Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill, and I seek leave to move all these amendments together.

Leave granted.

I thank the Senate, and I move government amendments (1) to (6) on sheet SW102:

(1) Schedule 2, item 10, page 9 (line 6), omit paragraph (a) of the definition of eligible financial service provider in section 789GC.

(2) Schedule 2, item 10, page 9 (line 7), omit ", BAS agent or tax (financial) adviser", substitute "or BAS agent".

(3) Schedule 2, item 12, page 9 (after line 17), after the definition of quarter in section 789GC, insert:

registered tax agent or BAS agent has the same meaning as in the Tax Agent Services Act 2009.

(4) Schedule 2, item 12, page 9 (lines 18 and 19), omit the definition of registered company auditor in section 789GC.

(5) Schedule 2, item 12, page 9 (lines 20 and 21), omit the definition of registered tax agent, BAS agent or tax (financial) adviser in section 789GC.

(6) Schedule 2, item 13, page 11 (lines 1 and 2), omit "states that, in the opinion of the eligible financial service provider,", substitute "confirms that".

These amendments are minor and technical in nature. They are the result of continued consultation with stakeholders who have indicated to the government that a specific wording used in the bill as it stands, combined with the very technical nature of tax and accounting services, could combine to cause practical issues. As such, for the avoidance of that, these amendments will alter the definition of 'financial service provider' in the bill to remove 'registered company auditor' and 'tax (financial) adviser' from the definition of 'eligible financial service provider', leaving qualified accountants, registered tax agents and BAS agents. And, to ensure that the policy intention of the provision is given effect, it will make clear that the issuing of the 10 per cent decline in turnover certificate involves a declaration from an eligible financial service provider that relates to a specific employer and confirms that, based on the information provided, the employer satisfied the 10 per cent decline in turnover test for the designated quarter applicable to a specified time. This replaces the existing requirement that the provider express an opinion.

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

Labor will not oppose this amendment, but this is very embarrassing for the government and, particularly, for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. Yet again it appears that the government has made an announcement, then discovered they'd forgotten to do some pretty important consultation with professionals responsible for an important accountability message. I can see you're agreeing with me, Leader. It seems they forgot to tell the accounting profession that they would be responsible for ensuring the emergency IR powers were legitimately used and that they would provide a certificate to testify that the employer was suffering a 10 per cent turnover decline.

The legislation, as it stands, states that a business which employs more than 15 people would have to obtain a certificate from an eligible financial service provider, which means either a registered company auditor or a registered tax agent, a BAS agent, a tax financial adviser or a qualified accountant. The government has just found out that this doesn't sit well with the accounting profession. How does someone who is not a registered tax agent or a BAS agent calculate turnover if they are not qualified or even, possibly, legally able to do so? These amendments show that they won't. Second, the reference in the bill to an eligible financial service provider stating their opinion that the employer has satisfied a 10 per cent decline in turnover test for the designated quarter applicable to the specified time is also highly problematic. The phrase 'in the opinion' has particular meaning and it is suggested that this would entail the conduct of an audit. This, of course, would add substantial cost and time, but to do otherwise would increase their risk exposure. Again, we have an amendment dealing with that concern.

It's better late than never, but what is actually quite unbelievable is that, while the government has listened and responded to the concerns of the accountancy profession—whom they forgot to consult with prior to introducing this bill and who are concerned that they may be legally impacted—the government has deliberately chosen to reject Labor's amendments which would ensure low-paid workers in this country aren't forced to have their take-home pay cut at the same time as their employer's business is recovering. This says everything about the government—absolutely everything.

Question agreed to.

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

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting these amendments. I might just talk to all amendments on sheet 1009 together. In relation to casuals, temporary visa holders, childcare workers and university workers, casual employees who have been employed for under 12 months as at 1 July 2020 are not eligible for the JobKeeper payment. The JobKeeper payment is a significant program of support for businesses and employees. The program is targeted at employers and employees with an ongoing relationship. Casual employees who have been employed for more than 12 months on a regular and systematic basis are eligible for the JobKeeper payment as they are expected to have a strong connection with their employer.

From 3 August 2020, the relevant date of employment moved from 1 March 2020 to 1 July 2020, which will allow casual employees who have been employed on a regular and systematic basis on or before 1 July 2019 to be able to meet this eligibility requirement. This has meant that the JobKeeper payment is available to more casual employees. The proposed amendment to change the rules by instead requiring for it to be reasonable to assume that the employee would have continued to be an employee of the entity if the entity had not been directly or indirectly affected by the coronavirus would be very difficult for employers to apply and for the Australian Taxation Office to administer, as it is a highly subjective test. An employer may say that it is not reasonable to expect the employee to remain in that employment, thereby potentially disentitling employees who are currently eligible. So it also has counterproductive consequences, even from the perspective of the mover of these amendments.

In relation to temporary visa holders, employees on temporary visas, with the exception of New Zealand citizens under special category subclass 444 visas, are not eligible for the JobKeeper payment. The eligibility for the JobKeeper payment is broadly aligned with eligibility through the income support system for JobSeeker. Australia has historical and special reciprocal arrangements with New Zealand to allow citizens to live and work in each country. For this reason they are the only temporary visa category to receive access to the scheme.

