Thanks to a complete lack of regulatory scrutiny, companies have been allowed to keep JobKeeper even when they’ve turned a huge profit.
It’s put companies in an ethical dilemma: should they keep money they don’t deserve?
Luckily, most large companies have corporate social responsibility statements that deal with exactly this kind of question.
Crikey took a look at the statements of some of the biggest JobKeeper “leaners”.
Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial and get Crikey straight to your inbox
Harvey Norman
JobKeeper: $4 million
Latest profit: $610 million
“The board of directors of Harvey Norman Holdings is committed to a high standard of corporate governance, and is responsible for establishing, maintaining and monitoring the corporate governance framework of the consolidated entity.
“The board aims to foster a culture of compliance, with an emphasis on ethical behaviour, accountability, corporate and individual integrity and respect for others.”
Accent Group
JobKeeper: $45 million
Latest profit: $52 million
“Accent Group Limited is committed to good corporate governance practices, transparency and accountability to build sustainable value for shareholders and to drive performance and growth.
“The company has implemented controls … that are designed to safeguard the company’s interests and ensure the integrity of its reporting.
“These include accounting, financial reporting, tax risk management, safety, health and environment and other internal policies and procedures, which are directed at ensuring the company complies with all regulatory requirements and community standards.”
Star Entertainment
JobKeeper: $152 million
Latest profit: $63 million
“The company has a group-wide code of conduct which emphasises six guiding principles as core elements of the behavioural standards the company has set for itself and the behaviours expected of its employees. The guiding principles are: We respect the community, we are diverse, we comply with the law, we are ethical, we are professional, we work safely.
“The company has a compliance policy which provides a framework for acting within legal and ethical boundaries, consistent with the values that underpin the company’s business activities and strategic objectives.
Should companies pay back JobKeeper? Let us know your thoughts by writing to letters@crikey.com.au. Please include your full name to be considered for publication in Crikey’s Your Say section.
Leave a comment
well they’re obviously lifters not leaners so give em a break….
Yep, lifting that bottom line is all that matter.s
As Fraudy said in Q/T, when asked whether JobKeeper being used for executive bonuses and increased profit, “Labor is against businesses being successful and profitable“.
So, no probs.
Immoral corrupt grifters.
Yeah, Gerry, I’m looking at you.
What were the formal requirements for the JobKeeper scheme, Georgia?
When was the income drop test applied? Once at the start of the scheme to qualify/ Month by month? Quarter by quarter?
Could you provide details for Harvey Norman, Accent Group and Star Entertainment of year over year quarterly revenue comparisons pre-covid and 2020 so we can better understand (a) when the scheme served a valid purpose; (b) when the scheme devolved into largesse due to the entities’ return to profitability; (c) whether each of these companies complied with the terms of the legislation or not; (d) how the legislation might have been better drafted with the benefit of hindsight?
How about we start with the completely inadequate amount of effective regulation legislation surrounding this scheme?
We have all acknowledged that what has occurred is nothing more than the Liberal Party handing over the keys to the Reserve Bank to their mates.
Very dubious on an ethical basis. The LNP don’t do ethics well.
Probably considered a very smelly, however, falling on the side of legal.
Contrast the treatment of people in receipt of a RoboDebt with these companies and reflect on the stark difference.
On this basis alone, does the Attorney General deserve to come back to work as anything higher than a MP?
According to the ATO web site, businesses with turnover of less than $1b had to demonstrate a reduction in turnover of 30% year over year to qualify for JobKeeper in March 2020. Businesses with turnover > $1b had to demonstrate 50% reduction.
Businesses only needed to satisfy the decline in turnover test once between 30 March 200 and 27 September 2020.
For the first JobKeeper extension (28 September 2020 to 3 January 2021) the actual decline in turnover test is satisfied when turnover for the quarter ending 30 September 2020 (the months of July, August and September) has declined by the specified shortfall percentage (30% or 50%) in comparison to turnover for the quarter ending 30 September 2019.
For the second JobKeeper extension (4 January 2021 to 28 March 2021) the actual decline in turnover test is satisfied when turnover for the quarter ending 31 December 2020 (the months of October, November and December) has declined by the specified shortfall percentage (30% or 50%) in comparison to turnover for the quarter ending 31 December 2019.
It would be helpful to know which periods the alleged rorters recieved JobKeeper in, and the details of their year over year revenues for those periods.
Harvey Norman and Star each have revenues greater than $1 billion, so needed to have suffered impairment of 50% turnover to qualify.
Accent Group is a sub $1 billion company, so needed only to show impairment of 30% turnover to qualify.
Which period/s did the alleged rorters receive JobKeeper for?
When did the returns to profitability occur for each?
You just know that when the board of Toyota Australia announced it was paying back Jobkeeper that over in the HN boardroom they were staring at this news in abject horror lol