|
senate vote 2020-11-10#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2023-01-20 15:27:59
|
Title
Bills — Economic Recovery Package (Jobmaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020; in Committee- Economic Recovery Package (Jobmaker Hiring Credit) Amendment Bill 2020 - in Committee - Safeguards
Description
<p class="speaker">Mehreen Faruqi</p><p>I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1066:</p>-
- The majority voted in favour of [amendment (1) on sheet 1066](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-11-10.43.1), which was moved by NSW Senator [Mehreen Faruqi](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/mehreen_faruqi) (Greens). This means it failed.
- ### What did this amendment do?
- Senator Faruqi [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2020-11-10.43.1):
- > *As the bill currently stands, there is no dispute resolution process for resolving issues relating to the JobMaker hiring credit. Those issues include workers who might be fired, for instance, or who have their hours reduced. This will leave workers without access to necessary protections.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 27), before item 5, insert:*
- >
- > *4C Before section 8*
- >
- > *Insert:*
- >
- > *7C Requirements for rules that provide for jobmaker hiring credit scheme—ineligibility for firing employees etc. to obtain payments*
- >
- > *(1) This section applies if rules are made for the purposes of subsection 7(1A) that provide for a kind of payment known as the jobmaker hiring credit.*
- >
- > *(2) The rules must provide that if:*
- >
- >> *(a) an entity terminates the employment, or reduces the ordinary hours of work, of an existing employee of the entity; and*
- >>
- >> *(b) a purpose of doing so (whether or not the sole or dominant purpose) is any of the following:*
- >>
- >>> *(i) to engage one or more other employees in respect of whom the entity can claim the payment;*
- >>>
- >>> *(ii) to facilitate an associated entity (within the meaning of the Corporations Act 2001) of the entity engaging one or more other employees in respect of whom the associated entity can claim the payment;*
- >>>
- >>> *(iii) to otherwise enable the entity or associated entity to be eligible for the payment or increase the amount of the payment to which the entity or associated entity is entitled;*
- >>>
- >>> *then the entity, and the associated entity (if any), are not eligible for the payment in respect of any employees.*
- >
- > *(3) To avoid doubt, this section and rules made for the purposes of this section do not limit the Commissioner's powers under section 19 (contrived schemes).*
<p class="italic">(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (before line 27), before item 5, insert:</p><p class="italic">4C Before section 8</p><p class="italic">Insert:</p><p class="italic">7C Requirements for rules that provide for jobmaker hiring credit scheme—ineligibility for firing employees etc. to obtain payments</p><p class="italic">(1) This section applies if rules are made for the purposes 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 provide that if:</p><p class="italic">(a) an entity terminates the employment, or reduces the ordinary hours of work, of an existing employee of the entity; and</p><p class="italic">(b) a purpose of doing so (whether or not the sole or dominant purpose) is any of the following:</p><p class="italic">(i) to engage one or more other employees in respect of whom the entity can claim the payment;</p><p class="italic">(ii) to facilitate an associated entity (within the meaning of the <i>Corporations Act 2001</i>) of the entity engaging one or more other employees in respect of whom the associated entity can claim the payment;</p><p class="italic">(iii) to otherwise enable the entity or associated entity to be eligible for the payment or increase the amount of the payment to which the entity or associated entity is entitled;</p><p class="italic">then the entity, and the associated entity (if any), are not eligible for the payment in respect of any employees.</p><p class="italic">(3) To avoid doubt, this section and rules made for the purposes of this section do not limit the Commissioner's powers under section 19 (contrived schemes).</p><p>This amendment is co-sponsored by Labor. As the bill currently stands, there is no dispute resolution process for resolving issues relating to the JobMaker hiring credit. Those issues include workers who might be fired, for instance, or who have their hours reduced. This will leave workers without access to necessary protections.</p> <p class="speaker">Opposition Senator</p><p>An opposition senator interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Mehreen Faruqi</p><p>I am speaking to the wrong amendment?</p> <p class="speaker">Deborah O'Neill</p><p>Just to clarify, you—</p> <p class="speaker">Mehreen Faruqi</p><p>Absolutely, that's on sheet 1086.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: You have indicated that you are moving amendment (1) on sheet 1066. Do you wish to speak to that amendment?