The government has announced the following measures to support temporary visa holders. Many are eligible for the early release of their superannuation if they meet other eligibility criteria for either 2019-20 or both 2019-20 and 2020-21. Bridging visa holders may be able to access the status resolution support services program, which provides short-term, tailored support to individuals. During the COVID-19 period applications for support under the SRSS will be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and several state governments and tertiary institutions have also announced support packages for international students.

In relation to child care, from 13 July 2020 the childcare subsidy and additional childcare subsidy recommended, along with a range of new measures to support the sector and its families through the transition, including an activity test for families and a new transition payment for providers, have been put in place. Nearly one-third of the early childhood workforce was ineligible for the JobKeeper payment. The government is providing a $708 million transition payment, which will support services more broadly and equitably than the JobKeeper payment, which was designed to provide support quickly across the whole economy. As a condition of receiving the transition payment, providers must offer an employment guarantee by continuing to employ those employees over the transition period who were working or being paid JobKeeper at the end of the ECEC Relief Package. The Minister for Education undertook broad consultation with the childcare sector during the development of the transition package. Therefore, to ensure government support is appropriately targeted, JobKeeper ceased on 20 July 2020 for employees of childcare-subsidy-approved providers operating a childcare service.

In relation to higher education, in response to the COVID pandemic, the government introduced an $18 billion funding guarantee for universities in 2020. It guarantees more than $7 billion in 2020 Commonwealth grant scheme payments as well as around another $7 billion in Higher Education Loan Program advanced payments to providers. The government's funding guarantee is designed to complement the JobKeeper payment. Universities and non-government schools which are also registered charities are unable to access the 15 per cent decline in turnover test and must use the 30 or 50 per cent turnover test, as applicable, to be eligible. Universities and non-government schools already received significant Commonwealth funding that will support them with maintaining services and employees. Most universities will need to meet the turnover decline test by comparing their turnover for the six-month period of January to June 2020 with turnover for January to June 2019. This clarification addresses the timing of income for universities, which is focused around the start of academic terms.

Changes to the JobKeeper rules to exempt table B universities from the six-month turnover decline test were implemented on 22 May 2020 through the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Amendment Rules (No. 3) 2020. The change took effect from 30 March 2020. Table B universities will need to meet a monthly or quarterly decline in turnover test in line with the test for other entities. Table B universities are the University of Divinity, Torrens University, Bond University and the University of Notre Dame Australia. These universities have fewer Commonwealth supported students than table A universities and they also operate under a different structure, with trimesters or more students enrolled over the summer break, meaning the six-month test applying to table A universities wasn't appropriately targeted to these universities.

The core Commonwealth government financial assistance provided to universities is included when they determine their decline in turnover. This will ensure that the bulk of revenue received by universities is taken into account in assessing eligibility for the JobKeeper payment. This change addresses an anomaly that many universities would not have had to count the bulk of their revenue provided by the Australian government for the turnover decline test.

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

I rise to speak on this amendment. My comments about this amendment will also apply to all of the remaining amendments by the Greens party. Labor has called for the government to expand support for those workers who need it and to ensure that economic support is tailored to the conditions in the economy, including rising unemployment. However, we will not be supporting this amendment, which would not be supported by the other House, as it would increase the appropriation. The government should not have excluded millions of workers from JobKeeper while overpaying some workers. Yet the government has the extraordinary power to set the rates and include those workers they have deliberately excluded from the JobKeeper payment.

The important test of the Morrison government's management of this recession and its aftermath is what happens to jobs and the businesses which create them. Workers, businesses and communities need and deserve a plan from the Morrison government to promote growth, protect and create jobs, support business and set Australia up for the recovery. We can't afford to see more Australians left out and left behind because the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are not prepared to respond to developments in the labour market or to come up with a proper plan for jobs.

The CHAIR: Senator Faruqi, I am wondering if you are interested in moving the rest of those amendments on sheet 1009?

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

I am moving them separately. I haven't spoken to them yet.

The CHAIR: The question is that the requests (1) and (5) on sheet 1009, as moved by Senator Faruqi, be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move Greens amendments (2) and (6) on sheet 1009 together:

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

(6) Page 33, at the end of the Bill, after proposed Schedule 5, add:

Schedule 6 — Extension of jobkeeper scheme to temporary visa holders

Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020

1 At the end of section 7

Add:

Requirements relating to temporary visa holders

(10) 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 individual that on 1 July 2020 was an employee of the entity and was the holder of a temporary visa within the meaning of the Migration Act 1958 .

These amendments will expand eligibility for JobKeeper payments to workers on temporary visas. It is a real shame that this government has created this arbitrary division between temporary visa holders and permanent citizens, as if the virus discriminates based on visas. People are in the same terrible situation in the pandemic and they need all the support that this government can provide them. It is our job to support people who are in Australia. There is report after report of international students who are basically being left destitute. The minister did say that the states were providing some support packages for them, and good on them! But they not nearly enough. International students and higher education are the responsibility of the federal government, and they are abrogating their responsibility by not providing support to students who are finding it hard to put food on the table and have roofs over their heads at the time when they need it most. The government has watched as thousands of temporary visa holders have lost their jobs and stood by as hundreds have resorted to lining up at food banks because they have denied them access to the financial support that they deserve and need.

They are not even being transparent in actually telling us if they ever considered such support. The door was shut on my OPD to actually get some documents, which we know that the government has. There was a big debate happening on government transparency and accountability yesterday, and many senators on this side of the chamber spoke very eloquently about the government hiding everything in the dark. At a time when we need to be more transparent, you won't even tell us if you ever considered supporting international students, let alone providing them with any support. Migrant communities, unions and support organisations have been raising concerns since the beginning of this pandemic, but the government yet again has ignored their calls.

