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

We need to see safeguards for existing workers in this country. We don't expect the government to come to that view very quickly—it's not in their DNA to think about security of employment in this country—but we have brought this to the attention of the government in the debate that happened last night in the Senate to ensure that we safeguard existing employees in order that they are not displaced, potentially dismissed or, indeed, have their hours reduced by rogue employers who might seek to game the system. Most employers would seek to do the right thing with a wage subsidy program, but there will always be those employers that will seek to use this improperly, and therefore it is absolutely critical that we have safeguards in place in order to protect those workers currently working.

We are currently faced with the worst recession since the Great Depression. We have soaring unemployment, we have workers lining up in unemployment queues around this country and we have a government initiating a scheme that does not protect existing workers. We say to them that they must accept this amendment because, without this amendment, those workers currently employed cannot be assured, going into Christmas, that they'll have a job. It's as simple as that. We say to the government, as the Labor leader has said, that we support the initiatives. We're not big fans of this initiative because it is too small. It will provide support for workers, but we say the scale of it will not provide enough opportunities for workers. But nonetheless we support it because, if enacted properly, there will be additional jobs in the labour market. There will be workers unemployed now who will find themselves in employment before Christmas and beyond. Whilst the scale of it is too small to deal with this deep recession, we say to the government we support it as we have supported other initiatives by this government.

But what we cannot understand is why, when the government has a decision to make to either side with employees currently working or side with rogue employers who might want to game the system, they choose to side with those employers who would seek to game the system and treat their own workforce shabbily. Why would any government in their right mind, who want to add additional jobs to the labour market, support the capacity for employers to sack workers and replace them with other workers that are subsidised? Why would Scott Morrison, the Prime Minister of this country, allow a scheme to be used in such a manner that workers, who are heading into Christmas, might find themselves sacked or have their hours reduced because they have not safeguarded them in using this scheme? Frankly, it beggars belief that the government would allow a scheme to be set up to displace workers that are currently employed.

What we've sought to do from the beginning is to work constructively with the government in the face of a global pandemic and the worst recession we've had since the Great Depression. That's what we've sought to do. In fact, in March this year, eight months ago, we said to the government: why would you not want to consider a wage subsidy? To which the Prime Minister said at the time: 'We do not need a wage subsidy.' Well, it was only two weeks later—having closed the parliament for nearly six months—that we reconvened the parliament and the government introduced the suggestion that was proffered by Labor to have a wage subsidy. And, if we hadn't done that and if they hadn't taken up that suggestion at that time, millions of Australian workers would have lost their jobs. I know they like to take credit, if you listen to the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, but eight months ago, when we put a suggestion about a wage subsidy in good faith to the government, to the Prime Minister and to the Treasurer, they dismissed it.

We are now putting another suggestion to the government and to the Prime Minister, and it is this: you've got a very modest scheme, but it will provide extra jobs for people, and we applaud that; it's too small in its scale to respond to the problems we have, but we still support it in principle and in practice because it will lead to jobs for young people, people aged 35 and under. We support that. But do not allow loopholes to exist that allow rogue employers to displace or sack their workers. Why would you want to have a scheme that doesn't serve its own purpose—which is to add to the labour market and to increase employment by companies and businesses across the country?

The only conclusion we can draw if the government do not support this amendment is that they have absolutely no regard for employment security in this country.

See this speech in context