Division Description Changes — Bills — Economic Recovery Package (Jobmaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020; Consideration of House of Representatives Message — 11th Nov 2020

Change	Division
senate vote 2020-11-11#10 Edited by mackay staff on 2020-11-20 14:51:19	Title Bills — Economic Recovery Package (Jobmaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020; Consideration of House of Representatives Message Economic Recovery Package (Jobmaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020 - Consideration of House of Representatives Message - Don't insist on amendments Description ~~<p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p>~~ ~~<p>I move:</p>~~ <p class="italic">That the committee does not insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.</p> *The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2020-11-11.181.1) "t*hat the committee does not insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed." Because the bill - minus these certain amendments - has already passed in the House, the bill can now become law. ### What does the bill do? According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd023): > The purpose of the Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020 (the Bill) is to amend the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020 (the Payments and Benefits Act) to enable payments to be made to help improve people’s prospects of gaining paid employment or to increase workforce participation, between 7 October 2020 and 6 October 2022. > > The Bill also allows for the establishment of a scheme related to one or more of the payments intended to help improve people’s prospects of gaining paid employment or increasing workforce participation. ~~<p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p>~~ <p>I seek to debate the motion before the chair, before the question is put, and say that the Senate should insist on its amendments to this bill. This bill requires the transparency that has been put forward by the Senate in this legislation, such as the quarterly reports and the protection for workers that this place has seen as valid and important to be in the JobMaker legislation. It's all very well for the government to try to slate blame on this place for, indeed, wanting to put reasonable legislative amendments in place, but it is on the government's head if this legislation doesn't proceed today because it has not seen fit to agree to these extremely reasonable amendments.</p> <p>These amendments simply put forward the idea and put into the new rules that there needs to be transparency so that we can see properly that the JobMaker hiring credit scheme is working and that we can also ensure that workers aren't worse off under this legislation. It is critical that the Senate stand up for itself and say to the government, 'What we've put forward is absolutely and entirely reasonable.' The government has the opportunity to get on with this legislation, because in the Labor Party we have, unlike the crossbench, expressed our support for this legislation.</p> <p>But what the Senate has resolved is that the legislation, if it were to proceed—and this we have in common, irrespective of whether there are senators here who don't want to see the legislation proceed at all—needs to be amended in this transparent way. So it is entirely up to the government to say, 'Look, what the Senate has asked for is entirely reasonable; it's not difficult to do.' In fact, the government hasn't even finished drafting rules for this legislation—the delegated legislation inside it. The fact that the Senate expresses some opinion about what should be in those rules is not a difficult thing. It is an entirely reasonable thing. The drafting of the rules can be done in a way that is entirely consistent with what the Senate has asked for.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Mehreen Faruqi</p>~~ <p>The Greens have a very strong position that the Senate should insist on its amendments to this Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020. We've been here for the last two days debating the JobMaker hiring credit scheme which, in the legislation, is no scheme at all. There have been members who have stood up—many members over the last two days—and spoken about the bill. And many on this side have expressed their deep concerns about the bill and the implications of the bill.</p> <p>The Greens really believe that it is, at the end of the day, a corporate welfare scheme with very little chance, or indeed no promise, of creating good, secure, well-paying jobs. We have expressed our concerns that the bill does nothing to prevent the wage subsidy from being used to bolster corporate profits, because we know that many businesses which will be eligible for the scheme have made profits during the pandemic. They have given millions of dollars of dividends to their shareholders through the public purse. They have paid their executives bonuses using public money. We know that there is nothing in this bill preventing wage thieves, for instance, from not having their eligibility revoked—and we know the history of many of the big corporations which have really been exploiting and underpaying their workers. This bill doesn't provide a dispute resolution process. This leaves workers who have their hours reduced or even lose their jobs really exposed. And we know that none of the regulations are in this bill.</p> <p>On all these issues we have moved amendments, to make sure that this bill, in some way, shape or form, is improved. Although I'm very disappointed that the Greens amendments on these issues haven't been supported by the majority of the Senate, I have to accept that that's the way it is. But there have been amendments that the Senate has approved and passed. One of those is a very crucial amendment that I moved on behalf of the Greens. It makes sure that there are safeguards for workers and makes sure that there are protections for existing workers, to ensure that they do not lose hours of work or their jobs so that businesses which fiddle their books can hire workers who might be eligible for the credit. New jobs should not come at the expense of existing jobs and workers must be protected. We know who the workers will be that will go. It will be older workers. With the way this legislation stands now, companies can easily get rid of those older workers to make way for other workers who they will get a benefit for through the scheme.</p> <p>We note that the Senate accepted an amendment about creating transparency and reporting on what happens. The government in the House of Representatives did not accept the Senate's will. That's in a way really subverting what the Senate said. We won't let that happen. It shouldn't be allowed to happen. We have been here discussing and debating. The will of the Senate should stand. This bill should be accepted in the way that it was amended. We are here right now making sure that that will happen.