TRANSCRIPT: PRESS CONFERENCE - SYDNEY - MONDAY, 6 APRIL 2020

E&OE TRANSCRIPT 
PRESS CONFERENCE
SYDNEY
MONDAY, 6 APRIL 2020

SUBJECTS: Coronavirus; wage subsidy; Parliament.

TONY BURKE: A million workers have their circumstances up in the air today as a result of the government changing its position overnight. Yesterday the government gave some hope to more than a million casual workers who had been told on the initial explanation of the JobKeeper program that they would not be eligible. Yesterday Christian Porter, in what was a very good media conference largely, gave hope to those people and said that the government had heard the arguments and they were considering them. This morning he's ruled it out for every one of those more than a million casuals who don't have 12 months service with an employer.

Who are these people? This is the person who is at the checkout, looking after your groceries or stacking the shelves who has been there for 10 months. And is supporting a household with those earnings. This is the casual teacher who has been a casual teacher for five years in the independent sector and moves from school to school so they don't have 12 months with a single employer. This is the casual person working on a construction site, who moves from site to site and therefore from an employer to employer, who could have been doing the job for years but not for 12 months with any individual employer. These are the people who work in the arts and entertainment sector, who go from gig to gig in future contracts who don't have the long-term service with any individual employer but had been working in that industry for years. These are all people who were given hope yesterday, and were given hope if they read the papers this morning. But the moment Christian Porter stood up in front of the media today they discovered that the government's intention remained and they would get nothing from the JobKeeper program.

Can I explain how this unfolds and why the Labor Party - which will support the JobKeeper program, we called for a wage subsidy, we welcomed it when the government said there would be one and we are still simply saying to the government here are the places you can improve the wage subsidy program. Because here is how it's going to unfold. The casual teacher is going to find that they are not eligible for the program even though they've been a casual teacher for five years, but they'll find that their child - who does a three hour shift a week in the local food court and earns less than $70 dollars - will be eligible because they've been doing that casual job for more than a year. So the person supporting a household is going to be told they're not eligible? And their child, doing a fast food shift a week, is going to be told “No you're the one who gets the wage subsidy” of $1,500 a fortnight. Now we agree when the government says you have to draw the line somewhere. But if you've got a situation that the person who is relying on the casual job to support a household misses out, and the person who's doing the job for pocket money gets $1500 then they probably haven't drawn the line as best they could. And there is still time for this to be fixed.

Either way, Labor's going to make sure that the job subsidy goes through. The Parliament wouldn't be sitting without our cooperation. And this is why I'm deeply concerned by comments from the Minister for Industrial Relations today claiming that Labor was gearing up to oppose the legislation. He knows that's not true. Why scare the hell out of people in the middle of a pandemic? They know that is not true. They know that this needs to be made law. What Labor is continuing to do is to point out where what they have put forward can be improved. Where they've drawn lines that don't make a whole lot of sense and there's a better way to do it. Of course we are making that case. That is our job as members of Parliament. And I simply say to the government, there will at the end of this week be a wage subsidy. And it will be there because of cooperation. Don't go looking for a fight as a distraction from what is the big story today: that right now a million Australians who were given hope yesterday, have been told there'll be nothing for them in the wage subsidy this morning. There is time for the government to fix this and they should.

There's a few issues around today so I'm happy to take any questions. We've got a number of you on the phone I’m told.

REPORTER: Sarah Ison from the West Australia. On this issue something I want to clarify when presented concerns this morning, Christian Porter pointed out people could apply for the JobSeeker program. What is your response to him downplaying those concerns because of the other payment that is out there?

BURKE: Well what he's saying is to the person who misses out who's supporting a household your child gets a wage subsidy and you can go to Centrelink. Now, I don't think anyone will be able to make sense of the fact that the person who's doing the job for pocket money gets a full wage subsidy to $1500 a fortnight, and the person who’s trying to support a household gets told Centrelink is their only option. It just doesn't add up. So that's the response.

REPORTER: So you’re getting a payment either way, what’s the main concern here?

BURKE: There are two things that change. One is the amount is a different rate but the bigger concern – and it's hard to think what would be a bigger concern than the rate but I'll tell you there is one – and it's this: you lose the connection to the employer. The reason Labor argued for a wage subsidy is because we want people to keep their connection to the employer during the crisis. Not only is it better for them now, but it also means on the other side the Australian economy will be able to kick back into gear more quickly. And those people who've been on a wage subsidy, the relationship is still there with the employer and they can get straight back to work. In previous downturns many people when they've lost their relationship with the employer, they’ve never returned to work again. We don't want that to happen. And that's why we've welcomed the government establishing a wage subsidy. But for people who are truly relying on it, it should be there.

REPORTER: Amber Austin-Wright from Network Ten. The Government was saying if this was done by the Fair Work Commission this could take weeks if not months – do you agree with that? Do you think that’s correct?

