Tony Sheldon (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Isn't this just an economically-illogical, cruel, inconsistent and bloody-minded approach to dealing with the question that we raised in question time regarding dnata. Let's just cast our minds back to the great double cross by this government. Senator Rennick quite rightly raised the need for us all to work together. We have done, and we will continue to do so, but working together is also about making constructive, sensible and logical criticism about steps that the government makes and policies that do not make economic sense and that are inconsistent.

What's clear in this particular double cross is that there was a clear understanding, when this proposal regarding JobKeeper was put forward, about the number of people that would be included in JobKeeper, but it has now fallen one million short. There was an understanding between the government and the Australian public as to who was going to be covered. JobKeeper is going to many millions of workers, but we're one million short. There was a capacity, there was an ability and there was an undertaking with regard to these workers being properly covered. I don't call these people 'rats and mice'. I don't think Senator Rennick was talking about the individuals, but he's talking about the cases and examples that we're bringing up.

This case is not a rats-and-mice case; it's 5½ thousand Australian families right across this country. It's 1,061 in New South Wales, to be specific—mums and dads raising their families—who have been left out because the government decided to change its policy and double-cross those workers. It's 1,124 families in Victoria, to be specific—mums and dads raising their kids—wondering what's going to happen tomorrow. They've been double-crossed. It's 1,120 in Queensland, double-crossed. It's 196 in South Australia, also double-crossed. In the Northern Territory it's eight and in the ACT it's 18. They've all been double-crossed by this government, which said one thing and did another. It has short-changed a million people in this country, who are not getting support. There was a deal done and there was an understanding about what this would do to the Australian public. This was not only about giving safety back to the Australian community and supporting them to connect to businesses; it was about stimulating the economy. If you don't believe me, there are two examples. The very well respected Ms Auld, from JP Morgan, and former OECD director Ms Wood believe that higher levels of public spending will be needed to fire up the recovery. Ms Wood says 'we know things like cash payments have been helpful through the crisis in getting people out and spending'. We have to make sure that we're spending the amount of money that you said—we all agreed; the community agreed—is part of a compact that you've now doublecrossed by leaving a million people short in this country and 5,500 dnata workers.

Let's talk about these people and the rats-and-mice issues that we're raising. Donna Pearce is married and has two children aged 21 and 17. She lives in Romsey, in the Macedon Ranges in Victoria, and has worked at what is now dnata's Melbourne Airport site since the 2000 Olympics in Sydney. Let me put this in context. Dnata is a company that purchased Qantas Catering, an Australian catering company, and another Australian company, to make its catering business. These are Australian taxpayers. Not one cent in subsidies goes to dnata. And nor should one cent in subsidies be going to any company—including Qantas, I might add, who have been using their subsidies for people's annual leave entitlements and even sick leave. This is what Ms Pearce had to say—and it is more important than what Senator Rennick, Minister Cormann or I have to say: 'I don't understand what the government's problem is when they don't have an explanation for why they are excluding them. Do they expect the Dubai government to fork out for Australian workers who work in Australia and pay taxes to the Australian government?' Donna and her husband have a mortgage— (Time expired)

Question agreed to.