|
senate vote 2020-08-31#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2024-06-30 15:12:11
|
Title
Bills — Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Jobkeeper Payments) Amendment Bill 2020; in Committee- Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Jobkeeper Payments) Amendment Bill 2020 - in Committee - Jobkeeper enabling stand down directions
Description
<p class="speaker">Sue Lines</p><p>The question now is that amendments (2) and (9) to (11) on sheet 1014 be agreed to.</p>-
- The majority voted against [amendment (1) on sheet 1015](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-08-31.156.1), which was introduced by South Australian Senator [Don Farrell](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/don_farrell) (Labor).
- ### What did this amendment do?
- Senator Farrell [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-08-31.156.1):
- > *Labor is moving this amendment because it's critical to protecting the pay and conditions of low-paid workers. If this bill is passed unamended, we could see a situation where businesses which have recovered to the point where their turnover decline is less than 10 per cent can cut the hours of their employees to the tune of 40 per cent. Let's not forget that, in income terms, it could actually be much more than that, because it's a cut to hours.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Schedule 2, item 22, page 13 (after line 17), after paragraph 789GJA(1)(c), insert:*
- >
- >> *(ca) the jobkeeper enabling stand down direction will not result in the amount payable to the employee in relation to the performance of work for the employer for a jobkeeper fortnight that is within the jobkeeper enabling stand down period that is less than the amount that would be payable to the employee if the employer were entitled to a jobkeeper payment for the employee for the fortnight; and*
<p>Question negatived.</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>I move Labor amendment (1) on sheet 1015:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 2, item 22, page 13 (after line 17), after paragraph 789GJA(1)(c), insert:</p><p class="italic">  (ca) the jobkeeper enabling stand down direction will not result in the amount payable to the employee in relation to the performance of work for the employer for a jobkeeper fortnight that is within the jobkeeper enabling stand down period that is less than the amount that would be payable to the employee if the employer were entitled to a jobkeeper payment for the employee for the fortnight; and</p><p>Given that our previous amendment was unsuccessful, Labor is moving this amendment because it's critical to protecting the pay and conditions of low-paid workers. If this bill is passed unamended, we could see a situation where businesses which have recovered to the point where their turnover decline is less than 10 per cent can cut the hours of their employees to the tune of 40 per cent. Let's not forget that, in income terms, it could actually be much more than that, because it's a cut to hours.</p><p>If hours that are cut are hours that attract penalty rates then the worker may lose much more than 40 per cent of their take-home pay. A full-time retail worker, for instance, who normally works Wednesday to Sunday and who has their weekend shifts cut—which amounts to a 40 per cent cut in hours—would lose nearly half of their income. Remembering that retail workers have by and large stayed at work during this pandemic, this amendment has the effect of ensuring that no worker whose employer is no longer eligible for JobKeeper can cut their hours to the point where their take-home pay is less than the prevailing JobKeeper rate. Not to support this amendment means the employees working for companies which are recovering will be worse off than the employees working for businesses which, by the government's own definition, are in stress. I urge all senators to support this amendment.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>The government will not support these amendments. The overarching intention of the temporary industrial relations flexibility provisions in this bill is to keep businesses in business, to keep employees connected to their workplace and to preserve as many jobs as possible. The provisions in this bill facilitate this outcome by, among other things, providing legacy employers the ability to reduce an employee's hours in certain circumstances to 60 per cent of their normal hours to take account of the fact that the business is in distress and greater flexibility means a greater chance to save jobs.</p><p>Crucially, and this is something the proposed amendment apparently fails to recognise, a legacy business can only reduce hours where the employee cannot be usefully employed for their usual days or hours because of COVID-19—that is, the only employees who could ever be subject to a direction by their employer to have their hours reduced are those who could not be usefully employed to work their normal hours anyway. As such, any comparisons of income obtained by working full hours are deceptive and misleading, as working their full pre-COVID hours would simply not be possible for the employees we are talking about here.</p><p>Imposing an artificial minimum income equivalent to JobKeeper payments, as this amendment proposes, may also see an employer forced to pay an employee not to work, as, while the employee in question would be unable to be usefully employed for their normal days and hours, the amendment could have the effect of requiring them to be paid for those days and hours anyway. That is precisely the sort of thing that legacy employers, who, by their nature, must be financially distressed, simply cannot afford right now and that risks further job losses and business closures. Even if the 'cannot be usefully employed' safeguards did not exist, an artificial minimum income might be too expensive for the financially distressed employers we are talking about here and could lead to job losses otherwise avoided through the approach of a temporary and moderate reduction in hours proposed by the bill in its current form.</p><p>Finally, the amendment and the various claims of income reductions made by those opposite completely ignore the interaction with the social security system, which can operate to significantly offset the impact of a reduction in hours.</p> <p class="speaker">Mehreen Faruqi</p><p>It's a real shame that the government refuses to guarantee support to workers by their opposition to the previous amendment, which removes the new category of legacy employers. This amendment at least would prevent JobKeeper legacy employers from paying employees who have their hours cut less than the JobKeeper payment, and that payment would be employer funded. There's no reason for anyone not to support this amendment, and the Greens support this amendment.</p><p class="italic">The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 1015, moved by Senator Farrell, be agreed to.</p> -
-
|