This humanitarian crisis is unfolding here in our own country, which is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. Surely the government can find it in their hearts, in their budgets, in their coffers to provide enough support to international students for them to live above the poverty line during this pandemic. I commend the amendments to the Senate.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Australian Greens amendments (2) and (6) on sheet 1009 be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move Greens amendments (3) and (7) on sheet 1009 together:

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

(7) Page 33, at the end of the Bill, after proposed Schedule 6, add:

Schedule 8 — Extension of jobkeeper scheme to higher education providers

Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020

1 In the appropriate position

Insert:

7B Requirements for rules that provide for jobkeeper payments scheme—payments to higher education providers

(1) If the rules provide for a kind of payment that is intended to assist businesses affected by the Coronavirus to cover the cost of wages of their employees (whether known as a jobkeeper payment or otherwise), the rules relating to that kind of payment (the jobkeeper scheme rules) must comply with the requirements in subsection (2).

(2) The jobkeeper scheme rules, in providing for the classes of entities to which payments in respect of employees are to be made, must comply with the following requirements in respect of entities that are higher education providers:

(a) the rules must not have eligibility requirements:

(i) that apply only to higher education providers; or

(ii) that apply thresholds to higher education providers that are different from the thresholds applied to other similar entities; or

(iii) that are substantially different in their application to higher education providers compared with other entities;

with the effect of making it impractical or unlikely that higher education providers will be able to satisfy the eligibility requirements;

(b) the eligibility requirements must not have the effect, whether directly or indirectly, of excluding all or substantially all higher education providers from the jobkeeper scheme.

I did expect the government to have no sympathy for casual workers and those on temporary visas, but it is pretty sad to see the Labor Party sitting again and again with the Liberals, working with them against the interests of workers. That is a very sad situation and a very sad scene to see.

These amendments are about reinstating JobKeeper for early education workers. It's quite inexplicable, and it really boggles my mind, that child care became the first and only sector to be kicked off JobKeeper. There's been report after report, day after day, telling us of the importance of that sector for children, for parents, for families, for women in particular—and for our society and economy—yet JobKeeper was taken away from them in July and the government keeps saying it will not be reinstated.

Everyone in the community knows that childcare support is a vital part of our response to the pandemic. Childcare workers have been on the front line providing essential support while also being on the front line for these horrible cuts. We know that axing JobKeeper for childcare workers will predominantly impact women. There's discussion after discussion about the pink recession that we are having—how women already make up the vast majority of the low-paid workforce; the gender pay gap that persists year in, year out; and how women have been left to pick up the bulk of childcare responsibilities at home, while juggling work, while this pandemic is happening.

We are in this for a while. The government keeps saying we're in this together, but obviously we're not in this together, because there are so many people who are being left behind and left out of support. The government should immediately reinstate JobKeeper for early education workers. I commend the amendments to the Senate.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Australian Greens amendments (3) and (7) on sheet 1009 be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move Greens amendments (4) and (8) on sheet 1009 together:

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

14. Schedule 9

The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent.

(8) Page 33, at the end of the Bill, after proposed Schedule 8, add:

Schedule 9 — Extension of jobkeeper scheme to child care providers

Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020

1 In the appropriate position

  Insert:

7C Requirements for rules that provide for jobkeeper payments scheme—payments to child care providers

  (1) If the rules provide for a kind of payment that is intended to assist businesses affected by the Coronavirus to cover the cost of wages of their employees (whether known as a jobkeeper payment or otherwise), the rules relating to that kind of payment (the jobkeeper scheme rules) must comply with the requirements in subsection (2).

  (2) The jobkeeper scheme rules must ensure that payments are able to be made to entities that are approved providers (within the meaning of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999) of one or more approved child care services (within the meaning of that Act), including in respect of:

(a) employees whose ordinary duties relate principally to the operation of one or more of those services; and

(b) individuals who are not employees but who are actively engaged in the business carried on by the approved provider.

These amendments are about expanding eligibility for JobKeeper to the workers who have been left behind by the government in this pandemic, and I want to talk about universities now.

Tens of thousands of workers in the universities have already lost their jobs and there are tens of thousands who are going to lose their jobs even before the end of the year—all during this pandemic. The government changed the JobKeeper rules three times to make sure that no public university was left eligible for JobKeeper. The government were warned that this was going to happen and that they could actually stop this from happening, but they didn't. Even worse than that, today, in the other place, the government brought forward a bill that will further cut funding from universities, hike fees for students and decimate our higher education sector. There is no shame at all in this government. They don't hide their hatred for universities at all; they have just accelerated their attacks on universities during the pandemic. Following years of funding cuts which we have seen in the sector under various governments of both colours, now they have denied this vital wage subsidy and are further punishing universities.

This is the time to actually invest in education. This is the time to fully and publicly fund universities, so that staff and teachers can educate our young people—our students—to the highest of quality standards, while also having job security. This is the time to make higher education, universities and TAFE fee-free so students can train and retrain in what the future of our country and the world needs. But what this government is doing is leaving universities completely abandoned, completely high and dry, with thousands of jobs being lost and little funding for research. There is nothing in this package that is being debated in the other place today that improves the situation for any university, or for any student or any staff member. It's an attack on universities and it must be stopped. I commend the amendments to the Senate.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that Australian Greens amendments (4) and (8) on sheet 1009 be agreed to.

