|
senate vote 2020-11-10#3
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-01-27 09:35:58
|
Title
Bills — Economic Recovery Package (Jobmaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020; in Committee- Economic Recovery Package (Jobmaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020 - in Committee - Age discrimination
Description
<p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>I move amendment (1) on sheet 1105 standing in my name:</p>-
- The majority voted against a [request for an amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-11-10.20.1) introduced by South Australian Senator [Rex Patrick](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/sa/rex_patrick) (Independent), which means it failed.
- ### What does the amendment do?
- Senator Patrick [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-11-10.20.1):
- > *For the benefit of the chamber, what this amendment seeks to do is to deal with a discriminatory aspect of the bill as it currently stands in conjunction with the rules. The JobMaker scheme will permit a payment of $200 for new employees that are within the age bracket 16 to 29, scaling down to $100 per week for employees that are in the age bracket of 30 to 35.*
- >
- > *Last week at the committee that was examining this bill, I tabled some Seek advertisements. Those advertisements were for jobs, and those advertisements had the words in them, 'In order to apply for this job you must be eligible for JobMaker.' In effect, what that was saying was if you are 36 or 37 or 38 or anywhere above 35 you need not apply for this job. That is discriminatory. We have a lot of mature workers in our community who add value and who are also struggling to get jobs as a result of what's happened with COVID-19. This bill offers no help to employers to employ them, so, by its very nature, it operates as an incentive to exclude them, to discriminate against them.*
- ### Amendment request text
- > *That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:*
- >
- > *(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 24), after item 3, insert:*
- >
- > *3A After section 7*
- >
- >> *Insert:*
- >>
- >> *7A Requirements for rules that provide for jobmaker hiring credit scheme*
- >>
- >> *(1) This section applies if rules are made for the purpose of subsection 7(1A) that provide for a kind of payment known as the jobmaker hiring credit.*
- >>
- >> *(2) The rules must not:*
- >>
- >>> *(a) include eligibility requirements that place an upper age limit on individuals to receive the jobmaker hiring credit; or*
- >>>
- >>> *(b) have the effect of excluding individuals aged 35 years or over from the jobmaker hiring credit scheme; or*
- >>>
- >>> *(c) provide for a jobmaker hiring credit payment of less than $100 for individuals aged 35 years or over.*
- >
- > *—————*
- >
- > *Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000*
- >
- > *Amendment (1)*
- >
- >> *Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it amends the bill in a way that is intended to direct funding under the jobmaker hiring credit scheme to additional individuals.*
- >>
- >> *The amendment would restrict the Treasurer’s ability to make rules to exclude individuals over a certain age from the jobmaker hiring credit scheme. Specifically, the effect of the amendment would be to include individuals aged 35 years or over as eligible additional employees when assessing an entity’s eligibility for payments from the Commonwealth under the rules.*
- >>
- >> *As this would increase the number of employees for whom employers would be eligible to receive payments, the amendment will increase the amount of expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 16 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953.*
- >>
- >> *Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000*
- >
- > *Amendment (1)*
- >
- >> *If the effect of the amendment 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 amendment be moved as a request.*
<p class="italic">That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:</p><p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 24), after item 3, insert:</p><p class="italic">3A After section 7</p><p class="italic">Insert:</p><p class="italic">7A Requirements for rules that provide for jobmaker hiring credit scheme</p><p class="italic">(1) This section applies if rules are made for the purpose of subsection 7(1A) that provide for a kind of payment known as the jobmaker hiring credit.</p><p class="italic">(2) The rules must not:</p><p class="italic">(a) include eligibility requirements that place an upper age limit on individuals to receive the jobmaker hiring credit; or</p><p class="italic">(b) have the effect of excluding individuals aged 35 years or over from the jobmaker hiring credit scheme; or</p><p class="italic">(c) provide for a jobmaker hiring credit payment of less than $100 for individuals aged 35 years or over.</p><p>—————</p><p class="italic"> <i>Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000</i></p><p class="italic">Amendment (1)</p><p class="italic">Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it amends the bill in a way that is intended to direct funding under the jobmaker hiring credit scheme to additional individuals.</p><p class="italic">The amendment would restrict the Treasurer’s ability to make rules to exclude individuals over a certain age from the jobmaker hiring credit scheme. Specifically, the effect of the amendment would be to include individuals aged 35 years or over as eligible additional employees when assessing an entity’s eligibility for payments from the Commonwealth under the rules.</p><p class="italic">As this would increase the number of employees for whom employers would be eligible to receive payments, the amendment 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"> <i>Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000</i></p><p class="italic">Amendment (1)</p><p class="italic">If the effect of the amendment 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 amendment be moved as a request.