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Nick McKim</p>~~ <p>The Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020 should stand as it was when it left the Senate because the amendments that were made to this legislation were sensible and necessary, particularly the amendment moved by Senator Faruqi on behalf of the Australian Greens that would prevent businesses from firing existing workers in order to hire workers who are eligible for the hiring credit so that those businesses can receive the subsidy. The amendment also protects the ordinary working hours of existing workers. It makes sure that their hours are not reduced to make way for the minimum 20 hours of work those eligible for the credit must do.</p> <p>The government claims it has headcount and payroll protections in place; however, these are not adequate and will not stop businesses from rorting the scheme in order to take advantage of the subsidy. We have to enshrine protections for workers in law because the government's track record on protecting workers shows that they cannot be trusted and that the draft rules are insufficient. We need to stand up for workers and make sure that this bill does not allow unscrupulous companies to fire existing workers in order to turn around and hire workers who are eligible for the hiring credit.</p> <p>This amendment is particularly important for workers in my home state of Tasmania. The labour force data from September this year shows that there are 252,000 people employed in Tasmania. This amendment will protect those workers from being fired so that businesses can replace them with workers eligible for the credit. This amendment will also protect those Tasmanian workers from having their hours cut so that businesses can turn around and give those hours to workers eligible for the credit so that they meet the 20-hour criteria. The unemployment rate in my home state of Tasmania is 7.6 per cent. That is obviously too high. This amendment will stop that rate going up, by ensuring existing Tasmanian workers retain their jobs.</p> ~~<p class="speaker">Katy Gallagher</p>~~ <p>I will make a few comments. The fact that the government has refused to accept the amendments and is asking the Senate to not insist on them without an explanation really begs the question: why is the government opposed to amendments that stop employers from being able to sack existing workers? I think that is the question that the government needs to answer here. It is very instructive, and I guess we shouldn't be surprised by this, because the government never works collaboratively with the chambers. When it's convenient the government works collaboratively with the Senate, but not this time. The Senate has expressed its view in these amendments, the amendments were returned to the House and the government has said no. There was no engagement, no explanation, no justification for why relatively minor but important amendments could not be agreed to.</p> <p>We have a lot of issues with the JobMaker hiring credit scheme. I think JobMaker was announced in June, when the employment department knew nothing about it. JobMaker existed for about 4½ months before any detail was released. Some detail was provided in the budget, and at that time the government claimed that the hiring credit scheme would create 450,000 jobs. In estimates we found out that the Treasury view is that only about 10 per cent, or 45,000, of those jobs will be created. We have concerns about this scheme. We are in a deep recession. We have nearly a million unemployed people. We will have 160,000 extra people in the unemployment queues by Christmas, and the queues are already long. We have seven jobseekers for every job ad.</p> <p>This hiring credit scheme may do some good for young workers, and that is why we have supported the scheme, albeit with concerns. Those concerns go to issues like job security, the fact that the scheme is pretty modest and the fact that government has no answer for what it will do for unemployed workers over the age of 35. The Restart scheme has been a failure in terms of the government's own targets. Despite having concerns about the scheme, in the same spirit of bipartisanship with which we have engaged in tackling the pandemic, we have been prepared to work with the government and support proposals, even if they weren't perfect. We worked with the government on JobKeeper. We called for a wage subsidy scheme weeks before the government finally agreed to one. When the scheme was introduced, it excluded a lot of workers and now the government is reducing the payment way too soon, in our view.</p> <p>We will support the JobMaker hiring credit scheme, but we think that protections should be put in place to protect existing workers against rogue employers. Frankly, it's been months since the JobMaker scheme was announced. The government has had enough time to put in place sensible legislation, but it hasn't been able to do so. We have half-baked legislation, with rules being written on the side but not released until quite late. We are prepared to work with the government, and that's why these amendments exist. The amendments specifically offer some protections for existing workers, so that rogue employers cannot churn through employees. Rogue employers will be prevented from sacking existing workers and bringing on other workers. We think these amendments offer the necessary protections that should be in the legislation.</p> <p>There is also an amendment concerning transparency, so that this government, which we know likes a fair bit of secrecy and refuses to provide information, can report on how this scheme is going. Those are the reasons that we believe these amendments should be supported. We will be insisting on the amendments. We wish the government would work more collaboratively when the Senate expresses its views on things like this, instead of making a flat rejection without any explanation. These amendments are about protecting working people. We want people to keep their jobs and we want the government to create new jobs, but we don't want a scheme with loopholes and room for rogue employers to manoeuvre to force existing employees out of work just so these employers can access the scheme. It's up to the government to explain why it finds these amendments offensive. If the government finds these amendments offensive, it obviously has no problem with the lack of job security in this country and the ability of some employers who are not eligible for this scheme to lay off people and bring on others. That is our major concern and it remains our major concern. We wish the government shared this concern.</p> ~~<p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>~~

~~Simon Birmingham~~
~~I move:~~
That the committee does not insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed.