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

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1011 together:

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

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

Schedule 7—Preventing tiered jobkeeper payments

Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020

1 After section 7

  Insert:

7A Requirement for rules that provide for jobkeeper payments scheme—no tiered jobkeeper payments

  (1) If the rules provide for a kind of payment that is intended to assist businesses affected by the Coronavirus to cover the cost of wages of their employees (whether known as a jobkeeper payment or otherwise), the rules relating to that kind of payment (the jobkeeper scheme rules) must comply with the requirement in subsection (2).

  (2) The jobkeeper scheme rules, in providing for the amount of the payment under the jobkeeper scheme, must not provide for there to be different amounts payable in relation to employees.

This amends the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020 to prevent the minister from establishing a tiered payment system. While the JobKeeper bill doesn't deal specifically with tiered payments, it does extend the rule-making power which allows the minister to establish tiers. The amendment will insert a new section that specifies that the minister must not create rules for different rates of pay for different employees.

On 21 July, the government foreshadowed a number of changes to the JobKeeper program, including the introduction of tiered payments from 28 September 2020. Under the changes announced by the government, the hours worked in the four weeks prior to 1 March 2020 or 1 July 2020 will determine what level of payment workers will receive—specifically, whether they worked more or fewer than 20 hours. This is despite the high unemployment rate during those times.

In March, the underemployment rate was eight per cent—10.6 per cent for women compared to 7.2 per cent for men. It was 19.1 per cent for young people aged between 15 and 24 years old. In July, the underemployment rate soared to 11.2 per cent. It was 12.2 per cent for women and 19.6 per cent for young people aged between 15 and 24 years old. This government intends to slash payments for underemployed low-income workers in insecure jobs, predominately impacting women and young people, and this sends one resounding message—that the government won't hesitate to kick workers when they're down and throw vulnerable workers off a financial cliff in the midst of a recession in the midst of a pandemic.

Also of concern is the impact that tiered payments will have on workers who work more than 20 hours across multiple jobs. Someone who works 38 hours a week across two jobs—that's 19 hours in each—will still see their JobKeeper payments slashed. The Greens, of course, support the extension of JobKeeper but not at the expense of low-paid workers in the midst of a recession. I commend the amendment to the Senate.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will be opposing these amendments. Two tiers of payment under JobKeeper enable employers to more closely align the JobKeeper payment made to eligible employees with the payment they received prior to the public health restrictions being imposed to address coronavirus. This is one of the outcomes and recommendations out of the review conducted by Treasury after the initial three months of operation of the JobKeeper program, and that is the basis on which we oppose these amendments.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that Australian Greens amendments (1) and (2) on Sheet 1011 be agreed to.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move my amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 1028 together:

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

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

Schedule 3—Repaying jobkeeper payments

Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020

1 After section 7

Insert:

7A Requirements for rules that provide for jobkeeper payments scheme—conduct by entities that indicates jobkeeper financial support not necessary

(1) If the rules provide for a kind of payment that is intended to assist businesses affected by the Coronavirus to cover the cost of wages of their employees (whether known as a jobkeeper payment or otherwise), the rules relating to that kind of payment (the jobkeeper scheme rules) must comply with the requirements in subsections (2) and (3).

(2) The jobkeeper scheme rules must provide that an entity is taken not to be, or not to have been, entitled to a payment under the jobkeeper scheme rules if:

(a) during the prescribed period the entity:

  (i) pays dividends to shareholders of the entity; or

  (ii) pays a bonus to an executive or other officer of the entity; or

  (iii) makes other payments of a similar nature that relate to distributing profits of the entity; and

(b) the Commissioner is satisfied, having regard to:

  (i) the amount of the dividend, bonus or other similar payment and the extent to which it exceeds the amount of the last such payment made by the entity; or

  (ii) any other matters the Commissioner considers relevant;

that the entity's conduct in making those payments indicates that the entity was not affected directly or indirectly by the Coronavirus known as COVID-19 to the extent that the entity required financial support under this Act.

Note: Under section 9 of this Act, if an entity was not entitled to a payment, the entity is liable to repay the amount to the Commonwealth.

(3) To avoid doubt, rules made for the purposes of subsection (2) must be able to apply to an entity that has already received a payment before the commencement of this section.

We've got a situation where taxpayers' money which is designed to support businesses and is designed to support their workers and keep them connected is being funnelled into companies' investors' pockets by way of dividends and is also being funnelled into executives' salary packages by way of executive bonuses. In expressing my concern to the chamber, I'm actually going to read from the contribution of the Hon. Dr Leigh, the member for Fenner, yesterday in the other place. He said:

But a scheme designed to reduce inequality is being misused by a small number of firms, who are channelling it to executive bonuses. Accent Group received $13 million in JobKeeper and gave CEO Daniel Agostinelli a $1.2 million bonus. IDP Education received $4 million in JobKeeper and gave CEO Andrew Barkla a $600,000 bonus. Last year he was Australia's highest paid CEO, taking home $37 million. Star Casino received $64 million in JobKeeper and gave CEO Matt Bekier an equity bonus worth $800,000. SeaLink received $8 million in JobKeeper and gave CEO Clinton Feuerherdt a $500,000 bonus. Then there is 'dividend keeper', diverting money for workers into shareholder payouts. Furniture firm Nick Scali received $4 million from Australian and New Zealand taxpayers. Its increased dividend will deliver $2 million to the Scali family. 1300SMILES got $2 million in JobKeeper and paid out $3 million to shareholders. Managing director Daryl Holmes owns two-thirds of the company and so will get about $2 million, roughly what his company received in JobKeeper support. As Ownership Matters' Dean Paatsch puts it: 'I don't think it was ever the intention of the government to subsidise executive salaries'. If you're getting taxpayer subsidies, the CEO should not be getting a bonus.