</p><p>For the benefit of the chamber, what this amendment seeks to do is to deal with a discriminatory aspect of the bill as it currently stands in conjunction with the rules. The JobMaker scheme will permit a payment of $200 for new employees that are within the age bracket 16 to 29, scaling down to $100 per week for employees that are in the age bracket of 30 to 35.</p><p>Last week at the committee that was examining this bill, I tabled some Seek advertisements. Those advertisements were for jobs, and those advertisements had the words in them, 'In order to apply for this job you must be eligible for JobMaker.' In effect, what that was saying was if you are 36 or 37 or 38 or anywhere above 35 you need not apply for this job. That is discriminatory. We have a lot of mature workers in our community who add value and who are also struggling to get jobs as a result of what's happened with COVID-19. This bill offers no help to employers to employ them, so, by its very nature, it operates as an incentive to exclude them, to discriminate against them.</p><p>There was a discussion at the committee last week as to whether or not it's lawful to discriminate, and, in the end, I think it's questionable whether or not it is in fact lawful. But what I can tell you is even if it is lawful to do what the bill intends it is not right. Just because the government legislates discrimination doesn't mean that it's okay. What this bill seeks to do is to remove the 35-year age limit and allow anyone above 29 to make application for a job knowing that they will be considered and that the government will assist with the JobMaker. For those reasons, I ask the chamber to support this request.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>The Greens will be supporting this amendment. As I articulated in my second reading contribution yesterday, older workers are being very significantly hit by the pandemic. In fact, new research out this morning shows how heavily older workers have been hit by the pandemic and the recession. I also articulated that age discrimination and ageism are significantly affecting older workers trying to find work and that older workers are the fastest-growing cohort of long-term unemployed. It is essential that action be taken to help older workers. While this mechanism will help older workers, they will need additional support on top of it. But this will go some way to helping. With the amendments that the Greens will move in seeking to improve this legislation, this would take away the discrimination that's built into this legislation and assist older workers. More needs to be done about age discrimination, but we will be supporting this amendment.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacqui Lambie</p><p>I have a question. I want to know if there was any modelling done on all the jobs out there and the age groups they employ. Was any modelling done on that? Let's look at the transport industry for one. A lot of them are older people; they stay in that industry. There are going to be people out there who are discriminated against not just about age but about what job they're doing, so was there any modelling done on that area as well? That's all I'm asking.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>I thank Senator Lambie for the question. I'll deal with the amendment simultaneously. In terms of analysis, the government, in the targeting of this program, has relied very much on the experience of past recessions and the modelling and analytical work undertaken in that regard. The experience of the last recession was that it took a long time for youth employment to recover, far longer than for employment levels overall. Indeed, it took a full decade after the 1990s recession to get the unemployment rate down from where it started to six per cent, but it took 15 years to get the number of jobs for young people back below where it started. We also have data and analysis that show that if those young people stay for a prolonged period of time as recipients of the social safety net then they are likely to be stuck, potentially, in that so-called welfare trap for an ongoing period. That's what we are deliberately seeking to avoid here.</p><p>We responded in the immediacy of the pandemic with economy-wide wage subsidy measures, as has been acknowledged. As we transition out of the immediacy of the pandemic—and we've seen more than 460,000 Australians back in jobs in recent months—we seek to target and tackle what we know are some of the high-risk problems we face, and endemic and prolonged youth unemployment is seen as very much a high-risk problem. That's why this program is targeted in that sense.</p><p>It's also why the government opposes Senator Patrick's amendment, which would remove this program's intended target of addressing the unemployment of young Australians. I do note that the program operates alongside a number of pre-existing government programs—programs like Career Transition Assistance, the Restart wage subsidy and the skills checkpoint—intended to provide support to some of those older workers in different industries that Senator Lambie referred to. Those programs are intended to provide ongoing assistance, recognising the disruption that some older workers face in their careers due to impacts of health, economic restructure—all the different factors, which we know are real. That's why we had, pre-pandemic, those types of programs in place, but this one is targeted very much at ensuring we don't end up with a long and prolonged tail of youth unemployment that potentially leaves people struggling for much of a lifetime in terms of their entry point into the workforce.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacqui Lambie</p><p>I just have to say: we're looking at a recession 30 years ago. Computers weren't even about then, mobile phones weren't there, jobs were very different and we had manufacturing. So exactly what are you modelling off, with these young people and their unemployment? Thirty years ago we had manufacturing all over the place. How are you doing this when times are so different?