Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Industry) Share this | Hansard source

We certainly are facing some very significant economic challenges in this country. From the outset, when the global pandemic hit, Labor has been seeking to work with the government to provide the best response to the economic challenges ahead, and not just the economic challenges but the health challenges ahead. If you look at the way in which we've presented suggestions and ideas to the government to make sure that they get the policies and the support right, I think it's fair to say, by way of contrast, that we have acted as a responsible opposition, which is very different from the way in which those opposite responded during the time of the global financial crisis. At all times our suggestions, our proposals, our ideas that come to this place and are put to the government are put in good faith. It was only eight months ago, in the face of the pandemic, that we were suggesting the government entertain the idea of introducing a wage subsidy as other countries were doing to support their economies, support their businesses and support their workforce.

It's really important to remember the initial response by the Prime Minister to the question that they should be considering a wage subsidy, because the answer to that question eight months ago was that there was no need for a wage subsidy. Then the government closed the parliament, and it was to be closed for just over five months. I'm assuming they returned to their electorates and saw the very long queues outside Centrelink offices as thousands upon thousands of workers were losing their jobs. Then we reconvened the parliament and, we're happy to say—we welcomed it—the government changed its mind and accepted the proposition that a wage subsidy was absolutely critical to save our economy, to save thousands upon thousands of businesses and to support millions of jobs. And we say to the government that they did the right thing there. It might have been afterthought, but we were putting that proposition in good faith, and the government accepted that.

Today, unfortunately, again a suggestion by the Labor leader to the Prime Minister and to the government that we make sure that we safeguard workers in the hiring credit initiative was not accepted. Then again, I guess I could imagine that, given that they failed to accept the initial proposition in March, it may take longer for the government to understand that if you're going to introduce a scheme that's to add additional jobs to the labour market then you must prevent loopholes to allow rogue employers to displace, dismiss or reduce hours of their existing workforce. That's all we're seeking to do today and that's why we implore the government to take seriously the suggestions made by federal Labor, because all along we have been seeking to work constructively with the government to look after workers.

Let's remember the position we are in. We are in a recession for the first time in 30 years. Most Australians in the workforce don't remember the recession in the early 1990s. And so many Australians never recovered in that recession. As a result of losing their job, they did not find their way back into the workforce. That is why it is so important that, when we decide to deploy taxpayers' money to look after businesses and to look after workers, we safeguard the interests of those workers. If we can stop them being disconnected—that is, losing their jobs—then it's much more likely that they will get through the recession in a way that will be much more beneficial to them and their families. There is no doubt: once you are retrenched, it is much harder to find work and, if you do find work, it's much harder to find permanent, full-time work: So the government should take seriously what we're putting.

We have nearly one million Australians who are currently unemployed. There are 1.5 million additional Australians who are underemployed. We're getting close to 20 per cent of the labour market that's underutilised. 'Underutilised'—what an economics term. For all of those 2.5 million Australians, what it means is they are struggling to make ends meet. Each one of those in that 2.5 million underemployed or unemployed are struggling to pay the bills. They're struggling to look after their families. It might be a single mum who's lost her job and who now cannot pay the rent. It's as simple as that. It may well be a family that is trying to pay the mortgage or to pay the rent and to look after their kids in the face of great economic challenges. There is just one case after another. In fact, we heard today, in question time, about a series of people—these are not abstract terms. There were Felicity, Elizabeth, Adam, Mark and others who are not going to get sufficient support from this government.

The government puts to us, 'Well, what do you think we should do instead?' We said, 'Firstly, you should have a wage subsidy.' They belatedly introduced that in the form of JobKeeper. It wasn't broad enough to protect everyone; in fact, it excluded a million workers. But certainly it did protect a lot of workers and it protected and supported a lot of businesses. It was brought in late, it was too narrow and now it's being cut too soon and abolished too early. That's what should be in place. When the Treasurer or the Prime Minister stand up and says, 'We're looking after young workers,' well, frankly, they should've maintained JobKeeper for longer, which would have provided support for workers of all ages in the time of the Morrison recession. We could have ensured that we extended that initiative for longer and made sure that those workers and those businesses would be protected.

The problem with the scheme that's being introduced, apart from obviously not providing safeguards to workers, is that many businesses will not be provided support through hiring credits. To meet the test to receive a cent under the JobMaker hiring credit scheme, they have to add to the headcount in their workforce. They cannot be provided with any JobKeeper support at the same time. Many businesses that are struggling to recover from the close-downs that occurred for legitimate health reasons will have JobKeeper ripped away, so they will have no support there. And now they're supposed to not only maintain the workers that were subsidised by JobKeeper but also find extra money to add to their headcount in order to get one extra cent from the government. That will mean that many, many businesses that have not fully recovered will not be getting any support under the hiring credit.

Let's remember the Treasurer's exaggerations and boasts about the scale of this initiative. On every occasion that the Treasurer gets up in this place he pretends that there will be 450,000 jobs created by the JobMaker hiring credit scheme, which is completely and utterly untrue. Treasury belled the cat during estimates and confirmed there would be, at best, 45,000 additional jobs in the labour market as a result of that scheme—10 per cent of what the Treasurer is suggesting in this place. He stands up and, in an absolutely arrogant manner, suggests something that is completely fanciful and untrue. He should not continue to do that when it's been made very clear by his department that there will not be such support.

We say to the government again that there are amendments that should be debated. The bill has gone back to the Senate, and no doubt debates will ensue on the amendments. We say to the government that we support the scheme. It is modest. It isn't as big as it should be. It's not as big as the Treasurer says it is, but it's still something Labor will support. But, in supporting this scheme, we want to make sure that the workers who currently have jobs are not going to be exposed to dismissal or losing their hours of work, to be replaced by subsidised workers. If the government don't think that will happen, then there would be no reason for them to not support that amendment. The amendment just provides that safeguard. And why would a government not want to support those safeguards in order to ensure there have to be additional employees in a time of the worst recession since the Great Depression?

See this speech in context