TRANSCRIPT: TELEVISION INTERVIEW - ABC NEWS - MONDAY, 6 APRIL 2020

E&OE TRANSCRIPT 
TELEVISION INTERVIEW
ABC 24 WITH PATRICIA KARVELAS
MONDAY, 6 APRIL 2019

SUBJECT: Coronavirus; wage subsidy. 

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Tony Burke is the Shadow Minister for Industrial Relations and the Manager of Opposition Business in the House of Representatives, and he joined me a short time ago. Tony Burke, welcome.

TONY BURKE: Hi, PK.

KARVELAS: Labor has suggested some changes to legislation, but will Labor oppose any of the COVID-19 response measures the government is introducing to Parliament this week?

BURKE: The bills that are coming to the Parliament will be supported by Labor. The issue of whether or not we seek to amend them in different ways - we still don't have all the legislation but, like last time, there were different amendments that we put, but we made completely clear that we'd be supporting the measures. Let's not forget, with this one - like last time, the government had come forward with proposals - this time, the wage subsidy is something that we had been campaigning for, arguing the government should do during a period that they were ruling it out. And so, you know, while we've wanted to get all the measures through, this one - it's particularly important to us to get this one through, because we've been arguing for a long time that if you can keep the relationship between an employee and an employer, it doesn't just help you during the crisis, it helps you on the other side as well.

KARVELAS: Doesn't it essentially really... ..kill off any attempt you have to be able to influence legislation if you've already told the government you're going to vote for it anyway?

BURKE: Well, no - I mean, we still seek to amend, and let's not forget - and we've been pushing at the moment for different ways in which it can be improved. Anthony Albanese, within about an hour of the government announcing it, stood up and said, "We would be supporting a wage subsidy." I don't think it's open to you to argue that there needs to be a wage subsidy, get frustrated when the government's ruling it out for so long, and then the moment they do it, say, "Oh, I'm not sure if we'll back it in." So, you know, we're in a situation where - yes, the wage subsidy will go through this week. It will happen. But it's still incredibly important for us to be pointing out, in advance of it being introduced to Parliament, the areas where it does fall short. And because there'll be, part of doing this quickly in Parliament - it does limit your capacity to move amendments. It does limit your capacity to have the full debate. You know, there won't be a Senate inquiry. A whole lot of checks and balances that we'd normally have won't be there because of the speed with which we need to act. That does put the obligation on the government as well to be listening to arguments that are put forward about who might miss out. And to be responding. And that's why most of the responses have been very constructive, we had a bit of a weird moment this morning when Christian Porter, for reasons I don't understand, went on the attack.

KARVELAS: Let's go to that, because the government says you're refusing to back changes to the Fair Work Act, which would allow an employer temporarily to reduce a worker's hours in line with the JobKeeper payment. Have you asked for changes there and, if the government insists on changing the Fair Work Act - it is being backed by the Business Council of Australia and others - will you vote for that change?

BURKE: All that's happened so far is the government and Labor have agreed that a change needs to be made to make sure that, if an employer, if a business, can only keep its doors open because of the wage subsidy, then both sides agree you can't cut someone's hourly rate, so the only way you'd be able to deal with it in those extreme circumstances is to be able to have a system by which there's an agreed reduction of hours. And we've both agreed - they've said they would rather use the Fair Work Act to do it. We've said if you use a sledgehammer, you'll probably get it wrong for a whole lot of awards, because they're different. If there's an expedited process through a commission, that's a smarter way to do it. That's as far as the conversation had gone. We can't talk about whether we'd seek to amend clauses because they haven't been provided to us yet. Overnight, we got a draft copy of the government's amendments. And, under this section, we just got the heading. None of the detail is there. And then this morning while we've been saying, "OK, we'll wait till we see the detail," Christian Porter goes on the attack. I'm always one for political argument, I never resile from arguing it through when there's a difference, but I also just think to have a fake argument at the moment over words that haven't even been written - you know, we're in a serious crisis. People are relying on us getting this done to make sure that they keep their connection with their employers over the next six months. I just think the games that happened this morning are - they weren't just immature, they just weren't smart.

KARVELAS: Let's go to some of the things you do want changed. You want casuals to be able to access this. You say a million casuals are missing out. The ACTU proposed a reasonableness test for whether a casual has a reasonable expectation of 12 months' work. Where does Labor think that cut-off should be?

