing them because they've lost their jobs. Now is the time to ensure that people have the support they need without delay. I hope the Senate will support this motion.</p>
<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
-
- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2020-11-09.174.2):
- > *That Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the [Social Security (Coronavirus Economic Response—2020 Measures No. 14) Determination 2020](https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2020L01093), made under the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Act 2020 and the Social Security Act 1991, be disallowed.*
- This means that the motion failed.
- ### What does this motion mean?
- To disallow a legislative instrument - like this Determination - is to stop it from having legal force.
-
-
|