TRANSCRIPT - DOORSTOP - MONDAY, 8 AUGUST 2022
E&OE TRANSCRIPT
DOORSTOP
WEDNESDAY, 18 MAY 2022
SUBJECTS: Pay increase for aged-care workers, jobs summit.
THE HON TONY BURKE MP, MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS: The submission from the Government will argue for a pay increase. It will argue that on the basis that there is a significant undervaluing of aged-care workers. What the commission's doing, it's doing what's called a work value case, and you look at the work, the importance of it, the increasing complexity of it for aged‑care workers, and the Government's very much on side with backing the workers for an increase. We don't put a number in it. It's for the unions to put the number in. We don't do that, similarly, we didn't put a number in our annual wage review submission. The previous Government wasn't going to turn up at all with any sort of view. We are squarely on the side of helping back in the argument that there needs to be a significant increase here.
JOURNALIST: On principle do you think a 25 per cent increase is fair?
BURKE: That's another way of getting me to the number, which we decided to not do.
JOURNALIST: Have you crunched the numbers yourself?
BURKE: Well, there aren't numbers to crunch in terms of we don't know where the Fair Work Commission will land. We've made clear wherever they land we'll make sure that it's funded, that it's possible to do. But, you know, that's a decision that comes from the Fair Work Commission once they've weighed up all the evidence. But we are in there, backing in providing the evidence that this work is undervalued. And think it through. If we're wanting to increase, as we are, the number of people working in aged‑care, then people being paid properly is part of it. If we're wanting to do something about pay equity, then undervalued work with a predominantly female workforce has to be part of that story, so that's why unequivocally we'll be in there. We'll be putting the submission in today and it will be saying that this work has been significantly undervalued.
JOURNALIST: Is 25 per cent enough to attract people back into the workforce?
BURKE: I'm not getting into the percentages. You can try seven different ways and you might, but I'm not getting into the percentages.
JOURNALIST: Jane Hume this morning questioned whether those federal aged‑care wage rises would be passed on to consumers and to the residents. She asked whether it would have any impact on productivity as well. What would you say to those questions she's raised?
BURKE: I was stunned when I heard the challenge about productivity from Jane Hume — like, really? It's as though the royal commission never happened. The starting point here. We had a royal commission where their interim report, the front page of it said "Neglect". We have an area of serious neglect where getting more people into the workforce is a critical part of that. That's the starting point. On the list of issues that Jane Hume went through, where was the need to care for residents? Where was the issue of doing something about pay equity? Where is the concept as to whether or not this work has been undervalued? If there's an example of someone being out of touch with the needs of aged‑care, it was up in lights in that interview.
JOURNALIST: Is there an idea of how much this will cost the Budget and is it at a time when the Government is trying to tighten its belt?
BURKE: The Department of Finance always do all their different scenarios, they do that internally, but exactly where those numbers land, depends on what the Fair Work Commission ends up determining, as it did with the annual wage review, as it does with every decision the Fair Work Commission makes.
JOURNALIST: How do you balance across those two factors? I mean, like, giving people a significant wage rise, but also not letting it pass on to consumers or residents? Should we be bracing for rise in aged‑care services?
BURKE: The starting point here is whether or not the work is already undervalued. That's the starting point. That's what the Fair Work Commission is having a look at: is this work currently undervalued? The Government says, yes. Most Australians will answer, yes. It's for the Fair Work Commission to work its way through the evidence, but the Government will be there arguing that this work has been undervalued and it has a significantly higher value than what the current pay rates reflect.
JOURNALIST: Anthony Albanese says he's open minded about [indistinct] Taiwan. Would it be a good idea for Australian politicians to go there in the current climate?
BURKE: I'll refer that to Penny Wong. I saw the interview on Insiders, but I haven't — I'll just leave that to Penny Wong.
JOURNALIST: In your speech, you say you want the bargaining system to work with small business and for women. What changes will you consider that will go to those two points?
BURKE: I'm looking to the jobs summit to see what we can do there. There is a lot of red tape at the moment. Sometimes you can get a situation where the employer and the workers agree and the red tape in the system blows the whole thing up. So, I want to be able to look at how that red tape can be removed, and I'll see what both the unions and employers bring forward to the jobs summit about how that can be achieved. But ultimately, if you can get an agreement, you get a pay rise for the workforce, you get a productivity benefit for the employer, you get certainty for the coming years as to what the pay rises, and the conditions will be. It's a really good outcome. It was a huge labour reform back to the Keating era to have these forms of agreements be made possible. Over the last decade, as different court cases have come through, it's become increasingly difficult and so I look to the summit to see where there can be consensus or where there can be just good ideas that are brought forward.
JOURNALIST: But what sort of red tape?
BURKE: There's a whole lot of time periods. There's a series of issues. I've had ones where employers have to come and seek my personal permission as to whether they're allowed to bargain together. There's red tape all through it. But, ultimately, if an employer and their workforce, you know, agree, and the union agrees, and people are going forwards in their wages, then why would we want to stand in the way of that?
JOURNALIST: How often are employers unilaterally suspending enterprise agreements? Is this a widespread problem or is this change just tinkering around the edges?
BURKE: It's rare. It's rare for it to be happening, but it's something which I don't think can be justified and it's threatened more often than it's done. And one of the ways it's often threatened is to say to employees, "Either vote for the agreement that’s on the table or you'll get a pay cut." Now that shouldn't be what people are weighing up when they vote for an agreement. It should be whether or not they have — whether or not the new agreement represents enough of an improvement, is effectively what people should be weighing up; not be threatened unless you do this — we've got a gun to your head and you'll have a pay cut. That's not the way bargaining in good faith should happen.
ENDS