TRANSCRIPT: DOORSTOP - CANBERRA - DEC 7, 2020

E&OE TRANSCRIPT
DOORSTOP INTERVIEW
PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA
MONDAY, 7 DECEMBER 2020

SUBJECTS: Cashless debit card; Bridget Archer; IR changes; government’s attack on casual workers; wage theft; unions.

TONY BURKE, SHADOW MINISTER FOR INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS: Before I go to industrial relations, I just want to say something quickly about a vote that's coming up in the parliament. We've just had two votes on the cashless debit card. On each of those, the Member for Bass has abstained. Now the gap will look a bit larger than it's been because we've had a few people who were excluded from parliament for an hour during question time. But when we get to the final vote - if you take out the people who are excluded for now - and they will be back in the chamber by the time we get to the final vote - we're talking about a margin on the floor of one. If the Member for Bass comes into the chamber, and votes against legislation that she opposes, then the vote will be a tie. This will happen in the next 20 or 30 minutes or so. In all the precedents that the speaker has always followed if a vote is a tie, it is declared lost. And that would be the end of the cashless debit card legislation. So I don't often go out on parliamentary procedure, but I think this one matters. We have a member of the government who has given a fairly passionate speech about all the problems with this legislation. There are three votes that happen. On the first two she has abstained. The third vote when it happens is the only one where if she comes in and votes against the legislation it would result in a draw. All the times up until now a draw would mean the bill continued but on the third reading goes a draw means the bill fails. I don't know which way she'll vote. She may abstain, she may come in and vote for the government, the Member for Bass may vote against. But whatever she does will determine the cashless debit card legislation.

JOURNALIST: So if she abstains from that in the third reading vote –

BURKE: Then the legislation will pass. If she votes against it, it will be a tie. Presuming everybody else votes the way that they have. Now, I want to say three things about industrial relations because there's been three significant ways that the issue has advanced during the course of the day. The first in terms of whether or not workers will be worse off, the second in terms of ongoing flexibilities, and the third issue goes to arbitration. The Prime Minister today refused to give a commitment that no worker will be worse off. When he was asked he would only talk about people who currently don't have a job. And he refused, quite deliberately, to give any guarantee for people who are currently in work. That really ought to send a shudder down the spine of anybody who is worried about how they might be treated at work under some of the government's proposals. Proposals where we still haven't seen the detail and only certain parts of it have been released. But if it were the case that no one in a job was going to be worse off, if that were the case, if you could give a guarantee that no worker would be worse off, the Prime Minister would have given that guarantee today. And he didn’t. Second issue. When JobKeeper was first introduced, we were encouraged by the government to vote for certain flexibilities that they said were the only way you could make JobKeeper work. It wasn't our ideal mechanism. But in the interests of cooperation, in the interests of getting the wage subsidy out the door, we supported those flexibilities. What happened then, a few weeks ago, was the government said they now wanted to extend those flexibilities to people who weren't on JobKeeper. And we started to think at that point, are they going to continue to use the pandemic as a cover for cutting wages and conditions? Today in his media conference, the Minister for Industrial Relations made clear they do want to extend those further. What do those flexibilities mean? They mean as your business gets better your take home pay can go down. They result in cuts of hours, which means for take home pay, a cut to your pay. That's what has now been foreshadowed today, that initially we were told it would only be for JobKeeper, then it was just for the transition. Now it's been announced by the government today they want to extend it and extended again. The third issue I want to refer to goes to the casuals announcement today. My concern when I first looked at those reports this morning was to think through what actually happens, where what the minister is talking about is breached. What in fact happens if a casual is still abused at work, and treated like they're in a permanent job but not given any of the job security from a permanent job? Well, Christian’s Porter has made clear exactly what happens and it’s this: nothing. Why nothing? Because the arbitration he referred to, he kept saying “arbitration by consent”. If you're dealing with an employer, who is a bad actor, if you're dealing with an employer, who doesn't want to give their workers the entitlement of a permanent job, as if they're going to consent to saying “Oh, well, now we'll go to arbitration so you can force me to.” The moment Christian Porter said it would only be by consent we knew this: if the rules are being breached, a bad employer will never consent to arbitration. And a vulnerable casual will almost never be able to say “Well, there you go, I can now take you to the Federal Court of Australia”. The government is establishing a situation where an employer who wants to exploit their workers will never find themselves in a situation where the rules are forced on them because they won't consent to arbitration. And a vulnerable worker won't have the resources to be able to take them to the federal court.

JOURNALIST: Do you welcome Christian Porter’s promise to introduce criminal penalties for wage theft and to fine employers based on the benefit they gain from underpaying workers?