</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>We do know that young people who leave school and don't get a job or who complete training in the years after school and don't get a job tend to then be in receipt of welfare for prolonged periods of time. We also know that, in the current coronavirus context, for people aged between 15 and 34, from March to September this year there was a 6.1 per cent decrease in the number of jobs, or some 307,000. In contrast, in the same time period, the decline in jobs for those aged 35 and over has been 1.4 per cent, or 109,000 jobs. If we look just at what has happened during the pandemic, without contemplating another year of school leavers, another year of leavers from the vocational system and another year of leavers from universities, we see that the most profound impact already has been on young workers. It's the old adage—last in, first out—that seems to have applied. When we add together the different analyses, be it from the last recession—yes, about the fact that youth unemployment took much longer to recover—be it from this pandemic or be it just the ongoing analysis, the fact is that if we don't get young people into some form of work and activity quickly, it has far more longer term consequences. That's not to downplay the consequences for older Australians. That's why we have the range of the other measures in place.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacqui Lambie</p><p>What modelling have you done on whether small businesses can afford to do this, considering JobKeeper will be finishing at the end of March? Where's your modelling on how all these are going to combine with each other—with what you're doing now and then throwing this on top? Do you still think your numbers are going to come out the same? People will be finishing JobKeeper at the end of March. You're saying, 'Here's an extra $200.' I don't know where you've been, Minister, but for small businesses in Tasmania, I can tell you now, to give them those hours and give them that $200—they can hardly afford a PO box, let alone putting on extra people. So has the stopping JobKeeper been taken into the equation? How many small businesses have you actually been out there to speak to about this, to come up with this solution?</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>Yes, all elements of the government's budget modelling have taken into account the fact that JobKeeper is scheduled to conclude at the end of March. There is the conclusion of JobKeeper, but there is the start-up not only of this measure but also of a number of the tax measures announced in the budget that are intended to provide additional incentive for investment and are all designed to help with that transition. As I referenced before, we've seen more than 460,000 jobs come back over recent months, as parts of the country, including Tasmania, have started to reopen. That reopening phase is obviously ongoing, particularly in terms of borders and access to support for other industry sectors. This is seen, as we move from the pandemic period of support, which has basically been universal, into the phases beyond, where we target the identified problems that exist, whilst also trying to stimulate more business activity—be that in terms of investment as well as in terms of hiring and tackling problems like youth unemployment that we know to be a likely or high-risk prolonged problem.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacqui Lambie</p><p>Do you think it's fair to ask us to vote on a bill when you haven't finished the rules? I know that we've done this with JobSeeker and JobKeeper. We've now been doing this for seven or eight months, and you're still asking us to vote on things with very little substance. I am really concerned. How long is this going to go on for—where you want us to vote on bills and put our trust in you, with nothing of substance and the rules aren't finished?</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>We did canvass this issue a little bit earlier, but I appreciate you weren't in the chamber at the time. The government has published the draft rules. We are in accordance with our responsibilities under international labour conventions for consulting on the rules, given the employment impact of these types of measures. We're consulting in good faith.</p><p>The rules as they are published are intended to give effect to the program as the government announced it and they are there for senators to see and scrutinise, but they're not embedded in the legislation so that we can have that proper period of consultation with employee organisations, employer organisations and other stakeholder groups who have a vested interest in ensuring that the program works as it's intended to work without any other side effects or consequences. That is the rationale behind trying to move as quickly as we can post budget to legislate and give certainty to the program, but the rules are providing, as is often the case with grant type programs, the flexibility for us to be able to make sure that there aren't unintended consequences that come through the quick passage of legislation but instead the adaptability from those types of rules to be able to address issues in response to any stakeholder concerns.</p> <p class="speaker">Jacqui Lambie</p><p>I am just asking one question. Is this going to be the new status quo? Is this the way we are going to operate during COVID-19? Can you see the future operating like this? Or are we going to start going back to doing things properly and in the way they should be done in this chamber? Do you see a future where we are going back to doing things properly, correctly and by the book and not doing things off the cuff?</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|