Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise on behalf of the Greens to speak to the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Jobkeeper Payments) Amendment Bill 2020. The bill extends the prescribed period of operations for the coronavirus payment framework, which allows JobKeeper to be extended until March of next year. It also enables the ATO to share some JobKeeper payment information with the Commonwealth, state and territory government agencies. The bill extends the temporary JobKeeper fair work provisions in part 6-4C of the Fair Work Act, except for those relating to annual leave, until next March.

Much of the detail will be left up to delegated legislation. The Greens have been supportive of the JobKeeper wage subsidy and are on record as having pushed for a way to guarantee wages from very early on in the COVID-19 crisis. My Greens colleague in the other place, the member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, said, in speaking to this bill last week:

When the crisis started to hit, the Greens were the first party in parliament to call for some form of wage and job guarantee. We made it very clear that the government's initial response—shovelling billions out of the door to help business—was only part of the response.

Has JobKeeper been a success? Well, it has been a mixed bag.

There's no doubt that millions of people who would otherwise be out of work have benefited from the scheme. Plenty of businesses have accessed it and it has allowed them to stay afloat and keep their staff on board. This is, of course, a good thing. However, there are many cracks in the system and things haven't been smooth sailing. Unconscionably, temporary visa holders were locked out of the scheme. This set Australia apart from other countries in how we have taken care of members of the community who don't happen to be citizens or permanent residents. It has created a tiered system of residents in this country and, frankly, we should be ashamed. Businesses with reliable hardworking, highly skilled employees have been unable to receive JobKeeper payments for their staff. It's nonsensical, it's spiteful and it's just plain wrong.

Also infamously locked out have been casuals employed for less than 12 months, arts and creative industry workers, and our public university staff. Shamefully, early learning and care workers were the first to be kicked off the JobKeeper payment last month. It was reported last week that Crown Resorts has received at least $111 million in JobKeeper payments, but our public universities have not received a single cent. This chamber very narrowly voted down my disallowance motion which would have scrapped the rules that exclude some of the universities from accessing JobKeeper payments. But the government dug its heels in, and university job losses continue to mount in the thousands upon thousands. I have to say that it has been incredibly devastating for our universities who are already grappling with the loss of international students that will cause financial pain not only this year but over the next few years and possibly much of this decade. On top of that, we have the government choosing this moment to introduce a bill that will cut university funding even more. You really can't make this stuff up.

Let me be clear: the Greens support the extension of JobKeeper. There is no other option than to continue to provide a wage subsidy. JobKeeper has provided much-needed support to many thousands of people, but there were real problems and gaps in the original package, and there are big flaws in this bill as well. We have serious concerns with this bill and the related proposals. As, I understand, the Labor Party and others on the crossbench will, I also will move amendments in the Senate to make this bill more equitable for people. I will identify some of these issues that I've highlighted at this point and I will have more to say about the legislation at the committee stage.

This bill creates what is effectively a new category of employee. This is someone who is employed by a business that was eligible for JobKeeper payments and could access the emergency industrial relations powers that give businesses the power to reduce their hours, but now the business turnover has improved somewhat and they are no longer eligible for wage subsidy. In this scenario, the government won't provide JobKeeper for the business, but it will continue to allow them to follow the emergency powers and reduce their employees' hours. As my colleague Adam Bandt put it in the other place:

… there will be a category of businesses that, on the one hand, the government thinks are doing so well that they don't need to give JobKeeper to their employees but, on the other hand, are apparently doing so badly that they can cut their employees' pay.

This is perverse, and it's a cynical outcome. We will be looking at amendments to change this at the committee stage. The bill would force workers to foot the bill for businesses' recovery by letting legacy employers cut workers' hours by up to 40 per cent. For shift workers, it would mean the loss of even more than 40 per cent of their income if they lose hours that are subject to penalty rate loading. For a government to do this in the midst of a recession is nothing short of cruel.

Another objectionable part of the new JobKeeper proposal, I would point out, is its creation of a two-tiered system of payment, where people employed for less than 20 hours a week will receive a much lower payment than those employed with more hours. Those who are far more likely to be in insecure or part-time work are far more likely to be women, and they will see their payments cut. Women are already bearing the brunt of the economic impacts of the pandemic—so much so that economists have said we are in a pink-collar recession and so much so that women have lost their jobs twice as fast as men when the economy was shut down. Women are overrepresented as casual workers and in industries most affected by shutdowns like retail and hospitality. Women are underrepresented in the few industries—