BURKE: As a matter of principle today is not the first time he's referred to some of those concepts. And we've been supportive of them having that sort of a crackdown. Let's not forget, this came off the back of a long period of horrific examples of wage theft, where the government at the time was wanting to go after trade unions for paperwork breaches and wasn't willing to do anything against employers who are engaged in wage theft. That's how we got the government to this point. And the fact that they're now talking many months later about legislating is something that as a principle, we welcome. I'll wait till I see the detail in terms of the legislation itself before I commit any further to that.

JOURNALIST: Do you think that the penalties go far enough in that legislation?

BURKE: Well, we’re talking about legislation that I haven't seen that that hasn't been released? So the principles that the Attorney-General spoke about today, those principles take it a step forward in terms of dealing with wage theft. But how they actually unfold in legislation, I'll have to wait till I see the bill on Wednesday.

JOURNALIST: One of the things we do know about it is it will only apply - the criminal offense that is - where there’s a deliberate and systematic pattern of underpayment. Should that be expanded to include businesses that for example are grossly negligent in their approach to payment?

BURKE: It’s a reasonable question but I'm not going to speculate on words of legislation that I haven't seen.

JOURNALIST: The legislation will be introduced on Wednesday. Do you have concerns that we've been discussing legislation today that we haven't seen and seems to be being drip-fed out?

BURKE: Yeah, I do and what it means - and I feel for the position that that puts the print journos in, I've got to say, quite genuinely – because you get given a story but you don't get given what the legislation actually is to be able to fact check it. So there are a series of holes that I pointed out this morning where the journos yesterday weren’t to know whether they were in the legislation or not because I presume they are provided government talking points rather than being provided with the actual bill. What it means is we end up in a debate that is about announcements and spin rather than a debate about what this will mean for workers on the ground. Now, I'm not surprised the government's wanted to end up in a debate about announcement and spin. But the sooner we end up in a situation where we're looking at the actual legislation, and going through an extensive committee process to work out how that will interact with all the different forms of work across the country, until we get to that point the debate won't have the full depth that it should have.

JOURNALIST: Has the government given Labor any indication yet as to whether they'll be pushing through this omnibus bill as a whole or whether there'll be opportunity for Labor to vote for aspects it supports like potentially the wage theft penalties while opposing other aspects like the casual changes.

BURKE: Can I say we're not out there desperately looking for a fight. But when the government puts forward something unreasonable, that is going to attack our principle of decent wages and secure jobs, then we will stand in their way. Now, I was heartened today when the Minister for Industrial Relations made a comment where he said the government's still listen. And if that means we end up with a constructive approach from the government there may well be a way through. But certainly on what he said today – there's no point putting protections on a piece of paper if they're unenforceable. And if the government's made a deliberate decision to not enforce them. Now, if arbitration is only by consent, and the only option for the worker is Federal Court of Australia or nothing … You know realistically, how many casuals on the checkouts, cleaners, working in cafes, are going to say “Well, I really needed a bit more security but you're not giving it so I'm now going to take you to the Federal Court of Australia”. It's just not the real world. But none of that detail was provided to the print journos who had to write their stories for today.

JOURNALIST: On the union demergers this morning, you said you wanted to be constructive but you also said you didn't want unions to be tied up with red tape. Can you be clearer about what is a red line that Labor won't cross? When does an administrative process to check whether members genuinely want to form a separate union, when does that become red tape that you couldn't vote for?

BURKE: Effectively, we had a similar argument during ensuring integrity. We've had similar disagreements with the Registered Organisations Commission and some of its operation, for example. The prime role of unions is to be out there representing their members. That's their role, that's what they're there for, that's what they live for, that's what they want to do. So if the approach from the government is one that ties up organisations up in bureaucracy - and it might not be - but if it does that then we’d look very harshly at that sort of approach. If it's something that is simply recognising and trying to find a way through in certain situations to recognise the democratic rights of members within a division, then that might be something where there's a more constructive way forward. But we still don't have the final form of that legislation. I think that one will be introduced tomorrow but I'm not sure of that.

JOURNALIST: If it is introduced tomorrow is there a chance of a vote on it by the end of the week?

BURKE: It's the usual situation, I think, which is if the government approaches things in a constructive way, then there's dozens of pieces of legislation on the notice paper this week, it's a packed program already that they're trying to get through. And we are co-operative where it's reasonable legislation. Where it's not reasonable legislation we stand in the government's way and that's the right thing for us to do.

JOURNALIST: Because Tony Maher is saying – in a letter to his members in the mining division of the CFMEU – is talking about it being potentially passed this week so he can take it to a vote at his convention in March next year.

BURKE: Well what I'm saying is I can't give you a concluded view. Is it procedurally possible? Yes, it is. But I can't give you a concluded view on what our position will be. At this point the final form of the legislation is not something that I have, same as with the omnibus bill. Okay, thank you very much.

ENDS