House debates

Tuesday, 31 August 2021

Matters of Public Importance

JobKeeper Payment

4:19 pm

Photo of Susan TemplemanSusan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I think the member for Barker, rather than letting that beer go cold, has been knocking back a few, because he's rewriting a history that this place saw, and that history was Labor pushing with the unions for a JobKeeper-style program, a wage subsidy that would keep the connection between the workers and their employers. We were not behind but way ahead of the government in its thinking. What we got when the government finally went, 'Oh my goodness, there are queues at Centrelink; we'd better do something'—because what they'd done, as usual, was not enough—was that they rushed legislation into this place. I think it says something about us that we trusted this government. We should have known better. I know. I apologise. I am very happy to say: 'We made a mistake in thinking that those opposite would do the right thing. We made a mistake in trusting that they would do what they said that they would do. We acted in good faith.' I have had people say to me: 'How could you have supported something that allowed companies that did not need JobKeeper to take $13 billion of taxpayer funds and never have to repay it? How could you have let that happen?' But of course we trusted them to do the right thing. What a mistake that has been for the taxpayers—that any trust was placed in this government to do anything that might be a good, sensible spend of taxpayer funds.

All the regulations and the rules were to be made once the legislation went through. We didn't want to delay legislation that would get money in the pockets of small businesses and employers who were looking at putting workers off. We didn't want to delay that a moment. Those opposite came up with a piece of legislation with no compliance rules and said, 'It's okay; we're going to look after it.' Well, we've certainly learnt our lesson and we will not be trusting this government. No-one should trust this government with sensible spending of taxpayer dollars. There have been so many rorts.

I still am staggered. I ran a business for 25 years and I grew up in my dad's shop, so I've been around business all my life—my dad was an accountant originally. Fancy someone not taking a moment in the rush to get this money out the door—and getting the money out the door was a good thing to do—and saying: 'Hang on; what if they turn out not to need it? What happens then?' That would have taken just a moment's thought, and we wouldn't be talking about $13 billion. That is the same amount we spend on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. That is $13 billion that could right now be supporting the businesses in my community who not only missed out last time but are missing out this time.

What is also staggering about a government that talks a lot about how it likes small business is that it does very little to demonstrate that it cares one iota about small business. What they've done in this latest lockdown sums it up for me, because they've said: 'What happens to small business is not our responsibility. It's the states'. It's hands off from us. Small businesses are on their own.' That's what they've done. That's why small businesses in New South Wales have been stuck with a mishmash of assistance, where there are multiple gaps for them to fall through.

It builds on the failures of the JobKeeper scheme last year, because sometimes it's the same people who are missing out. Those people look at the $13 billion and they see how obscene it is that companies that did not need this money are not required to give it back and, not only that, they're not even properly asked by the government to give it back. There is not even a statement of, 'Hey, mate, do the right thing.' Gerry Harvey has today been shamed into returning money. It shouldn't come to that. This should be something where the government says: 'We made a mistake. We didn't put the rules in place for good governance that should have been there.' I don't think this was an intentional rort. There are plenty of those on the other side, where they are intentionally ripping off people. I think this was just—it's not parliamentary to say it the way I'd like to say it—an error or a stuff-up, and that's what we're facing the consequences of: incompetence.

Comments

No comments