TRANSCRIPT - SKY NEWS SUNDAY AGENDA WITH ANDREW CLENNELL - SUNDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 2024

E&OE TRANSCRIPT

TELEVISION INTERVIEW, SKY NEWS

SUNDAY AGENDA WITH ANDREW CLENNELL

SUNDAY, 4 FEBRUARY 2024

SUBJECTS: Labor’s tax cut for every Australian taxpayer, Closing Loopholes 2, UN aid for Palestine, Dunkley by-election. 

ANDREW CLENNELL, HOST: Let’s go live to the Workplace Relations Minister, Tony Burke, and I'll get to the tax cuts in a minute. Mr. Burke, thanks so much for your time this Sunday morning. Let's start with this apparent resolution in the dispute between DP World, the stevedores, and the MUA. It means 25 per cent wage increase for stevedores. It also appears connected to a substantial increase in container charges, 21 to 52 per cent up, reportedly with their competitors, Patrick, to follow suit. How much are these charges going to cost consumers? 

TONY BURKE MP, MINISTER FOR EMPLOYMENT AND WORKPLACE RELATIONS, MINISTER FOR THE ARTS: First of all, the wage increases are over four years, so I think people need to know that. Secondly, the increased costs in containers was something that was announced by the company during the period that there was no agreement, during the period when they were wanting me to intervene. I think to connect the two is a pretty long bow. I've seen the Opposition try to do that, but the reality is they'll always try to say every price increase is the fault of people getting a pay rise.

CLENNELL: You've helped the union, or you've sought to help the union here, haven't you?

BURKE: I've sought to make sure there was an agreement. If you look at the changes that we've made ever since we came to office, there are common interests between employers and workers and we want them to find them and reach agreements. There'd been a big public campaign that – in a real error of judgement – Peter Dutton had got behind as well, saying the answer here wasn't for the parties to agree, but for me as Minister to intervene. You've got these powers under the Act, they should really be a last resort. I was convinced if the parties were told it's over to you, they'd reach agreement. After a dispute that had been protracted over summer, after I made that clear, two weeks later, they had an agreement.

CLENNELL: All right, Tony Burke. Well, I want to play you this evidence from an official at DP World, Blake Tierney, to a Senate committee a fortnight ago. He's talking about what DP World stevedores are paid before this agreement.

BLAKE TIERNEY: Our employees are paid within the top 10 per cent of earners in Australia, with an average salary of 130,000 to 140,000. In comparison, stevedores in Canada are paid around 80,000 Australian dollars per year, while German stevedores are paid $92,000.

CLENNELL: All right, Minister. So, he says the stevedores have an average salary presently of 130 to 140,000. A year, they'll get this increase, they'll go over 150,000. And that puts them in negative territory when it comes to your tax cut changes. So, you've helped by not intervening, increasing their wage with one hand, but with the other hand, you're taking tax cuts off them. Do you see the irony here? In fact, if their salary increases to 190,000, you'll be taking $4,500 off them a year with your changes.

BURKE: Long bow.

CLENNELL: Is it that long a bow? It's actually a fact.

BURKE: No, the fact is that from what people earn now, on the 1st of July, under our plan, every Australian gets a tax cut. Every Australian, no matter who's paying income tax, no matter how much you're paying, you look at what goes into your bank account now, and from the 1st of July, because of the changes our legislation will bring, you end up with keeping more of your money. We want Australians to do two things. We want them to earn more and keep more of what they earn --

CLENNELL: Yes, but --

BURKE: -- and that will happen for everybody. When you look at what you earn in June compared to what you earn in July.

CLENNELL: But you're taking hundreds, if not thousands, or you're seeking to, off legislated tax cuts for these stevedores, aren't you?

BURKE: It's a big thing for anyone to get $4,500 in tax cuts, which people at the top end will get, and to say that's a bad deal. Most people, and I've been surprised on this issue, the number of people, particularly when you're in government, when people approach you in the street, you don't presume it's always going to be good. The number of people coming up and saying, we have done the right thing, and some of them, a good number of them, saying that they're still getting $4,500 but they see the argument to make sure that every Australian worker gets a tax cut.

People are doing it tough. The cost of living challenges are real, and you needed to find a way of helping people with cost of living that would not put pressure on inflation. That's exactly where we've landed. This should not be a difficult issue for the Opposition to be able to deal with. It should be really straightforward here. Do you support every Australian getting a tax cut or not? Because that's what our legislation will do.

CLENNELL: Where do you think they'll land, the Opposition?

BURKE: We know what their instincts are. Their instincts were made clear by Sussan Ley when she gave that statement of complete conviction, when you answer, ‘absolutely’. That’s what Anthony Albanese, before he became Prime Minister, used when he was asked about people on the lowest wage getting a pay rise that wouldn't go backwards. He said, ‘absolutely’.

CLENNELL: He also promised not to change these tax cuts. He also promised not to change these tax cuts.