BURKE: The Commission’s showing at the moment that they can move at lightning speed. And for most awards this is a really simple, fast change. The only reason we've been arguing the Commission needs to have a role is because every award and employment arrangement is different. And as a result of that there is a high chance that the legislative change will have unintended consequences. So that's what I’ve argued the whole way through this. It's the government that's been wanting to set up this all-or-nothing fight. I saw this bizarre comment that Christian Porter made today in his media conference where he ridiculed Labor for not accepting what was in the draft of the amendment. Well we haven't been provided the draft of the amendment. The draft legislation we were given, we've got all the information as to what would happen with Treasury, and the section for the Fair Work Act has a heading and then a blank page. Now it's fine if they're still working on it, the reason they're still working on it is because it is really complicated. So we've simply put forward the Commission because it's able to tailor everything to the different sorts of workplaces. But for Christian Porter to then extend and claim that Labor wants to delay, or Labor wants to oppose - he's trying to manufacture some high-stakes fight which simply isn't there. And I just think it's irresponsible to be scaring people at a time, when for the vast majority of workers the wage subsidy will be there. And the group that's in play at the moment principally are more than a million casuals and he's pushing this issue as a distraction from that.

REPORTER: Jen from Seven here. Is there any circumstance, any at all, that will force Labor to vote against it on Wednesday?

BURKE: Nothing that I can imagine. Absolutely nothing that I can imagine. Let's not forget the order of this. We called for a wage subsidy. They said they didn't want one. We kept demanding it. Eventually they said ‘Okay there'll be a wage subsidy’ and we have welcomed that. The discussion since then is simply how can we make it as effective as possible? Of course we're not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. But we're not going to also, in the public argument, and the debate between now and when this goes through, stop advocating for a million people who the government wants to leave behind. We want them included as well. We're arguing for that. We're advocating for that. Yesterday the government gave them some hope. This morning the government for reasons I don't understand has done an about-face. They really should be looking at this situation for casuals who are relying on this income.

REPORTER: Katina from AAP here. I was wondering if there's anything in what you see in the legislation that would stop a person who is working in two jobs who meets the criteria in both jobs receiving the payment from both employers? And secondly, regarding Parliament, wondering what you made of Christian Porter’s comments this morning that the Government has got “better things to do” than sitting in Parliament, and also where Labor is up to on a joint committee for oversight of all this.

BURKE: The first issue that you raise was the one with respect to stopping effectively a double dipping of one employee being able to access the payment twice. It was covered off in the original fact sheets the government put out that that wouldn't be permitted. I haven't found that specific clause of the legislation yet. It came to us late last night. But I'm confident the government will have guarded against that. So I expect that will be fine … With respect to the second issue … As far as the committee is concerned, negotiations are as I understand it going very well for a Senate Select Committee. Effectively they have been in our Parliament the most powerful committees that we've had. They've historically been more powerful than joint committees in terms of being able to hold governments to account. The negotiations on that are being led by Katy Gallagher and Penny Wong. But my understanding is we should be working on the basis that there is a high likelihood we'll get a Senate Select Committee out of that, which is important. It doesn't of itself though override the importance of Parliament meeting. And you know, for Christian Porter to say he's got more important things to do. I don't know where to begin when someone accepts that their job is Leader of the House, that their job is to be the principal parliamentarian for the nation, to then ridicule the importance of their own job. That's what Christian Porter did today. He ridiculed the importance of his own job. Have a look at what Question Time was like when the Parliament last met. Two things happened. In terms of our questions I don't think anyone can argue that they were targeted. The questions that we asked, and indeed even the Dixers that came from the government, they weren’t ‘tell us how good you are’ or they weren't sledges from us. They were questions of detail that the Australian people wanted answers for. And in fairness to the government ministers, the answers they gave were unusually good. They weren't sledging Labor. In fact they managed to not once in an entire question time tell us how much they hate us. It was what Question Time should be. At the moment, you've got Parliament behaving at its best. And the government's response is they’d rather not have Parliament. We showed last time we can meet and observe a whole lot of social distancing and public health demands that are really important for people who then return to all the corners of the country. Members of Parliament, some of them had to isolate when they returned, and had no hesitation in putting themselves forward again saying that they'd still come back this time. People want to do their jobs and as Members of Parliament our first job is to be a Member of the Parliament. We need the Parliament to be meeting, to be updating legislation. There'll be things that they get wrong this Wednesday. And when you're trying to roll out $130 billion this quickly of course there will be things they'll get wrong. We should have scheduled in a few weeks’ time a few days where we come back, it'll be a chance organised already to be able to update legislation, to be able to hold the government to account and for the government to be able to report to the Parliament on what's happening. I know Scott Morrison doesn't like the Parliament much. But at the moment we have a public show of national unity every time it meets. We have a chance for different views to be put, but for the Australian people to see that while essential service workers are turning up for work, we're turning up there too. It's the right thing to happen. Have we got to the end of the list?

REPORTER: David Vincent from Workplace Express. I hear what you’re saying, that you haven’t yet seen the draft legislation. But would you be able to run us through what it is you understand the government is seeking to change in the Fair Work Act and what you’re concerns are?

