Raff Ciccone (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Payne) to a question without notice asked by Senator Ciccone today relating to JobMaker hiring credits.

Earlier in question time, Senator Payne was asked to confirm that casual workers with less than 12 months continuity are not covered by the unfair dismissal protections under the Fair Work Act. Senator Payne was also asked to confirm whether or not One Nation senators in this place were advised that casuals with less than 12 months employment are not covered by unfair dismissal protections. The minister was asked to explain to the Senate, and through it to the Australian people, why the government are leaving casual workers exposed and vulnerable to unfair dismissal in favour of workers who are eligible for the hiring credit. Unfortunately, what we got from the minister today was an absolute zero answer to our question. That's not a surprise. After all, it is very clear that this government is all about announcements and no substance when it provides answers to this place.

Let's review a few facts about casual workers in Australia. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there were just over 2.6 million casual workers before the pandemic hit. At 24 per cent, that's just under a quarter of all workers nationally, up from 19 per cent in the late 1990s. The work is in retail, trade, accommodation and food services, construction, health, education and transport—industries that are absolutely crucial to ensuring that our economy rebuilds post pandemic. Again from the ABS data, of those 2.6 million workers, one million had been with their employer for less than 12 months. Casual workers are more likely to be young and they are more likely to be women. I know this being a former union official with the SDA union, having represented these many millions of workers in retail, hospitality and warehouse jobs. Senator Farrell would know this, too, being a former official and national president.

The hiring credit leaves around a million casual workers unprotected from unfair dismissal and vulnerable to having their hours reduced or being let go. This concern has been raised by Labor, the union movement and a range of other stakeholder groups. The question is: why? Why is it that in a relatively simple amendment the government will not help protect a million of Australia's most vulnerable workers, who are predominantly young and women? These workers were excluded from the JobKeeper program and now they are being excluded from the basic entitlements that other workers in this country get to enjoy.

Casual workers deserve better. They deserve the respect of this government. They deserve the respect of every senator in this place. This government has exposed one million workers to the risking of being sacked without recourse in the middle of Australia's deepest recession, at a time when there are more than 100 people applying for every one job. This government, if it were fair dinkum, would be truly respecting our workers and supporting them. If this government truly respected workers as it claims, it would include them in the basic unfair dismissal protections. After all, the government claims that it's working side by side with workers. Let's do it. Let's protect these workers. Let's protect all workers in this country and make that contribution back to the Australian economy. After all, we all want to see our economy rebuild and rebound after what has been a pretty unbelievable 12 months. Yet, instead, casual workers will again be left behind by this coalition government.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know it's been a tough week for the opposition; they have lost perhaps the only voice of common sense from their frontbench. It's now a no-Joel Labor Party—a Joel-free zone over there on the other side. That means it's a job-free zone in the Labor Party as well. It's a job-free zone over there in the Labor Party. That was the only member of the Labor Party frontbench who was actually sticking up for people's jobs, sticking up for the dignity of work and sticking up for a future Australia that could create jobs in industries like mining, agriculture and stuff that is the bedrock of our nation. He's gone. He's gone because he couldn't cop sticking around with a bunch of crazy lefties who hate those industries and want to see those jobs go. So he is out of the tent.

Is it just a coincidence, then, that the week that Joel has left the coop is the same week that the Labor Party spend their question time questions on being against a program called JobMaker?

They've spent their whole week being against a program that is about making jobs, the very week that the only bloke who wanted to make jobs left their frontbench. I don't think it's a coincidence. I don't think it's a coincidence at all. I think there's causation here, not just correlation. There's causation here that the one bloke in the Labor Party who was up for defending jobs has gone and now the Labor Party are spending their tactical time opposing a program that is all about creating jobs for Australians. This program, the JobMaker program, is all about providing incentives for people to create new jobs, for businesses to put people on, and what do the Labor Party do? They oppose it. They want to oppose providing incentives for employers to create jobs because they're just not in favour of jobs. It's not their focus as a party—certainly not one without Joel Fitzgibbon there at the front.

