Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Why won't the Prime Minister support Labor's amendments to the hiring credit scheme to ensure that a 37-year-old won't get sacked for someone younger and cheaper? Why is the Prime Minister undermining job security for workers aged over 35? Isn't the middle of a recession the very worst time to be attacking job security?

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This government has done more than any other government in a time like this to ensure that Australians have been able to have job security during the period of the worst recession we've seen since the Great Depression. We have committed $101 billion to JobKeeper so Australians can have job security, with $70 billion out the door. And with this initiative there is some $4 billion to get people off the unemployment queues, off unemployment benefits, and into jobs.

What the Leader of the Opposition is putting forward in this place is simply untrue and is seeking to create fear in a pandemic. It is irresponsible and it is reckless. This Leader of the Opposition will stoop to any level to try and bring about—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, Mr Speaker; it goes to relevance. The question was about the government's hiring credit scheme, the amendments that were carried in the Senate and voted for by the government but opposed here in the House, and the difference it will make to job security for those over the age of 35, who could lose their job and be replaced.

Ms Burney interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Barton will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister has the call.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's just done it again. We opposed the amendments in the Senate. We opposed the amendments when they were put in the Senate. That is another untruth which is being put forward by those opposite for the simple purpose of seeking to exploit fear and concern in the community in the middle of a pandemic. This Leader of the Opposition is so desperate, leading a party so divided, that he will use the fears and concerns of Australians in a pandemic to butter up support on his own backbench. I'll ask the minister to add further to my answer to address the matter also raised.

Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As well as putting fear into the community it sends precisely the wrong message and describes something as potentially lawful which is absolutely unlawful. If any employer tried to do what the Leader of the Opposition has said that they might be able to do—which they cannot do; that is sending absolutely the wrong message. The reason for that is that all of the usual protections under the Fair Work Act apply—protections from unfair dismissal. They're very, very important protections. Any kind of breach of those carries significant civil penalties of up to $13,320 for an individual and $66,000 for a body corporate. It is absolutely unlawful to dismiss someone without a valid reason for dismissal. What was described by the Leader of the Opposition would never be a valid reason.

What he's doing, precisely, is sending the absolute wrong message about what is lawful and what is not lawful. It would be absolutely unlawful, and every employer who is listening would get the wrong message from the Leader of the Opposition. The correct message from this government, as well as all of the protections that the Treasurer has described, is that this has the general protections in the Fair Work Act, and it would be absolutely unlawful under the Fair Work Act for anything like what the Leader of the Opposition has described to occur. He should never suggest otherwise.