Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Industry) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to this important bill, the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Jobkeeper Payments) Amendment Bill 2020. It's important because it will at least extend the JobKeeper payments, however diminished, over the course of six months, to those workers who are in need of the support. Of course, we supported wage subsidies in response to this global pandemic earlier than the government did. Indeed, I stood here and asked a question of the Prime Minister in March this year as to why the government was not going to proceed down the path of initiating wage subsidies. The Prime Minister, at that time, indicated that there was no need for a wage subsidy and that the government would be primarily relying upon cash payments and some tax relief for businesses but would predominantly allow people to be paid a JobSeeker amount, which was effectively shifting people from the labour market to social security benefits. We didn't think that was a very wise choice of the government.

It was actually at that same time, in that same week, that the Prime Minister announced we were going to close the parliament until August, that we were not going to reconvene until this month. A lot has changed since that day when we asked the Prime Minister why the government would not be supporting wage subsidies for workers, and not just wage subsidies for workers but subsidies for businesses so that they could survive. We are very happy that the government ultimately agreed with Labor that a wage subsidy was required, and we do support, in the main, the JobKeeper initiative, although we have outlined, over the course of the last five months, the deficiencies as we see them in relation to this wage subsidy. Namely, we are concerned that many businesses are not sufficiently supported because they employ employees who are ineligible for JobKeeper. We know that many of the sectors of our economy hit hardest by the pandemic have a significant and relatively high proportion of ineligible employees—for example, casuals, who, if they hadn't been employed for 12 months in March this year, were not supported by JobKeeper. That of course meant that many, many workers found themselves in the unemployment queues in this country, and many, many businesses were not sufficiently supported. It just so happens that sectors like food, accommodation, hospitality and tourism employ casuals—as every sector of our economy does, but they employ more casuals relative to many other sectors—and yet they were getting the least support, even though they were being forced to close down, for legitimate health reasons. We think the government still has an opportunity to attend to that.

The Treasurer of this country has the capacity to change the eligibility for JobKeeper and to provide support for those workers and those businesses that miss out because of the fact that the eligibility is too narrow. The eligibility is too narrow. The initiative was also a little too late. It should have been initiated as urgently as possible. Instead what happened was that the government closed the parliament and said that we were not to return until this month, six months hence. Instead, two weeks later we were reconvened and the government initiated JobKeeper, which was important, however deficient it might be in some respects.

We also indicated to the government that there would be no snapback to the economy in August. It was a premature forecast by the Prime Minister that we would return to normal. It was clearly hope over experience to indicate that we would return to normal so quickly. For that reason, we're here today debating the extension of a wage subsidy that was of course proposed by Labor many months ago. We do, of course, support the extension of JobKeeper. We know that the economy is suffering. We know this is an unprecedented time; the health and economic challenges are great. That's why we have been constructive. Whilst we have raised concerns about the response by the government, we've also supported legislation of the government to look after businesses, workers and our economy.

We're here today to support the predominant provisions of this bill, to extend JobKeeper, but we do have reservations and concerns about the fact that there are cuts to those forms of support from September to the end of the year and then from January to March. There's a declining level of support for businesses, whether they've recovered or not. We think that it may be too harsh and too early to remove that support. As the support was too late and too narrow in the first instance, this could be too quick and too difficult for businesses that have yet to recover sufficiently. We need to work and partner with businesses and we need to look after workers in this country.