I think sometimes the Labor Party do like to talk about jobs. They do sometimes come out and say: 'We want to support jobs. We want to support a hydrogen industry.' Sometimes they come out with things like, 'We're going to support hydrogen. There are going to be jobs in hydrogen.' Well, those jobs are fake jobs. There is no large-scale hydrogen industry across the world and not likely to be one for decades. But Labor get behind these industries and try to con workers in the mining sector and workers in power stations by saying, 'We'll be sacking you, but, don't worry, there'll be these other jobs'—these fake jobs in industries like the imaginary massive hydrogen export industry that we'll never get to in any reasonable time frame.

So the Labor Party are against the JobMaker program but all for a 'JobFaker' program. That's their policy. The policy of those over there is for a 'JobFaker' program, because they're all about supporting fake industries, fake jobs, to try to con hardworking Australians out of their livelihoods. We won't do that here; we won't cop that here. We'll be defending and fighting for those jobs through programs like the JobMaker initiative. We'll be making sure that we fight for the right of Australians to work—to have a job and have a livelihood.

On the specific issue that Senator Ciccone raised, the fact that the unfair dismissal laws do not have the same protections for those who are casual for less than 12 months—we haven't changed the unfair dismissal laws while we've been in government. They're the same provisions as were there when those opposite were in government. The last major change to industrial relations legislation was under the Labor government. They set up those laws. They are what they are right now because they were ticked off by the Labor Party. You cannot be just wantonly dismissed from your job, but, yes, there are extra protections under the unfair dismissal laws for those who are in more permanent work. Those are the laws that were put there by the Labor Party.

I think that maybe, eventually, the Labor Party will wake up to themselves. Hopefully, for the good of our country and the future of our nation, there will be a dropping of the rhetoric on the 'JobFaker' program. You can see Joel setting himself up here. Maybe he's just the stalking horse, but there's a drumbeat here now. Every day, Joel's doing a different thing. Today he wants to sack—

Sue Lines (WA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Canavan, may I remind you to refer to those in the other place by their correct titles.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will do that for Mr Fitzgibbon. I think he'd much prefer me to refer to him by his first name, but I will do that to Mr Fitzgibbon. Mr Fitzgibbon is lining up here to cause destabilisation, to have a crack—maybe for himself, maybe for someone else—because the current leadership of the Labor Party are not defending jobs. They're not defending Australians, and there's probably going to be a changeover there very soon.

Jess Walsh (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today we asked the government about its absolutely grubby deal with One Nation to strip workers of protections against being sacked and replaced by businesses that are using the government's JobMaker hiring credit scheme, and there are a million workers out there who got no answers from this government in question time today. They got no answers as to why the government has teamed up with One Nation to allow these workers to be replaced, in the middle of the worst recession in 100 years.

In blocking our sensible amendments to this bill, the government and Pauline Hanson's One Nation have hung out to dry over a million people who need support today—older workers who can now be replaced by younger workers on the government's JobMaker hiring credit scheme. What Senators Hanson and Roberts have done in this dirty deal with the government is hang out over a million workers in the middle of a global pandemic and the worst recession in 100 years. They've absolutely hung those workers out by refusing to support our amendments and giving them no answers today about exactly why they've chosen to ignore and vote down amendments that would have protected older workers from being unfairly dismissed. That's all they would have done—protect older workers from being unfairly dismissed in favour of younger workers who attract the government's hiring subsidy. They've absolutely hung out older workers who have no access to unfair dismissal protections today.