BURKE: Well, the way we've been approaching it is to say, "Who currently, there's a really strong argument they should be getting this, and they're missing out?" The government says - and I respect the government for, you know, when Christian Porter says you have to draw the line somewhere, that's true. You do. But the way they've drawn the line at the moment creates some really weird anomalies. So, you know, if you - at the supermarket, I've got a Woolies downstairs from where I am here at the moment - if someone on the checkout's there, works every day as a casual, and that's what they're using to support their family, if they've only been there as a casual for 10 months, they won't get anything out of this scheme. But the person who does one shift a week as $70 effectively as pocket money, they're suddenly going to see their income multiplied by 10. Now, I appreciate you've got to draw a line somewhere, but it's a pretty weird outcome if the kid who's just getting some extra money while they're at school is going to go from $70 a week to $750 a week, and the person who's there every day trying to support a household is going to fall out of the system completely and is told their only option is Centrelink. Of course, it wouldn't happen with Woolies, because they haven't had a downturn. But if you have that exact situation in an industry where there has been a downturn - like clothing stores, for example, which will probably all qualify for something like this - those sorts of differences. It's not a well-enough-designed scheme yet.

KARVELAS: Is it fair - just on on some other issues - is it fair that someone on
a temporary work visa who can't access super or support themselves - is asked to go home?

BURKE: Depends on the capacity to which they can go home, it depends on a whole range of circumstances. There are many people who are temporary workers who have already gone home. The government put out a call a while ago encouraging people to do that. The challenge that we have is a whole lot of people can't. It might be because flights have stopped. It might be because they previously could afford an airline fare and the fares are through the roof now. There can be a range of reasons.

KARVELAS: And if they can't, what should happen?

BURKE: Well, ultimately, the government has to make sure that we don't end up being a country which has a number of people within it who have no means by which to live. You can't have that. And we also can't have the situation during a pandemic when you have a significant section of Australia, a significant section of our community here - where there are individuals who feel that they can't go to the doctor. So, if we end up with people who feel they can't go to the doctor, feel they can't support themselves or feel, when they should isolate, they can't afford to isolate - if you've got any of those scenarios, it's in nobody's interest.

KARVELAS: So should temporary work visa people be able to access the JobKeeper payment?

BURKE: There are a series of different ways to do it, whether it’s that payment or a different payment. Linda Burney's our expert on all the different rates that exist. The bottom-line principle with everything is we need people if they're feeling sick to be able to seek medical care. We need that as a nation. It's not some benefit that only affects a person. It affects everybody's health. And, we need to make sure that people can afford, when they should be isolating, to be isolating. And we can't have a period of six months where we've got a significant number of people living here and who have no means by which to live. So they're the objectives. Which payment and exactly where they should fit in is something that Linda Burney would be better across than me.

KARVELAS: I know Labor's been pushing for the Parliament to continue sitting rather than having this long period where it doesn't. So, on the technicalities around all of this - I know that Senator Rex Patrick would like, perhaps, the Senate to consider a motion to look at the Senate continuing to sit - is that something Labor has talked to him about, and are you prepared to vote
for that?

BURKE: Look, I'm aware of Rex Patrick's suggestion. With respect to the House of Representatives, what he's arguing is not that dissimilar to what I argued on the floor of the Parliament when Christian Porter moved that we don't meet again until August. Which is, you keep a sitting calendar in place and if you get to the point that for some reason we can't meet for a public health reason, the government can already cancel the sitting. They have that power. But to presume that we won't meet till August - not good for democracy, and it's also ridiculous. I predicted when we sat more than a week ago, that we would be back, because there was no way we had the settings right yet
and that during a pandemic you can’t think that legislation won't be required for five or six months. Well, two weeks later, we are going to be back. And this is going to keep happening. We're about to spend $130 billion with legislation that, two days before we have to vote on it, still hasn't been written. Now, in those circumstances, even with the best intentions, the government's going to get some of this wrong. They will. And that's why, if you have the regular sittings, you get two things. One, you keep coming back, and you can gradually update and fix legislation - because some people will game the system, we know they will, and you need to be able to stay on top of 
that. And other people who we wanted to help will fall through the cracks, and we don't want that to happen. Secondly, you need to...

KARVELAS:, Okay, you don't have the numbers in the House of Representatives but you could, of course, work with a couple of other groups and get them in the Senate. Is that what you'll work towards?

BURKE: Look, as I've said to you before, I've learnt long ago as the person in charge of the tactics of the House of Representatives, to never presume anything with the Senate and believe...

KARVELAS: But is that a strategy more broadly? I want to pin you down on what Labor wants to work towards - perhaps keep the Senate meeting in a pared-back way to scrutinise the government's work on COVID-19?

BURKE: If I put it in order, I guess, the main thing that we want is for the whole Parliament to be meeting. It can be, you know, it can be not full weeks, but regular sittings are really important for accountability and for us doing our job to serve the Australian people. That's the first thing. Second thing, if that has to be scaled back in some way, as one house only, it's not as good, but it's still better than having no sittings at all. And the third thing – which should never be seen as a replacement to the Parliament – is to have some sort of committee in place so that we're at least working through the scrutiny that needs to occur. I mean, to have the biggest expenditure that we've ever had, the biggest public health crisis that that we've ever had, and to say that’s the moment there'd be no scrutiny? It's a ridiculous proposition.

KARVELAS: Tony Burke, thanks for joining us.

BURKE: Great to talk to you.
 
ENDS