The majority voted in favour of a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2020-11-11.181.1) "*that the committee does not insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has disagreed*." Because the bill - minus these certain amendments - has already passed in the House, the bill can now become law.
### What does the bill do?
According to the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd2021a/21bd023):
> *The purpose of the Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020 (the Bill) is to amend the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020 (the Payments and Benefits Act) to enable payments to be made to help improve people’s prospects of gaining paid employment or to increase workforce participation, between 7 October 2020 and 6 October 2022.*
>
> *The Bill also allows for the establishment of a scheme related to one or more of the payments intended to help improve people’s prospects of gaining paid employment or increasing workforce participation.*
~~Louise Pratt~~
I seek to debate the motion before the chair, before the question is put, and say that the Senate should insist on its amendments to this bill. This bill requires the transparency that has been put forward by the Senate in this legislation, such as the quarterly reports and the protection for workers that this place has seen as valid and important to be in the JobMaker legislation. It's all very well for the government to try to slate blame on this place for, indeed, wanting to put reasonable legislative amendments in place, but it is on the government's head if this legislation doesn't proceed today because it has not seen fit to agree to these extremely reasonable amendments.
These amendments simply put forward the idea and put into the new rules that there needs to be transparency so that we can see properly that the JobMaker hiring credit scheme is working and that we can also ensure that workers aren't worse off under this legislation. It is critical that the Senate stand up for itself and say to the government, 'What we've put forward is absolutely and entirely reasonable.' The government has the opportunity to get on with this legislation, because in the Labor Party we have, unlike the crossbench, expressed our support for this legislation.
But what the Senate has resolved is that the legislation, if it were to proceed—and this we have in common, irrespective of whether there are senators here who don't want to see the legislation proceed at all—needs to be amended in this transparent way. So it is entirely up to the government to say, 'Look, what the Senate has asked for is entirely reasonable; it's not difficult to do.' In fact, the government hasn't even finished drafting rules for this legislation—the delegated legislation inside it. The fact that the Senate expresses some opinion about what should be in those rules is not a difficult thing. It is an entirely reasonable thing. The drafting of the rules can be done in a way that is entirely consistent with what the Senate has asked for.
~~Mehreen Faruqi~~
The Greens have a very strong position that the Senate should insist on its amendments to this Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020. We've been here for the last two days debating the JobMaker hiring credit scheme which, in the legislation, is no scheme at all. There have been members who have stood up—many members over the last two days—and spoken about the bill. And many on this side have expressed their deep concerns about the bill and the implications of the bill.
The Greens really believe that it is, at the end of the day, a corporate welfare scheme with very little chance, or indeed no promise, of creating good, secure, well-paying jobs. We have expressed our concerns that the bill does nothing to prevent the wage subsidy from being used to bolster corporate profits, because we know that many businesses which will be eligible for the scheme have made profits during the pandemic. They have given millions of dollars of dividends to their shareholders through the public purse. They have paid their executives bonuses using public money. We know that there is nothing in this bill preventing wage thieves, for instance, from not having their eligibility revoked—and we know the history of many of the big corporations which have really been exploiting and underpaying their workers. This bill doesn't provide a dispute resolution process. This leaves workers who have their hours reduced or even lose their jobs really exposed. And we know that none of the regulations are in this bill.
On all these issues we have moved amendments, to make sure that this bill, in some way, shape or form, is improved. Although I'm very disappointed that the Greens amendments on these issues haven't been supported by the majority of the Senate, I have to accept that that's the way it is. But there have been amendments that the Senate has approved and passed. One of those is a very crucial amendment that I moved on behalf of the Greens. It makes sure that there are safeguards for workers and makes sure that there are protections for existing workers, to ensure that they do not lose hours of work or their jobs so that businesses which fiddle their books can hire workers who might be eligible for the credit. New jobs should not come at the expense of existing jobs and workers must be protected. We know who the workers will be that will go. It will be older workers. With the way this legislation stands now, companies can easily get rid of those older workers to make way for other workers who they will get a benefit for through the scheme.
We note that the Senate accepted an amendment about creating transparency and reporting on what happens. The government in the House of Representatives did not accept the Senate's will. That's in a way really subverting what the Senate said. We won't let that happen. It shouldn't be allowed to happen. We have been here discussing and debating. The will of the Senate should stand. This bill should be accepted in the way that it was amended. We are here right now making sure that that will happen.