BURKE: When the Deputy Leader was asked for a position on "would you roll this back and return effectively tax increases to the vast majority of Australians?", her answer was ‘absolutely’.

CLENNELL: All right, what about what Peter Dutton said on Friday?

BURKE: They should vote for it. I want them to vote for it. Everyone, no matter where they sit in the Parliament, should vote for that. It's the right thing for the country, it's the right thing for people facing cost of living pressure. I don't know how the Coalition expect to continue this pathway. You referred to it in your intro, where they reckon they can just get away with voting against cost relief on people's energy bills, vote against measures that will increase people's wages and now vote against people getting a tax cut.

CLENNELL: All right. I asked the Prime Minister last week whether someone on 150 or 160,000 was classified as middle Australia. He said yes. Do you agree?

BURKE: Yes.

CLENNELL: Well, doesn't that admission imply you are reducing tax cuts for middle Australia?

BURKE: No, because you look at what people are earning in June, what people are getting in their bank account in July, it goes up. The equation is really simple. If you used to pay more tax and from the 1st of July you pay less tax, that means you've had a tax cut and that'll be possible for every Australian. All the other proposals that get thrown around all have various risks in terms of inflationary pressure and they don't deliver the same amount for people at the lower end. All Australians are working hard and we want cost of living relief across the board.

CLENNELL: I wanted to turn to the remainder of this IR reform you're seeking to get through the Senate. I understand you met business groups on Friday in relation to this. How did that go? And will this go to the Senate this week?

BURKE: It was a really good meeting with business and I'm glad they've come back to the table. You remember there was an open letter last year where the conversation was “we only want to have our arguments in public now” and to have the business groups back around the table saying, "let's tease out some ideas, work through what might be practical" was really constructive.

We haven't made fresh commitments as a result of the meeting, but there are things that we're looking into and getting some departmental advice on. It was a really constructive meeting. I'm glad business is back at the table. There are constructive ways and it doesn't mean that they'll end up preferring the legislation to go through, but it does mean we could avoid some adverse consequences that they might be pointing to. I won't go through point by point within the meeting, only to say, I'm really glad they're back at the table.

It was a constructive meeting and these conversations are in the best interests of their members and the best interests of landing the best legislation. And since you asked, as well, when it'll go to the parliament, it's listed for debate in the Senate on Wednesday, so there'll definitely be debate on it this week.

In terms of will it go through? Things go through when there's a majority. At the moment, we're still talking to the crossbench. I think it's a fair bet we're not going to get the Opposition's votes on anything that involves people's wages going up. So, it's the crossbench conversation that matters that's still happening. It's constructive, but we're not there yet.

CLENNELL: All right. One reported contentious part of this reform you're seeking to put in place that the Greens first suggested is this so called right to disconnect - an allowance for people if their bosses want to contact them out of work hours. How would this work and why are you examining it?

BURKE: There's been a couple of parliamentary reports that have come out in favour of this and a lot of work that's been done by Senator Barbara Pocock on this. I'm interested in the concept, really interested in it, because there are some workplaces, and the employers would acknowledge this as well, there are some workplaces where, effectively, people are working a whole lot of hours unpaid because they're expected to be permanently on call. You'd remember when we were growing up, you'd go to someone's barbecue and someone had to hold the beeper because they were on call that weekend and they were paid an allowance to be on call.

Now, we've all got our own beeper, effectively, with our mobile phones, and people are being expected to be constantly on call without being paid for it. So, that's the concept. But there's also lots of reasonable contact that an employer might want to make that we've got to make sure we don't create a problem with. It's completely reasonable for an employer, if they've got a shift that hasn't been filled, to do a ring around to see if someone can do a shift. It's completely reasonable if you've got a work email, for the employer to be sending emails at any time of day, so long as there's not an expectation that you're doing all the work in unpaid time.

So, those sorts of principles need to be worked through. The other thing is, for something that is new, you want to make sure you're not suddenly putting a pressure on business, thinking “am I going to be fined? Is something going to go wrong for me in situations where people are just being reasonable.” So, there's a lot of scaffolding you need to put around it. I do think there's a real problem for some workers. I'm interested in trying to fix it for them. We're also very much aware there are reasonable grounds for an employer to want to contact their workers outside of hours. We have to make sure that's protected as well.

CLENNELL: Indeed, a place like WA, where they have to deal with the eastern states are in a different time zone, for example. This seems quite difficult in a number of ways. How much might an allowance be if it's introduced? And would it be mandatory for certain sectors or all sectors, how would it work?

BURKE: The sort of concept would be one of the concepts being talked about. None of this has landed yet, and the business groups are part of the consultation with this as well. One of the concepts that's being talked about is, effectively, there's no fines in the jurisdiction, but if it's got completely out of hand of a worker being expected to do unpaid work, they'd be able to go to the Commission, get a stop order, and then if a stop order was breached, at that point, the employer would have been completely on notice. If the stop order was breached, only then would there be a situation of fines. That's a sort of concept that's being talked about. It's a pretty light touch, but it also establishes a principle that shouldn't be a controversial principle, which is, in Australia, you're meant to be paid when you're working. That's what this is all about.