My amendment requires the equivalent payment being paid for workers under JobKeeper to be returned by the company back to the taxpayer in circumstances where the commissioner is satisfied, having regard to the amount of the dividend bonus or other similar payments and the extent to which they exceed the amount of the last such payment by the entity, or any other matters that the commissioner considers relevant. There is a caveat in here that the entity's conduct in making those payments indicates that the entity was not affected directly or indirectly by coronavirus, known as COVID-19, to the extent that the entity required financial support under this act.

What this amendment seeks to do—just to be really clear—is stop money that is designed to support businesses, that is designed to support workers, getting taken from the taxpayer and funnelled into the pockets of investors or the pockets of chief executives and senior executives within the company. No-one would have anticipated that this sort of conduct would occur. It's unethical, and we should do something about it. I point out my amendment is retrospective, so we can go back and look at those companies that have reaped a taxpayer benefit whilst claiming JobKeeper. For that reason, I ask that the Senate supports this amendment.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The JobKeeper payment was designed to apply consistently across a range of business sizes, structures and industries, and to target support to the entities who have been significantly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. It was also designed to deliver support quickly and at scale, which is why it was important that the eligibility criteria were as straightforward as possible, drawing upon existing tax and revenue concepts and definitions. To support confidence and encourage businesses to get back up and running, the government decided that once a business had established its eligibility, assistance would be provided until the end of the first six-month phase of the program.

The review of the JobKeeper program recommended there should be a retest of eligibility for any extension to the program to ensure the payment is targeted to those businesses who are the most in need of ongoing support and, indeed, who are in need of continuing support. Modifying the eligibility criteria to include a measure of the profitability of a business or other criteria, such as a payment of dividends, would introduce significant complexity into the program. Such a test would be difficult to design and implement with integrity on the scale required, given the variety in business models and structures across industries and given the flexibility that businesses have in the management of their balance sheet. While there may be merit in considering such design elements if this was intended to be an ongoing program, it is less clear this would be feasible or desirable in the current context of a temporary transitional support program. Some countries have, under their wage subsidy schemes, placed limitations on the payment of dividends; however, there are many that have not, including the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Singapore. In other cases where limitations have been put in place, it is not clear how these are being appropriately enforced. The government will be opposing these amendments.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor will also be opposing this amendment. This amendment's only been circulated this morning and does propose some quite significant changes to the scheme, as it currently operates. Really, we haven't had the time to understand the impact of the proposed changes. If businesses are getting JobKeeper and not using it for the right purposes or using it to support investors or executive remuneration, that is an issue the government should be looking at. If further changes need to be made, probably the government and the ATO, the people collecting the data, are in the best position to respond. There are concerns around the retrospectivity of the requirements, where eligibility criteria would have been satisfied at the point of being provided these payments but then, subsequently, the rules change. Those are legitimate issues which would normally, if we were going through legislation, be examined and scrutinised in the context of some sort of Senate process that this morning hasn't allowed, so Labor won't be supporting these amendments.

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

The Greens do agree in principle with what this amendment is trying to achieve. The Greens first raised concerns about this in April, during a COVID-19 committee hearing, when Senator Whish-Wilson asked Treasury secretary Steven Kennedy whether the JobKeeper review would consider changing the eligibility criteria for businesses recording profits and paying increased dividends. Disappointingly, it was not considered in that review. Senator Whish-Wilson also wrote to Secretary Kennedy last month proposing that eligibility criteria be changed for companies paying dividends. Unfortunately the government has not acted to address this loophole.

And I'm afraid the amendment was circulated only a little while ago. The Greens really have not had enough time to review fully the amendment and its consequences, and from the short time we have had to look at it we are concerned that, under section 9 of the enabling payments and benefits legislation, workers of these companies would be liable to repay the amount. I don't think that's what Senator Patrick has intended, but that is how it appears at face value. So, we are concerned that there may be other unintended consequences. The Greens definitely support the principle of what Senator Patrick is trying to achieve, but unfortunately the Greens can't support this amendment at this time, and we hope we get another opportunity to address this important issue.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just have a couple of questions for the minister. Does the minister think it's ethical for companies to take taxpayers' money and funnel it into the hands of investors or indeed executive pay packets?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The test here is whether what businesses do is lawful in all the circumstances, and I've explained in my contribution on this amendment the reasons the government moved as swiftly as we did. There was clearly a need to act quickly. There was a need to ensure that the system was as simple and efficient as possible in terms of providing the necessary support on a large scale. That is what we've done. That is what countries in other parts of the world have done—including, as I've indicated, New Zealand, the UK, Canada and others—on a similar basis to Australia, similarly not making the arrangements overly complex. Nobody is forced to participate in these arrangements, but the arrangements should be available on an equal basis, on the same terms and conditions, to all businesses, and any business that complies with the law should be able to participate as appropriate.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note the contrast in the approach taken by government to allow funding to go to dividend recipients and/or executive pay salaries. For example, in this instance you're not trying to recover money, but in the case of robodebt the government has found that it's legally insufficient to pursue money where in the past it has pursued this money. Can you see the frustration that most Australians would have with your dogged pursuit of people on welfare versus allowing investors and company executives to receive bonuses through a taxpayer funded arrangement?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't agree with the analogy, on a whole range of grounds. Clearly, whether it's our tax laws or our income support payment arrangements, there are provisions for if somebody pays too little tax compared with what the law requires or somebody has paid more than they should have, based on the law of the land. This has been a position for governments of both persuasions, forever and a day—appropriately so. Then, of course, part of the compliance arrangements, appropriately, seek to recoup any money that is not paid in taxes—that's what our anti-avoidance measures in our tax laws are all about—or to recoup any money that has been overpaid.