</p><p>I do. I will speak to the safeguards. This amendment is also co-sponsored by the Labor Party. This amendment is about introducing safeguards in the bill. We have deep concerns that, as the bill currently stands, there is a real possibility that workers will lose their jobs or might lose hours as a result of the scheme. We are very concerned that a business will be able to fiddle with its staffing structures or its numbers to increase its headcount and it will also be able to fiddle with its payroll in order to receive this hiring credit, for instance. We want to make sure that that can't happen, and this amendment introduces those safeguards for workers.</p><p>The amendment prevents the firing and hiring of workers in order to receive the credit and it protects ordinary working hours of workers who already work for those companies, to make sure that their hours aren't reduced to make way for the minimum 20 hours of credit for eligible workers. It's a pretty straightforward amendment. It provides safeguards for the workers who are currently working within those companies. I hope that my colleagues can support this amendment, so we can at least improve this pretty terrible bill a little bit. I commend the amendment to the Senate.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>Yes, the Labor Party co-sponsored this amendment with the Greens, and we are pleased to work constructively with them. During the Senate estimates process, Treasury said that the design of the scheme, particularly the dual requirements on total headcount and total payroll increasing, plus time costs and other behavioural factors, meant that businesses were unlikely to fire existing staff or reduce their hours. However, we note, particularly with large companies, there could still be plenty of scope for and a capacity to incentivise the displacement of staff, including by reducing their hours, and to motivate unfair dismissals.</p><p>Reading this amendment in conjunction with the amendment on sheet 1086, it's very important that the rules of the scheme make entities that terminate employment or reduce ordinary hours for existing workers ineligible for the scheme. In addition, I think it's worth speaking to the amendment on sheet 1086, which we are also co-sponsoring with the Greens. Again, in the context of the very real problem of incentivising unfair dismissals, the displacement of existing workers and the reduction of hours, it's critical that the Fair Work Commission has the ability to resolve disputes, which we think will inevitably arise. The Fair Work Commission is the best place for these disputes to be heard and resolved, because the disputes intersect with the idea that the scheme has been misused, which the ATO needs to have oversight of, with the motivation for an employer to unfairly dismiss someone or improperly reduce the hours of a casual worker. We want the rules to provide for arbitration as a means to resolve disputes, and this amendment ensures that.</p><p>Every senator here, including those in the government, says they want to ensure that existing workers are not displaced. So it's important that there is scrutiny by the Fair Work Commission on jobs and hours, and the dispute resolution process, and indeed that, as covered by the amendment on sheet 1066, there are very real safeguards to ensure that businesses uphold their obligations under this legislation.</p> <p class="speaker">Simon Birmingham</p><p>The government opposes the proposed amendment. We do so on the basis that, as proposed, the program has a number of safeguards firmly in place. To be eligible for the hiring credit, an employer must have increased their headcount—that is, the number of total employees in the business must have gone up. In addition, an employer must have increased their payroll—that is, the amount that they are paying their employees in totality must also have gone up. So a business will not be able to sack somebody and replace them with somebody else, or multiples of somebody else, because in the end both the total number of employees and the total payroll need to increase for an employer to be eligible under this scheme. They're the additionality provisions about ensuring that it helps to support new jobs for young people in Australia. There are detailed record-keeping arrangements in place to ensure that those provisions can be enforced and are adhered to. I also note that all of the provisions of the Fair Work Act in relation to matters of unfair dismissal and general protections continue to exist and apply to protect existing employees.</p> <p class="speaker">Deborah O'Neill</p><p>Senator Faruqi, I'm just seeking from you a little information. I noted that you commenced your remarks about the amendment on sheet 1086 and then you moved to sheet 1066. I note also that Senator Pratt has already made her remarks with regard to the amendments on sheets 1066 and 1086. If you so wish, you may speak to the amendment on 1086 separately, or you can seek leave to move both of the amendments together. What would you like to do?</p> <p class="speaker">Mehreen Faruqi</p><p>I'm moving the amendments separately. At this time I'm moving amendment (1) on sheet 1066 only.</p><p class="italic">The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 1066 moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to.</p> -
-
|