It remains unclear as to whether Senators Hanson and Roberts understood what they were voting for or whether they understood that these workers have no access to unfair dismissal protections today. Casuals with less than 12 months service have no access to unfair dismissal protections today. Permanent workers, casual workers and part-time workers with less than 12 months service in a small business have no protection from unfair dismissal today. These are the workers who could be thrown on the scrapheap, who could be replaced if they are over 35, by the government's and One Nation's failure to support our amendments and protect these workers from being replaced or unfairly dismissed. These workers have been hung out. They've been hung out by the government. They've been hung out by Pauline Hanson's One Nation. They've been hung out in the middle of this recession. They've been hung out right at a time when the latest ABS figures show that 30,000 jobs were reported lost in the last fortnight.

There is a deep jobs crisis in this country, across every state and territory. There have been 470,000 jobs lost since the pandemic began, with 160,000 people projected to lose their jobs by Christmas. This is not the time for the government to leave people behind. This is not the time for the government to leave workers over 35 behind. This is not the time for the government to leave behind older workers who could be replaced by younger workers on insecure jobs because of its dirty dealings with Pauline Hanson's One Nation in the Senate. But we shouldn't be surprised this has happened, because this is a government that finds it all too easy to leave people behind in this pandemic and this recession. One second it's, 'We're all in this together', the next it's 'If you're good at your job, you'll get a job', and it's your fault if you're unemployed in the worst recession and the worst jobs crisis for almost 100 years.

At the beginning of this crisis Scott Morrison told us that support programs would be equal and that they wouldn't leave the vulnerable behind. Well, that was one day, and this week we have seen something different, where the government has teamed up with One Nation on this JobMaker hiring credit to leave older workers behind and to fail to protect them from being unfairly sacked and replaced by younger workers in insecure jobs who may attract this hiring credit.

Gerard Rennick (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm not quite sure if the Labor Party has actually read the details of the JobMaker hiring credit scheme, because there are protections in place. It's very simple: it's not available to an employer if they don't increase the headcount number. If you've got 20 people and you sack somebody and re-employ someone else, you've still only got 20 people. You're not going to go and sack someone and then re-employ them, because you won't get the hiring credit.

For the last 24 hours, Labor has been running around making personal smears against One Nation for voting with us. Pauline has got the intelligence to actually sit down and read the legislation. It wouldn't do Labor any harm to sit down and actually read the legislation for a change, instead of making personal smears and innuendos across all their social media platforms. Maybe if they spent a little more time reading, understanding and applying the law, and less time on indoctrination and intimidation and smearing and making videos on social media, they would understand the legislation.

There have been points made in here today about how casuals aren't entitled to the same rights and privileges as other types of employees. That's because a lot of people choose that type of work—so that they can have flexibility. Let's look at it through the eyes of small business. A lot of small businesses' work and income is volatile. It goes up; it goes down. They need the flexibility to be able to call in staff when they need them and not call in staff when they don't need them. It's this type of rigidity that the Labor Party try and implement in their IR legislation—and it's in the fair work legislation—that gives no flexibility in the workplace to employers. Ask yourselves why employers keep going offshore. It's because of these archaic fair work laws. Ever since the Fair Work Act came in in 2009, the number of people on casual labour has increased because employers won't take on permanent or part-time staff because they know how difficult it is to navigate the fair work system implemented by the Rudd-Gillard government.

This measure, JobMaker, is a $4 billion measure to help people get back to work. It's worth pointing out that, if it wasn't for Daniel Andrews and his catastrophic management of contract tracing and testing, we'd probably have had a lot of these people back to work by June or July, instead of only coming out of it now. We went into COVID in late March and we had got on top of it by late May. We could have contained this to two months. But, no, it's gone on now for over seven months. We've had 10 times the number of deaths than we would have had if we'd fixed this problem in June and the Victorian Premier had actually managed hotel quarantine and contact tracing—but, no, because, when Labor's in charge, you know it's going to be a mess.