The issue that Senator Patrick mentions is not so much that principle. The issue that Senator Patrick raises relates to the fact that governments of both persuasions, again, have used a particular methodology where income support recipients do not engage with the government. Governments have been forced to make assumptions and have used a methodology which, ultimately, the court found to be unlawful. Of course, governments, businesses and individuals—everyone—have to comply with the law. Governments have to comply with the law, and, given the findings there, the government is acting consistently with legal requirements, in the same way that businesses have to act consistently with legal requirements when they access the JobKeeper support payments. I don't think that anything that Senator Patrick has raised in any way suggests or provides proof for the proposition that any of the businesses that he references are breaching the law.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, if I accept your proposition that these companies have been acting lawfully, I can ask the question: do you think they're operating ethically? Moving forward, how do we prevent a situation where we've got companies that are profiting from JobKeeper and that money is being funnelled into the pockets of investors and/or executives? What are the government's plans moving forward to prevent that sort of situation from occurring again?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is really the last contribution I can sensibly make on the same point. Businesses make commercial decisions all the time, in the context of the legal framework that is applicable at any one point in time. The government, with the support of the parliament, has made the JobKeeper payment arrangements available to support businesses and to support employees in businesses that were experiencing significant reductions in turnover, subject to the same terms and conditions. We understood, because of the speed that was required in terms of getting the support into the economy and to businesses and employees, that there were some trade-offs there in terms of the simplicity required.

In terms of the question about what the government's proposing to do about this moving forward, as I've indicated, this is a temporary arrangement. This is not proposed to be an ongoing program. If this was to be an ongoing program that was going to operate for years or decades on end, then you would ensure that you refined your integrity and compliance arrangements accordingly. But this is a temporary support mechanism to provide much-needed support into the economy at a difficult time in the context of the economic impact of a global pandemic here in Australia, and we believe we got the balance right. We thank the opposition for their forbearance in relation to this amendment.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Changing tack slightly, there are 1,119 grandfathered large proprietary companies in Australia that do not have to file financial reports to ASIC. Is the minister aware of how many of those 1,119 companies are receiving JobKeeper?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is obviously an issue that has been discussed at length in the Senate in the context of a number of bills. The short answer is: no, I'm not aware. But I'm happy to get that information for Senator Patrick on notice.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In circumstances where, of course, the public can't see these companies' financial reports—they can't see what's happening, and there's a complete lack of transparency—is the government confident that there's no abuse of JobKeeper taking place in those particular companies that have elite status and don't have to report their financial circumstances or make financial reports to ASIC?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I reject that final assertion that, somehow, some businesses don't have to provide appropriate reports to the tax office. The issue that Senator Patrick raises relates to tax arrangements. ASIC has got no role in relation to the administration of the JobKeeper program—none whatsoever. This is a program that is appropriately administered through the ATO. The ATO has appropriate compliance arrangements in place—but, bear in mind, in the context of a program that was rolled out necessarily very quickly. We believe that we've got the balance right.

Rex Patrick (SA, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I apologise if I said 'tax office'. Any information that's reported to the tax office is reported as what is protected information and can't be revealed publicly, generally. The normal way in which people who are observing and watching the behaviour of companies obtain information is by going and looking at the financial reports that are filed with ASIC. There are 1,119 grandfathered large proprietary companies in Australia that simply don't have to do that. They have a privilege that has been in place since 1995, a temporary measure—obviously, a lot of wealthy people are involved in these companies—so they don't have to file financial reports with ASIC. I apologise for perhaps misdirecting my previous question. Going back to that: how can the government be satisfied—because it doesn't have a view as to these companies' financial reports—that there's no abuse taking place in respect of JobKeeper?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Again, it is a final contribution on this point. Senator Patrick didn't say the ATO; he did say ASIC. What I said is that ASIC is irrelevant here. I understand that Senator Patrick is always keen to find a way to make this an ASIC related point whenever he can, and that's fine. It's one of the issues that Senator Patrick feels strongly about, and I respect that. But ASIC has no role here. The compliance arrangements are managed through the Australian Taxation Office, and every business that generates income and profits in Australia needs to provide relevant information about their income and their tax arrangements to the tax office on the same basis, subject to the same laws and the same conditions. The same applies in relation to JobKeeper.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given that we have no vaccine and this COVID-19 pandemic could go on for another year, two years or three years and given that you're talking about taxpayers' money that's probably being rorted into dividends, are you going to get anyone from one of the departments to at least have to look at it? It may go on for years, and you're talking about the economy and the dark contrast that it's sitting in, but are we just going to leave this sitting on the side? I don't want to come back here in two years and say, 'We had this conversation two years ago and we're still in the same situation.' It's rorting into the dividends, and, quite frankly, it is ethically wrong.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't accept that it's rorting. All businesses are required to comply with the law, and there are compliance arrangements in place to ensure that the law is—