The member for Watson foreshadowed earlier in this debate the need to move amendments to this bill. Some significant amendments need to be moved because the government either has a terrible idea about what it can do to help working people in this country or has not thought through the consequences of some of the provisions contained in this bill. As the member for Watson quite rightly outlined, this legislation would allow a business that had recovered by at least 90 per cent in turnover to cut unilaterally the working hours of its employees by up to 40 per cent. Under normal circumstances, you can't cut unilaterally the hours of permanent employees unless you're discussing and negotiating some form of partial redundancy or some other arrangement that has to be agreed by the employees and the employer or indeed the unions, employees and employer or employers. But this sanction that the government wants to ensure is legislated would allow for workers to have their wages cut, even when the government will not see fit to support those businesses. These are businesses, so-called legacy employers, that no longer receive any support from the government because the government has deemed that they have recovered. Yet they are in a situation that if they've recovered between 70 and 90 per cent, in the case of businesses with a turnover of less than $1 billion, they are able to reduce the working hours of their staff by up to 40 per cent. Large businesses, those with a turnover of at least $1 billion, if they've recovered by between 50 per cent and 90 per cent, if they're still in that phase, don't get support from the government but are enabled through this legislation to cut the working hours of employees by up to 40 per cent. For those workers, particularly those below the median wage in this country, that could be a very significant cut, because there will be no JobKeeper in place to act as a safety net for income. So the government effectively is saying, 'You have recovered sufficiently for us to withdraw our support to you,' but indeed there doesn't seem to be any concern for workers who may bear the brunt of the changes in this legislation. That is unconscionable and unfair.

It is Labor's view that there should not be the ability for employers just to reduce hours by 40 per cent if they've recovered sufficiently. I'm not sure whether the government intended to do that. I'm not sure whether the government really has clearly considered the implications for thousands upon thousands of workers who may find themselves losing their permanent full-time hours or permanent part-time hours in this way. I agree that, as the member for Watson has said, we'd be very willing to talk to the government about the implications that this legislation will have for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Australian workers. I'm not sure whether, in fact, it was intended. It may well be that some employer bodies and some employers have put to the government that this is a fair proposal, but, frankly, it is not a fair proposal. The Prime Minister has made it clear, and says often, that we're all in it together. I don't know how he can continue to say that if he says, 'There are now businesses that have recovered to the extent that they won't receive taxpayer support, yet we're going to change the arrangements to allow employees to potentially suffer a 40 per cent loss to hours worked.'

In the case of workers on the minimum wage—and at least one million workers are on the minimum wage in this country—if they have their hours cut in a company that no longer gets JobKeeper, they can lose $300 of the $750-odd that they're paid per week. I believe—I'm hoping—that that is not the intention of the government. If it's not the intention of the government, they have an opportunity today, and through the course of the negotiations in relation to this bill and the amendments that are being moved by the member for Watson, to discuss with Labor a better, fairer way that does not hurt low-paid workers in this country. Many of those low-paid workers have been on the front line. Certainly many workers in my electorate have been working on the front line in relation to this pandemic, in retail, logistics, storage and the like, often placing themselves at risk, particularly in areas where there have been clusters and where there's been high density of the virus. The idea that some of these workers who have placed themselves at risk could find themselves subject to a law, if it is enacted by this parliament, that could mean they have their hours unilaterally reduced by 40 per cent by an employer who has been deemed, as far as the government's concerned, to have recovered beggars belief. I have difficulty believing that even this government would contemplate doing that to those workers. So there's an opportunity, I believe, for the government to reconsider the implications of the legislation to the extent that it impacts on those workers.

We agree with the government about extending JobKeeper. We agree that wage subsidies are critical for workers and businesses. We know that workers need to remain connected to the labour market for our economy to recover. We know wage subsidies have been the predominant form of support for them during this unprecedented pandemic. But it seems to me that suggesting that we can remove any form of government support and place the entire burden of dealing with the final recovery stages of that company on the workforce leaves it to those workers to fight through this pandemic economically.

There are other implications too. If you see continued reduction in hours of work and reduction of wages in an anaemic economy, we are not going to recover sufficiently. Our economy will recover when businesses have recovered, when wages are being paid and when workers are spending on goods and services so other businesses recover. That's how it works. The idea that you would say instead that you're going to strip away the wage subsidy for employers but allow most of them to cut the hours of work of permanent employees without any other form of support would be bad for those workers and bad for our economy. There's no sense to this at all. I think the government needs to rethink those provisions. If they choose not to, there are going to be some very significant economic and social implications for thousands and thousands of workers, their families and the economy as well. This is an opportunity for the government to fix this. The Prime Minister likes to say we're all in this together. If we are all in this together, the government, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer will support the amendments moved by the member for Watson and we will then be looking to support this bill to extend JobKeeper until March next year as we fight through this very difficult time and ensure that we are there for businesses and Australian workers.

See this speech in context