Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Jobkeeper Payments) Amendment Bill 2020. The Labor Party is supporting this bill, but that's not to say we think that the bill is perfect—it isn't. We have some serious concerns about parts of the legislation, concerns my colleague and very good friend Tony Burke, the shadow minister for industrial relations, outlined in some detail in his speech in the other place.

Let's start at the beginning. It was the Labor Party and the unions that first called on the government to implement a wage subsidy, an idea the government ridiculed until they saw the Centrelink queues, the tragic face of their original and wrong decision to simply consign workers onto welfare. Eventually they saw what everyone else, including business and employer groups, saw: the need for a wage subsidy. So they came up with JobKeeper. It was somewhat flawed and involved the biggest costing bungle in budget history, but was still a much needed lifeline to businesses and millions of people employed by them in this country. They said it would end in September. That was pretty optimistic, as it turns out. Again, Labor, with unions and employer groups, had to tell them that it needed to be extended. Everyone could see that there would be no miraculous snapback, as Prime Minister Morrison so famously boasted. But, again, they said no, and, again, thankfully, they overcame their natural stubbornness and changed their mind.

We are supporting the legislation because we support the extension of JobKeeper. As the shadow Treasurer has often said, the JobKeeper wage subsidy is a very good idea being badly implemented. Too many Australians are left out and left behind—some accidently but, regrettably, many quite deliberately. From day one, we've said that the scheme should be better targeted so that the people who really need it can get it, but we don't waste taxpayers' money. We were very concerned about the government's plan to rip this support out from the economy for all workers and industries at the end of September. It made no sense at all. So we welcome the extension of JobKeeper for a further six months.

However, as I said earlier, despite completely supporting the extension of JobKeeper, Labor has some serious concerns about the bill. That's because the government has seen fit to introduce some extreme elements into the bill. I'm referring to the extension of the emergency industrial relations powers to businesses who no longer qualify for government JobKeeper support. As expected, the bill contains provisions that extend the timing of the JobKeeper enabling stand down direction that are currently set to be repealed on 28 September. These provisions were included in the original JobKeeper legislation, and back in April we were told they were critical to ensuring that the JobKeeper payments could be operationalised and that these powers could only be used for that purpose. Now, in this bill, the government wants us to agree to those same emergency powers being extended to employers who had previously qualified for JobKeeper but were now no longer eligible—the so-called legacy employers. By the very definition, legacy employers are those the government considers to have recovered sufficiently to no longer need government support. And, although they are sufficiently recovered to no longer need government support, they can use the fact that they may still have a 10 per cent decline to cut the hours of their workers by as much as 40 per cent.

The government has not made the case as to why these extraordinary emergency industrial relations powers are necessary at this time. That is why Labor will be moving to ensure that only businesses still eligible for JobKeeper can access these extreme powers. The government claims these powers are modified and have safeguards. One of these supposed safeguards is that the employer cannot reduce a worker's hours by more than 40 per cent. But this so-called safeguard will result in many low-paid workers, including in the retail industry, experiencing a very substantial pay cut.

A 40 per cent reduction in hours for workers on the minimum wage would mean that they would lose $300 a week from their normal wage of currently $750 per week under the JobKeeper rate. There are many workers who are paid just above the minimum wage. In fact, anyone earning less than $32 per hour who has their hours cut by 40 per cent will be worse off than they have been under JobKeeper mark 1. How is this fair? This creates a situation where a worker, at a time when the businesses they work for are doing better, will have their pay cut. The attempt to extend emergency industrial powers to employers who don’t receive JobKeeper is of extreme concern to the Labor Party.

Back in April, when we were passing the original JobKeeper legislation, we were told these flexibilities were critical to operationalise the JobKeeper payments. We were told that these provisions could only be used by JobKeeper eligible businesses. Now we are told it's essential that it be extended to businesses no longer eligible for JobKeeper. We can see what's next: the government testing their future plans for industrial relations. There will be a trial for how their flexibility dream might look and work. The next thing is that the government will move for them to be made a permanent feature of this legislation. The government will claim that it's all in the name of saving jobs, when in fact it is an attack on decent secure jobs of ordinary Australians.

That's why Labor will move its amendments, firstly, to remove the extension of JobKeeper flexibilities to the employers that the government themselves have determined no longer need assistance and for which the government has made no case. Secondly, should that not be agreed to, we will move an amendment that ensures that no employee who has had their hours cut will drop below the JobKeeper rate. We sincerely hope senators support this amendment to protect some of our lowest-paid workers from bearing the cost of a business recovery when the government has wiped its hands of those people.

Australians have worked together to combat the virus but more work must be done by the Morrison government to ensure that our hardest hit Australians are not left out and left behind in this recovery.

Mehreen Faruqi (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to 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—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Faruqi. You will be in continuation.