BURKE: If I can just give two extreme examples. One something that everybody understands, who is something people would say should not happen. The thing that I think most people understand, is if a business is right on the edge and you know they are in a situation where they can't afford to pay the staff at all but the wage subsidy makes the difference, and means okay if they just pay people that plus maybe a small top up, it means they can keep the business going and keep people in work. Well you can't cut their hourly rates so the only thing that might in those circumstances happen is people agree to reduce their hours during that period. And you want to be able to do that in a way that some awards and agreements might not allow. So we want to be able to facilitate that. And we've simply been arguing that the Commission’s the best way to do it, the government’s been saying legislation is the best way to do it. Christian Porter’s wanted to turn this into a huge fight which I think is just silly. But an extreme example of what are the sort of loopholes we need to guard against? You don't want an employer of a restaurant who says well I’ve got  takeaway now so I don’t need all the staff, I'll take the wage subsidy and those people can cook and clean at my home. That would be unreasonable. Everyone would argue it's unreasonable. I haven't heard the government argue that taxpayers’ money should be used for something like that. So we want to make sure that whatever flexibility is given during the time doesn't allow abuses. There are effectively the boundaries of it. And then the issue is how do you deal with the fact that all the awards and agreements have slightly different ways of employing people, and how do you have a sledgehammer catch-all to deal with that? But in terms of the issues that are facing people today, that's not the big one. The big one is a million casuals, many of whom are trying to support a household, are either going to keep a relationship with their employer or they're not. And the government is making that decision right now. Yesterday they gave them hope. Right now that hope’s been dashed and the government should rethink it.

REPORTER: Amanda Copps here from National Radio News. You're saying that a million workers aren't going to have access to this JobKeeper payment who are in that casual position. What do you think that this will mean for the economy overall and for casuals who find itself in this condition, what's your advice to them?

BURKE: The advice to casuals is to make sure you check everything that's available, and if you have a way of keeping your relationship with your employer then you should. A whole lot of people are taking the chance right now to join their union and that's smart. Because the vast majority of employers will do the right thing during the crisis, but some people will take advantage of it. And for people to have the added protection of their trade union is a smart thing for people to do. So that's the key piece of advice.

REPORTER: And then what do you think it will mean for the economy overall if we have  a million people without access to that JobKeeper allowance?

BURKE: Well it'll make a limited difference to the economy during the downturn and a massive difference to how quickly we can bounce back on the other side. During the downturn, it'll mean that there'll be some workplaces where those people might have been able to be kept on but the employer makes a decision that because their wages are not subsidised, they'll keep on people … You know effectively if you're an employer, you've got a wage subsidy being offered for someone who only works three hours a week and nothing for somebody who is doing five days a week but had only been with you for 10 months, we all know what lots of employers would do if they can only keep one of those people on. It’ll be the person who only had a few hours a week who gets kept on at $1500 a fortnight, and the other person gets let go. Even though they're the one who is more reliant on the income. That's the real life interface of what’ll happen during the downturn. And then when we get to the other end of the downturn, when we're wanting everything to bounce back, snap back, whatever term you want to use. The outcome at that point will simply be the economy won't be able to get into gear as quickly. Because a whole lot of people will have lost their relationship with their employer during the period of isolation. I think there's one last I’m told.

REPORTER: Yeah. G’day Tony it’s Nick Bonyhady from the Sydney Morning Herald. I’ve spoken with employers who are saying their employees will be able to take JobKeeper or their annual leave but not both. You can’t use one to top up the other, so they’re effectively using the JobKeeper to pay down their annual leave. Do you regard that as double dipping?

BURKE: I think it's wrong for the employer and it's a waste of money from the government. The employer shouldn't have a situation where they're paying a liability that they already owe, that's already on their books, and take a payment from the government that's meant to be a wage subsidy and take it for themselves. There are other measures that the government's already put in place to help business cash flow. The whole change to what's happened with withholding tax is there to help business cash flow. That's already happening. The wage subsidy is not meant to be used for those purposes. That's not why it's there. But from the government's perspective, these are extraordinary sums of money. I don't understand why taxpayers’ money would be used in a way that doesn't change an outcome. I don't see why if someone already had their leave owed, and that was already on the employer's books, why the government will pay the employer $1500, call it a wage subsidy and none of it has to go in wages. That just doesn't make sense to me. And you know, while decisions have to be made quickly, and we understand why a mistake like this could have been made when they first put the announcement in, why mistakes like that are now going to be embedded in legislation is beyond me. Because the government's going to come back on the other side of this and put a lot of pressure on Australians, especially working Australians, that this has to be paid back. Well, be careful how they spend it now.

REPORTER: Will you put an amendment in to address that problem?

BURKE: Oh we've only been given the legislation late last night and we haven't been given all the legislation yet. So the conversation about amendments – we need to get across exactly what's capable of amendment and what's not before we're in a position to make those decisions.

REPORTER: Australians have backed the PM in the latest Newspoll. Do you think this shows they support the Government’s tough measures on the virus?

BURKE: Can I tell you that at a time of a global pandemic when I'm here to talk about a million Australians, whether or not they're going to keep their jobs, I'm just not going to go to issues like that. Thanks very much everyone.

ENDS