Division
Tony Burke I move amendment (12) as circulated in my name: (12) Schedule 2, item 22, page 13 (after line 30), after paragraph 789GJA(1)(c), insert: (ca) the jobkeeper enabling stand down direction will not result in the amount payable to the employee in relation to the performance of work for the employer for a jobkeeper fortnight that is within the jobkeeper enabling stand down period that is less than the amount that would be payable to the employee if the employer were entitled to a jobkeeper payment for the employee for the fortnight; and I want to draw to the attention of members of the House that this is the amendment that puts in place a safety net so that we don't end up with a situation where we end up paying people more for not working than for working and where, for an employee, the result of the business that they work for doing better and recovering is that their take-home pay goes down. As I said in my speech earlier today, we suspect this anomaly has not been put there deliberately, and we're constructively putting forward one of the ways that this can be fixed Effectively, what we're saying here is that—while, as was reflected in the previous amendments, our position is that we don't think the case has been made for the legacy companies at all—this is the specific instance where somebody who starts on a modest income would find themselves, without mutual agreement, potentially having their hours cut by 40 per cent. If you do those calculations for someone on average weekly earnings or on a higher income, you'll end up well above the JobKeeper rate, but, if you do those calculations for someone who's on a lower award rate—a hospitality worker or a retail worker—you'll end up with a situation where their hours can be cut to lower than the JobKeeper rate. To give some quick examples of the numbers and what we're talking about—and bear in mind we're talking about people on very modest incomes—a full-time retail employee on the minimum award earns $813.60
House of Representatives, 2020-08-26. affirmative: ayes 44, noes 33.
Question
Tony Burke I move amendment (12) as circulated in my name: (12) Schedule 2, item 22, page 13 (after line 30), after paragraph 789GJA(1)(c), insert: (ca) the jobkeeper enabling stand down direction will not result in the amount payable to the employee in relation to the performance of work for the employer for a jobkeeper fortnight that is within the jobkeeper enabling stand down period that is less than the amount that would be payable to the employee if the employer were entitled to a jobkeeper payment for the employee for the fortnight; and I want to draw to the attention of members of the House that this is the amendment that puts in place a safety net so that we don't end up with a situation where we end up paying people more for not working than for working and where, for an employee, the result of the business that they work for doing better and recovering is that their take-home pay goes down. As I said in my speech earlier today, we suspect this anomaly has not been put there deliberately, and we're constructively putting forward one of the ways that this can be fixed Effectively, what we're saying here is that—while, as was reflected in the previous amendments, our position is that we don't think the case has been made for the legacy companies at all—this is the specific instance where somebody who starts on a modest income would find themselves, without mutual agreement, potentially having their hours cut by 40 per cent. If you do those calculations for someone on average weekly earnings or on a higher income, you'll end up well above the JobKeeper rate, but, if you do those calculations for someone who's on a lower award rate—a hospitality worker or a retail worker—you'll end up with a situation where their hours can be cut to lower than the JobKeeper rate. To give some quick examples of the numbers and what we're talking about—and bear in mind we're talking about people on very modest incomes—a full-time retail employee on the minimum award earns $813.60
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.