Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to make a contribution to the debate on the Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020. This bill allows the Treasurer to make rules to facilitate the JobMaker hiring credit scheme that was announced in the October budget. The JobMaker scheme will be targeted at workers aged 35 years and under who have received JobSeeker, youth allowance or a similar payment in the past three months. This bill lacks important details and protections for workers, would give enormous power to the minister, would lock in insecure and low-paid jobs for young people and would allow big business to use public money to bolster their profits under the guise of a wage subsidy.

In its submission to the inquiry on the bill, the Council on the Ageing, COTA, said that it is deeply disappointed that older workers are not included in the scheme or supported through a similar program targeted at employment for older Australians. As COTA explains, although older workers haven't experienced as large a spike in unemployment as younger workers, there has been a major increase in unemployment amongst older people.

History tells us that once an older worker becomes unemployed they find it much more difficult to re-enter employment than younger people and are at greater risk of becoming long-term unemployed. We see the problem in a growing trend of older workers becoming a bigger cohort of the long-term unemployed. Past recessions have led to a warning for older workers. Two years after the 1991 recession, the share of long-term unemployed for 55- to 64-year-olds peaked at 56 per cent, compared to 33 per cent for 25- to 34-year-olds. After the 1990s recessions, many older people, in fact, never worked again.

One of our chief concerns with this bill is that it doesn't provide a single detail about the scheme, nor does it detail the eligibility criteria, and my colleagues have pointed out the large flaws in this scheme. Instead, this bill delegates the power to the minister to establish an unlimited number of publicly funded wage subsidy schemes until 6 October 2022. There are significant risks involved in leaving these details out of primary legislation. A point that the Greens have raised many times is this growing trend to leave important details out of the primary legislation. This bill is taking it to another level. The Greens share COTA's concerns that proper safeguards need to be built into the program to ensure that older workers and their jobs are protected. The government must demonstrate how the JobMaker scheme will not result in employed older workers being displaced by subsidised younger workers. It would be irresponsible for the government to oversee a scheme that pits younger workers against older workers.

There is a strong case for supporting older workers through this crisis as well as younger workers. We only need to take one look at the JobSeeker demographics to understand this. In September, the Parliamentary Budget Office reported that there had been an increase in people, especially women, who had been on the JobSeeker payment for more than one year. The increase in long-term and older JobSeeker recipients is likely to continue, irrespective of short-term fluctuations in unemployment. What's worse is that the JobSeeker payment is now acting as a pre-age pension payment for some unemployed older Australians, and they then retire in poverty. Without tailored programs and interventions, older unemployed workers will continue to be left behind by this government. The growing proportion of older workers in the trend of the long-term unemployed is, unfortunately, a strong warning of where we may end up after this pandemic and after this recession. This bill provides us with the opportunity to discuss an issue that too often flies under the radar and is ignored, and that is the very real issue of age discrimination.

The Australian Human Rights Commission found, in 2018, that 65 per cent of human resource professionals consider candidates aged over 50 as too old. Imagine being told that you are too old at 50 years old, and then you face the prospect of not working again even though you may live for decades longer. Or you may, in fact, end up in a series of casual jobs that guarantee no security. A survey conducted by LinkedIn, earlier this year, found that 25 per cent of surveyed Australians reported age as one of the top barriers to securing work. Age discrimination undermines an older person's right to work, their right to economic security and their ability to enjoy the benefits of paid employment, including those things that the government talks about all the time: dignity, independence, social inclusion and a sense of purpose. These are all things that the government constantly tells us are important, but apparently they are not important for older workers.

Working later in life, past retirement age, is a choice that many people do make. But age discrimination takes away that choice. Under its current composition, it's possible that the JobMaker scheme could also take away this choice for older workers, essentially meaning the laws of this place and its failure to address unemployment in older workers will mean that older workers will retire in poverty.

At Senate estimates, I noticed the government ministers were keen to spruik the benefits of other wage subsidy programs that exist for other cohorts of workers. This includes the restart wage subsidy program, which is designed to support older workers. However, the restart wage subsidy isn't a suitable alternative to JobMaker. As COTA pointed out in its submission:

The program is not a COVID-19 measure.

…   …   …

For now, there is an urgent need for a COVID-19 specific measure. Restart Wage Subsidy is not fit-for-purpose in the current economic environment.

I agree with COTA; it isn't.

Per Capita also recommend in their submission that:

… the Government urgently revisit the design and implementation of the Restart Wage …

According to Per Capita, the program has outlaid less than half of its expenditure and created just a quarter of the anticipated jobs since it was announced in 2014. I would not say that is a successful scheme. Certainly, in talking to older workers, people have commented to me many times that the program doesn't fit the bill. So the government can't fall back on that and say, 'It's okay; we've got the restart scheme.' It's clear to me that the restart program is not a suitable substitute for looking after older workers and ensuring that they can find work and supporting them to find work.

We need more action to make sure that older workers who are unemployed as a result of this recession get the support they need. We need to make sure that older workers are not being left behind by this program. Older workers have much experience and wisdom to offer in our workplaces and they will play a critical role in rebuilding our economy. They must be given the opportunity to play that role. Many older Australians experienced age discrimination before the coronavirus hit. As I articulated, they are a growing cohort of the long-term unemployed—and, believe me, it's not through not wanting to work. Older workers want work. They can't find work. I've had older workers talk to me about being knocked back for jobs such as filling shelves in a supermarket that they saw re-advertised. They applied and then saw them re-advertised. That's age discrimination.

As I said, many older workers experienced age discrimination before this pandemic hit. This pandemic is amplifying that. We are now faced with choices about how we are going to rebuild and get through this crisis. If the government are genuine in leaving no-one behind, they will make sure they look after older workers. We must ensure that the choices that we make leave no-one behind and that we ensure that we are supporting older workers. I strongly support the need to support younger workers, but, as I said earlier, we can't play one off against the other. We need to make sure that older workers are not discriminated against yet again.

This bill needs fixing. The Greens have many amendments, and I know others do too. This bill needs to be amended to ensure that the key elements of the scheme are not left to delegated legislation and are articulated in the primary legislation. I commend the amendments that Senator Faruqi will move on behalf of the Greens in the chamber and look forward to the debate on those amendments.