|
senate vote 2020-09-01#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-03-03 14:14:31
|
Title
Bills — Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Jobkeeper Payments) Amendment Bill 2020; in Committee- Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Jobkeeper Payments) Amendment Bill 2020 - in Committee - Casual workers
Description
<p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>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.</p>-
- The majority voted against [amendments (1) and (5)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-09-01.12.1) on [sheet 1009](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr6583_amend_ad651500-d76a-4536-b35f-6701b5e732a7%22;rec=0), which were moved by NSW Senator [Mehreen Faruqi](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/mehreen_faruqi) (Greens). This means they failed.
- These amendments would have extended eligibility for JobKeeper payments to casual workers.
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Clause 2 , page 2 (at the end of the table), add:*
- >
- >> *10. Schedule 5 | The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent .*
- >
- > *(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.*
<p>Leave granted.</p><p>I thank the Senate, and I move government amendments (1) to (6) on sheet SW102:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 2, item 10, page 9 (line 6), omit paragraph (a) of the definition of <i>eligible financial service provider</i> in section 789GC.</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 2, item 10, page 9 (line 7), omit ", BAS agent or tax (financial) adviser", substitute "or BAS agent".</p><p class="italic">(3) Schedule 2, item 12, page 9 (after line 17), after the definition of <i>quarter</i> in section 789GC, insert:</p><p class="italic"><i>registered tax agent or BAS agent</i> has the same meaning as in the <i>Tax Agent Services Act 2009</i>.</p><p class="italic">(4) Schedule 2, item 12, page 9 (lines 18 and 19), omit the definition of <i>registered company auditor</i> in section 789GC.</p><p class="italic">(5) Schedule 2, item 12, page 9 (lines 20 and 21), omit the definition of <i>registered tax agent, BAS agent or tax (financial) adviser</i> in section 789GC.</p><p class="italic">(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".</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>Question agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Mehreen Faruqi</p><p>by leave—I move Greens requests for amendments (1) and (5) on sheet 1009 together:</p><p class="italic">That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments:</p><p class="italic">(1) Clause 2 , page 2 (at the end of the table), add:</p><p class="italic">(5) Page 33 (after line 21) , at the end of the Bill, add:</p><p class="italic">Schedule 5 — Extension of jobkeeper scheme to casual employees</p><p class="italic"> <i>Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020</i></p><p class="italic">1 At the end of section 7</p><p class="italic">Add:</p><p class="italic"> <i>Requirements relating to casual employees</i></p><p class="italic">(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.</p><p class="italic">(9) The requirements are that:</p><p class="italic">(a) the individual was a casual employee of the entity on 1 July 2020; and</p><p class="italic">(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.</p><p class="italic">Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000</p><p class="italic">Amendments (5), (6), (7) and (8)</p><p class="italic">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.</p><p class="italic">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.</p><p class="italic">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.</p><p class="italic">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 <i>Taxation Administration Act 1953</i> .</p><p class="italic">Amendments (1), (2), (3), and (4)</p><p class="italic">Amendments (1), (2), (3) and (4) are consequential to amendments (5), (6), (7) and (8).</p><p class="italic">Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000</p><p class="italic">Amendments (5), (6), (7) and (8)</p><p class="italic">If the effect of the amendments is to increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 16 of the <i>Taxation Administration Act 1953</i> then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendments be moved as requests.</p><p class="italic">Amendments (1), (2), (3) and (4)</p><p class="italic">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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|