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The compliance arrangements are in place as appropriate through the usual agency and the usual processes. What I would say is that the bill that is in front of us deals with the extension of JobKeeper to the end of March 2021. We're not putting in place arrangements on an ongoing basis. In the scenario that Senator Lambie envisages where this goes on for years and years, which is a plausible scenario—I certainly accept that it's not an impossible scenario—the Senate will be required to reconsider any arrangements down the track to provide advice on the economy in that context at that point in time. We're not dealing here with legislation that puts in place an ongoing arrangement beyond the end of March. We're dealing here with an arrangement that is in place only until the end of March.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] Minister, you're extending this COVID out to March next year. In light of the budget not being handed down, what was the forecast that told your government that you must extend it out to March?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Senator Hanson. You would be aware that the government released an economic and fiscal update in July which provided our assessment of the fiscal impact of the various measures that we've adopted as a result of COVID, as well as the fiscal impact of the economic parameter changes and our assessment of the cost over the two financial years 2019-20 and 2020-21. Treasury also conducted a review of the JobKeeper arrangements over the initial three months, halfway through the initial six-month operation of the program, and Treasury provided advice based on the review and based on their assessment of the economic outlook moving forward.

In the context of what's been happening in Victoria, in particular, in more recent times, we've made the judgements that we've made. The judgement is that, yes, we do need to transition out of this historically unprecedented level of transitional support. We're phasing down the payment from the end of September to the end of December and then again from January to the end of March, and we're also reapplying the turnover test to ensure that the businesses that receive this support still genuinely require that support on an ongoing basis. We believe that the steps we're taking are part of a pathway to transition the economy out of what is historically unprecedented fiscal support for businesses and workers.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] Minister, it is unprecedented to have the COVID that has hit Australia and worldwide. Of course, we had to put measures in place to ensure that people—those on JobSeeker and JobKeeper—were protected. The fact is that the government has made a huge mistake by putting people on JobKeeper, in light of the fact that it is $1,500 a fortnight, when a lot of these people were earning only possibly around $400 or $500 a week. So you have actually overpaid them.

What you've done, in light of that, is set a precedent in this country. People expect those high payments. Now you're trying to get out of it, but people are getting paid this money from the government and they don't want to go back to work. People are getting paid. Prior to COVID, on 27 April, we had approximately 727,000 people on Newstart allowance. Immediately, those people went onto JobSeeker, with an increase of $550 a fortnight. Their circumstances have not changed whatsoever, but you put them on that. Then you actually started JobKeeper, to connect people with businesses. Regardless of the number of hours that they worked, you put them on $1,500 a fortnight.

What we've found now—I'm hearing this from businesses—is that people don't want to go back to work. We have the agricultural sector. People who want their fruit picked can't even get workers. No-one wants to apply for the job, because they're getting paid more on JobSeeker and JobKeeper. I heard about an accountant. A kid who goes to work three days a week for an accountant said: 'I'm not going to come into work. Why should I work? I get paid more on JobKeeper.' These are the circumstances in which it is happening.

What I can't understand is why you are passing this bill today, with the support of Labor, to take it out to seven months. Admittedly, you are reining it in, so JobSeeker is now going to go down from $1,115 a fortnight to $815 a fortnight, but you're going to give them $300 a fortnight, which they can actually make. They can go out and work for it. Then you've got JobKeeper, which is actually going to be reduced as well, to $1,200 a fortnight. But that is not actually encouraging businesses or people to go to work. My question is: what are you going to do? Why extend it out to March when it should've actually just been taken out to November to see if we are recovering? You are actually saying to people out there: 'Don't bother going to work. Don't bother finding a job, because we're going to keep paying you till March next year.' You're actually putting so much pressure on businesses out there—

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Hanson. We have Senator Hanson-Young on her feet.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On a point of order: perhaps Senator Hanson could reflect on her comments about people not showing up to work, when neither she nor her colleague have bothered to come to Canberra.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order!

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is not a point of order. Senator Hanson.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I'm saying is that you're not giving the businesses out there any guarantee that they're going to get people who actually want to go to work—who will turn up to work. Why didn't the government actually look at having this law—you were going to cut it off in September, and I understand what's happening in Victoria and the problems down there because of poor leadership by Daniel Andrews, but you are actually going to extend this out for seven months. Give me any reason why this should not have been cut off by the end of November, having seen how the economy was travelling at that time and how businesses were recovering, to encourage people to go out there and start working instead of being supported by the government.

I truly believe that this is why the states are keeping the borders shut, particularly here in Queensland. It has a political motivation. People are getting paid these JobKeeper and JobSeeker payments; they're reluctant to go back to work. It's destroyed tourism and industry here in Queensland and there are no incentives for people to go back to work. Why doesn't the government actually cut it off at the end of November and reassess it then? We'd come back to parliament in December and you could actually extend it at that time.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Senator Hanson. The truth is that we're dealing with a very, very difficult set of circumstances. We're dealing with a global pandemic with devastating health effects all round the world, including here in Australia. We're dealing with a pandemic which is having a very severe impact on our economy and jobs, on people's livelihoods and on families. And, yes, we did have to make very quick decisions to provide the appropriate and necessary supports into the economy and to support families.