So for the Labor Party to come in here and criticise this government, which has been one of the world leaders in reducing case numbers and getting on top of COVID, and in providing income support—I think we've spent about 10 per cent of our GDP in helping people get through this crisis. And what do Labor do? They start playing word games and semantics with numbers, and make out that somehow we're reducing JobSeeker. JobSeeker is still $150 higher than it was this time last year. In case you didn't realise, we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars on keeping people going. That is unsustainable in the long term. It is 'wealth for toil'. We have got to get people back to work. We can't continue to pay people to stay at home. There are employers out there in regional communities who are crying out for labour. And what do the Labor Party want to do? They want to keep these payments going so that we can't get the economy moving again— (Time expired)

Anthony Chisholm (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What we've seen from this government—and what we saw from that contribution as well—is a pattern of misleading on this JobMaker policy. We heard it in question time in the response by Minister Payne. The claims that they have been making about this policy have been misleading. This was exposed during Senate estimates. They still continue to claim that this program is going to create 450,000 jobs, when we know through Senate estimates that it is going to provide only 45,000 jobs.

It is further evidence that, with this government, there is the claim and there is the reality. They do it with almost every policy, and the Prime Minister is the worst offender. He is the leader and they all follow suit. They make a big claim about what a policy is going to deliver, but the reality is completely different, and it's often Australians who are struggling, like bushfire impacted communities, who are the ones that are actually left behind.

Labor have been responsible this year; we have been productive because we know that this is a difficult year for Australians dealing with the pandemic. So we have been constructive, where possible. But we've also highlighted issues that need fixing in a constructive way. We were always concerned, from the day this policy was announced, that it has many flaws, and we've highlighted those. There were the false numbers; the false claims; the fact that over one million Australians over 35 will not be eligible for this program; the fact that this credit can go to firms paying big executive bonuses; and many loopholes, some that the unions have identified, which will lead to more insecure work at a time when Australians can least afford it.

As I said, the approach that Labor have taken this year is that we have been responsible and constructive. We have been like that for all the significant policies that the government has put forward. We've put forward amendments to fix these loopholes in a responsible way. To their credit, One Nation supported one of these amendments, the one aimed at protections against being sacked or having hours reduced under the JobMaker hiring credit scheme. That was the substance of the amendment that we put forward and which One Nation voted for on Tuesday.

One Nation supported this on the Tuesday, and they actually put out a statement as well which said the scheme hadn't been properly thought through, had too many flaws and left older jobseekers overlooked and disadvantaged. This was on the Tuesday, and we know what happened by Wednesday: One Nation had backflipped and decided to support the government. It's a disappointing effort from One Nation but, again, as a Queenslander who obviously follows these issues and the role that One Nation play in supporting the government closely, I have come to expect it from them. They always try to find a way, at the end of the day, to justify backing in their LNP mates and the government.

But I think that this time their reasoning deserves special attention. They said that their backflip was based on government reassurances. Let's get this right: Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts spend the majority of their time going around the country and undermining government. They say: 'You can't believe government. You can't trust government. You can't trust them on the Great Barrier Reef. You can't trust them on science.' Basically, that is their message to Australians: you can't trust government. And yet here they are trying to justify in this chamber that their decision to backflip on this issue was because they accepted government reassurances. It does not wash and it is not good enough that One Nation sought to do the right thing on Tuesday and then backflipped under a bit of government pressure.

But the real consequence of this—and this is so often the case with One Nation and the work that they do with government—is that it is Australians who are going to suffer from this, particularly those who are over 35 and struggling to get back into the workplace. I note that there is significant unemployment through many parts of regional Queensland. My most recent trip through Hervey Bay and Bundaberg reminded me of this; there is a significant proportion of that community unemployed, and long-term unemployed as well. The reality is that this government program, with the support of One Nation, is only going to be exploited in those communities. We have high unemployment and people who are desperately looking for work, and the fact of the matter is that this proposal that the government has put forward, supported by One Nation, is actually going to undermine those people who are desperately seeking work in many parts of Queensland. It is shameful of the government and it is shameful of One Nation.

Question agreed to.