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

by leave—I move Greens requests for amendments (1) and (5) on sheet 1009 together:

That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:

(1) Clause 2 , page 2 (at the end of the table), add:

(5) Page 33 (after line 21) , at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 5 — Extension of jobkeeper scheme to casual employees

Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020

1 At the end of section 7

Add:

Requirements relating to casual employees

(8) In determining the entitlement of an entity to a payment for an employee of the entity, the rules must provide that the types of employee that an entity is entitled to receive a payment in respect of include an employee of the entity who satisfies the requirements in subsection (9), regardless of the period of time that the individual has been employed by the entity.

(9) The requirements are that:

(a) the individual was a casual employee of the entity on 1 July 2020; and

(b) it is reasonable to assume that the individual would have continued to be an employee of the entity if the entity had not been directly or indirectly affected by the Coronavirus known as COVID-19.

Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendments (5), (6), (7) and (8)

Amendments (5), (6), (7) and (8) are framed as requests because they amend the bill in a way that is intended to direct funding under the jobkeeper scheme to additional persons.

Amendments (5), (6) and (8) would require the Treasurer to make rules which include additional classes of employees when assessing an entity's entitlement to receive a payment under the scheme amended by the bill. Specifically, the effect of these amendments would be to include certain casual employees and temporary visa holders as eligible employees when assessing an entity's eligibility for payments from the Commonwealth under the rules. Eligibility would also be extended to approved providers of approved child care services.

Amendment (7) would require the Treasurer to make rules which do not apply differently to, or disproportionally affect the eligibility of, higher education providers to receive a payment under the jobkeeper scheme amended by the bill. Specifically, the effect of the amendment would be to ensure higher education providers are eligible entities for payments from the Commonwealth under the rules.

As the amendments would increase the number of employees for whom employers would be eligible to receive payments, the amendments will increase the amount of expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 16 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 .

Amendments (1), (2), (3), and (4)

Amendments (1), (2), (3) and (4) are consequential to amendments (5), (6), (7) and (8).

Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000

Amendments (5), (6), (7) and (8)

If the effect of the amendments is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 16 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendments be moved as requests.

Amendments (1), (2), (3) and (4)

These amendments are consequential on the requests. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request.

If the government were serious about keeping jobs they would have listened to workers, they would have listened to unions, they would have listened to academics, they would have listened to the Greens and they would have listened to the countless organisations that have been calling for the expansion of JobKeeper to all casual workers, temporary visa holders, university workers and childcare workers. Instead, the government are overseeing a wage subsidy called JobKeeper that has allowed millions of workers to lose their jobs and be forced into unemployment. It is a job keeper in name only, I have to say. The scheme is leaving millions of workers behind and the scheme is still $44 billion under budget even with a six-month extension. There is absolutely no excuse for leaving these workers behind. We should be expanding the payment to all workers who need it, not cutting it.

I'm moving a series of amendments about this. The first ones are (1) and (5). These amendments will expand eligibility for JobKeeper payments to casual workers who have been employed for less than 12 months. The government continues to deny over one million casual workers access to JobKeeper. The majority of these workers are under 24 years old and work in the industries which have been hardest hit in this pandemic, such as retail, hospitality, arts, tourism, accommodation and education. So, by ignoring the calls from workers, unions, the Greens and businesses to expand JobKeeper, the government is forcing workers into unemployment and really forcing struggling businesses to the brink. I commend the amendments to the Senate.