~~Nick McKim~~
The Economic Recovery Package (JobMaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020 should stand as it was when it left the Senate because the amendments that were made to this legislation were sensible and necessary, particularly the amendment moved by Senator Faruqi on behalf of the Australian Greens that would prevent businesses from firing existing workers in order to hire workers who are eligible for the hiring credit so that those businesses can receive the subsidy. The amendment also protects the ordinary working hours of existing workers. It makes sure that their hours are not reduced to make way for the minimum 20 hours of work those eligible for the credit must do.
The government claims it has headcount and payroll protections in place; however, these are not adequate and will not stop businesses from rorting the scheme in order to take advantage of the subsidy. We have to enshrine protections for workers in law because the government's track record on protecting workers shows that they cannot be trusted and that the draft rules are insufficient. We need to stand up for workers and make sure that this bill does not allow unscrupulous companies to fire existing workers in order to turn around and hire workers who are eligible for the hiring credit.
This amendment is particularly important for workers in my home state of Tasmania. The labour force data from September this year shows that there are 252,000 people employed in Tasmania. This amendment will protect those workers from being fired so that businesses can replace them with workers eligible for the credit. This amendment will also protect those Tasmanian workers from having their hours cut so that businesses can turn around and give those hours to workers eligible for the credit so that they meet the 20-hour criteria. The unemployment rate in my home state of Tasmania is 7.6 per cent. That is obviously too high. This amendment will stop that rate going up, by ensuring existing Tasmanian workers retain their jobs.
~~Katy Gallagher~~
I will make a few comments. The fact that the government has refused to accept the amendments and is asking the Senate to not insist on them without an explanation really begs the question: why is the government opposed to amendments that stop employers from being able to sack existing workers? I think that is the question that the government needs to answer here. It is very instructive, and I guess we shouldn't be surprised by this, because the government never works collaboratively with the chambers. When it's convenient the government works collaboratively with the Senate, but not this time. The Senate has expressed its view in these amendments, the amendments were returned to the House and the government has said no. There was no engagement, no explanation, no justification for why relatively minor but important amendments could not be agreed to.
We have a lot of issues with the JobMaker hiring credit scheme. I think JobMaker was announced in June, when the employment department knew nothing about it. JobMaker existed for about 4½ months before any detail was released. Some detail was provided in the budget, and at that time the government claimed that the hiring credit scheme would create 450,000 jobs. In estimates we found out that the Treasury view is that only about 10 per cent, or 45,000, of those jobs will be created. We have concerns about this scheme. We are in a deep recession. We have nearly a million unemployed people. We will have 160,000 extra people in the unemployment queues by Christmas, and the queues are already long. We have seven jobseekers for every job ad.
This hiring credit scheme may do some good for young workers, and that is why we have supported the scheme, albeit with concerns. Those concerns go to issues like job security, the fact that the scheme is pretty modest and the fact that government has no answer for what it will do for unemployed workers over the age of 35. The Restart scheme has been a failure in terms of the government's own targets. Despite having concerns about the scheme, in the same spirit of bipartisanship with which we have engaged in tackling the pandemic, we have been prepared to work with the government and support proposals, even if they weren't perfect. We worked with the government on JobKeeper. We called for a wage subsidy scheme weeks before the government finally agreed to one. When the scheme was introduced, it excluded a lot of workers and now the government is reducing the payment way too soon, in our view.
We will support the JobMaker hiring credit scheme, but we think that protections should be put in place to protect existing workers against rogue employers. Frankly, it's been months since the JobMaker scheme was announced. The government has had enough time to put in place sensible legislation, but it hasn't been able to do so. We have half-baked legislation, with rules being written on the side but not released until quite late. We are prepared to work with the government, and that's why these amendments exist. The amendments specifically offer some protections for existing workers, so that rogue employers cannot churn through employees. Rogue employers will be prevented from sacking existing workers and bringing on other workers. We think these amendments offer the necessary protections that should be in the legislation.
There is also an amendment concerning transparency, so that this government, which we know likes a fair bit of secrecy and refuses to provide information, can report on how this scheme is going. Those are the reasons that we believe these amendments should be supported. We will be insisting on the amendments. We wish the government would work more collaboratively when the Senate expresses its views on things like this, instead of making a flat rejection without any explanation. These amendments are about protecting working people. We want people to keep their jobs and we want the government to create new jobs, but we don't want a scheme with loopholes and room for rogue employers to manoeuvre to force existing employees out of work just so these employers can access the scheme. It's up to the government to explain why it finds these amendments offensive. If the government finds these amendments offensive, it obviously has no problem with the lack of job security in this country and the ability of some employers who are not eligible for this scheme to lay off people and bring on others. That is our major concern and it remains our major concern. We wish the government shared this concern.
~~Long debate text truncated.~~