We knew at the time, because of the requirement for speed and the scale, that the need for simplicity and speed would mean there would be trade-offs in terms of some of the equity issues that you referenced, Senator Hanson. In this bill we address those somewhat—in particular, the issue around people who previously were earning less and then getting $1,500 under JobKeeper. Of course, we have separated payments into two: if you work less than 20 hours you are on one payment and if you work more than 20 hours you are on another payment.

I would also make the more general point that different parts of the economy are impacted in different ways. It's true to say that some parts of the economy and some businesses have recovered better than others. The design of the ongoing JobKeeper arrangements for six months takes that into account. If you're a business which is fortunate enough to have recovered—if you're a business in Western Australia or Queensland which is fortunate enough to have recovered—then you will no longer be eligible for JobKeeper. JobKeeper will come to an end, as you are calling for, for those businesses at the end of September. But for those businesses which are not in such a fortunate position, but which are employing workers on the basis that they believe they have a future beyond this next six-month period and the heaviest impact of the coronavirus in the Australian economic context, then we do believe that it's appropriate to provide additional support to those businesses on a somewhat scaled-back basis as part of a sensible transition out of this crisis level of support.

But, nevertheless, we don't believe that it would have been sensible to go cold turkey from one day to the next, given the circumstances that Australia and Australian families continue to be in. I'm grateful that there is overwhelmingly a consensus around this chamber that that is indeed appropriate for a further six-month period.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] Minister, I have grave concerns that the Australian people have not been told the truth about COVID deaths in Australia. I have a letter here which is on government letterhead from Dr Brendan Murphy on 8 August. He states:

I write to seek your assistance in the reporting of COVID-19 related deaths in your respective facilities.

This was to the aged-care providers in Victoria—

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Hanson, I believe we have Senator Gallagher on a point of order.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a point of order, Madam Temporary Chair, asking for your direction on the relevance of this contribution to the bill that we are currently considering. I can't seem to draw a link between the two issues and I wonder whether you could explore that with Senator Hanson and bring her back to the amendments.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Gallagher. I would direct Senator Hanson to be relevant to the amendments moved by Senator Patrick, which we are currently discussing.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When we're talking about COVID deaths—in relation to Senator Patrick's amendment—if it comes down to the government paying out for JobSeeker and JobKeeper, this is all related to, brought about because of, COVID deaths in the nation. That's why we're in the situation that we're in. So I think it's very relevant to actually speak about the truth of the COVID deaths. I think it is very relevant and the people need to hear it.

I'll go back to the letter. He said:

I write to seek your assistance in reporting of COVID-19 related deaths in your respective facilities. Specifically, I'm asking that any death of a resident who has tested positive for COVID-19 be reported immediately to the Victorian Public Health Unit … and the Australian Government Department of Health via agedcareCOVIDcases@health.gov.au. This request relates to all COVID-19 related deaths, including those involving other causes or comorbidity factors.

So he means it's not necessarily to say they died of COVID-19; they could have died of related issues. But we're putting this in the basket of COVID deaths, which is making the people very frightened.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order! Senator Hanson, I think there may be other times during the day when you can make the points you are currently trying to make. I would turn your mind to the amendments as moved by Senator Patrick.

Alright. Well, Senator Patrick and I want to know, with regard to these people who have paid huge dividends or bonuses to themselves in relation to increased business turnover: if these businesses have received JobKeeper over the period of time, will you be asking these businesses to pay back the JobKeeper payment to the Australian taxpayer?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's very hard for me to make a judgement without knowing the individual circumstances of specific businesses. What I would say is that the eligibility requirements for JobKeeper are very clear. They are applied consistently to all businesses. They involve a turnover test. If the turnover test is appropriately complied with then obviously relevant businesses are able to access JobKeeper payments to help support the wages of their eligible employees. That is the beginning and the end of it. As long as the businesses acted lawfully, there is no ground and no reason for the government to seek reimbursement of the funds that have been disbursed under this program.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] Minister, how often do these businesses have to report to the government to keep on the JobKeeper program?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Any business that is profitable, that has recovered and that has the turnover test reapplied at the end of September, as we've indicated, will no longer be eligible and will no longer receive the JobKeeper payment moving forward.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] That wasn't my question. I said you've extended these payments out to March next year. If you're going to keep paying these businesses, how often are you going to be asking them to send in reports on where their profits are or where their turnover is at? You can't just extend it and then allow it to go for seven months. A lot of these businesses actually make a lot of money out of the government, and they're getting paid the JobKeeper payments. How often do they have to report to the government to see if they still comply with the rules and regulations? If you've paid them JobKeeper they've been making profits over these months. You've said you won't be asking them for the taxpayers' dollars back. How often do they have to report? Is it weekly, is it monthly, is it three-monthly, or are you going to let them go for the full six months?

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I've indicated in my remarks in response to Senator Patrick moving the amendments, as to the initial six-month period, we said that, once qualified, a business would be eligible for the full six months. The turnover test will now be reapplied at the end of September and again at the end of December.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Patrick be agreed to. Senator Lambie, Senator Patrick and Senator Hanson will have their approval of the amendment recorded.

Question negatived.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.