CLENNELL: Okay so it's fines, not an allowance that's being examined, it's penalties. Or is putting in place an allowance for this sort of thing also potentially part of the legislation?

BURKE: No, there's already allowances for this sort of thing. My staff, for example, have an allowance for in lieu of unpaid overtime. There's just an allowance that they get acknowledging that these calls can happen out of hours sometimes. There's lots of workplaces where those sorts of allowances are already paid and that's already dealt with. The question is, when someone is only paid, be it nine to five or nine to three, for part time or whatever their hours might be, and that's all they're being paid, is it reasonable for them also to be expected to be regularly working outside of those hours without pay? And if it's not reasonable, then what on earth can they easily do about it to be able to get it to stop?

CLENNELL: All right, on casuals, business groups have said this to your changes in what they've circulated to MPs. They said "the Government's definition of casuals is incredibly complex, business and workers don't understand it. Even the Government's own department haven't been able to explain it. No case has been made to change the existing definition in the act. The current rate of casual employment has remained largely unchanged for decades. The Bill will result in fewer casual jobs and less flexibility." What do you say to that?

BURKE: First thing – all this law does is take the definition of casual back to what it was a couple of years ago. A few years ago with respect to casuals – more than a couple of years, about four years ago – but a few years ago with respect to casuals, there was a view that you'd look objectively as to whether this person was really a casual. Then there was a court decision that said all that matters is the contract. The problem with that was we had situations in this WorkPac case where people were being given a full-time roster for 12 months and still being defined as a casual. Now that's just not reasonable. I think most of the viewers would say hang on, that's not reasonable. So, we're wanting to be able to have an objective test for whether or not someone's a casual, which just goes to what everybody in Australia was working with for decades before those court decisions came down.

That's what we're wanting to do. Most people who are casuals want to stay casuals, and they'll get to stay casuals. This only changes for a very small portion of people. They reckon it's about 5 per cent, the employers agree with that. Who would want to convert? They're working completely consistent hours. They can easily be converted, but some employers aren't allowing it. Most people, students generally, won't apply for this. But there'll be people who are trying to pay a mortgage or trying to keep rent, holding a household together. Try getting a mortgage or even a rental property these days if you don't have a secure job. It is really, really hard. For those people, we want them to have some rights to be able to apply to convert.

CLENNELL: All right, nearly out of time. You've been outspoken in terms of your desire for a ceasefire in Gaza. Peter Dutton has called on the PM to sack Penny Wong. Should Australia resume funding to the UN agency UNRWA, which is responsible for Palestinian aid. That's because of these allegations, some of their officials were linked to the October 7 attacks. What's your reaction to Peter Dutton's comments?

BURKE: I wish Peter Dutton had been sacked as Health Minister and we never would have had threats to Medicare. Penny Wong is an extraordinary Foreign Minister. Absolutely extraordinary. Let me say this with respect to what she said for that UN agency. It is the only agency that is in a position to deliver aid across an area in Palestine where, at the moment, we are seeing a really serious humanitarian crisis. The allegations that were made were serious allegations, Penny's responded to them seriously. But this is Peter Dutton desperate for a headline. It's what he does. He wants everybody sacked and he wants wages lower and he still can't work out if he wants people to have a tax cut.

CLENNELL: Can I have a reaction from you to this finding by NSW Police on Friday that the protesters at the Opera House were not saying gas the Jews, but rather, where's the Jews? Isn't it still hate speech? Should police still be looking to lay charges over?

BURKE: I'm not across NSW law the way I am across federal law. Certainly there seems to be no doubt that some of what was said at that rally by a small group of protesters was hate speech. In terms of the other things that the police have confirmed was said, I don't want to say those words myself, but there's no doubt from what the police have said that hate speech was used. Whenever hate speech is used, I've always been unequivocal, the force of the law should be used. There is a serious issue in terms of misinformation being spread. And if it looks like there might be people who have deliberately spread misinformation about what was said, then I condemn that. If there are laws to bring them to account, they should be used too.

CLENNELL: Are you confident the government -

BURKE: You know, none of that - sorry, just to say one more time, condemning hate speech in all its forms. I want every Australian to feel safe. There is no doubt there are Jewish Australians at the moment who, when motorbike groups have gone through suburbs where they live, have felt unsafe. There is no doubt when that absolutely disgusting bomb threat was made against somebody flying the Palestinian flag, that a whole lot of people don't feel safe as a result of that. That sort of behaviour needs to be condemned as well. We need to live here cohesively as a nation, no matter what's happening around the rest of the world.

CLENNELL: Sure.

BURKE: Hate speech laws are part of doing that.

CLENNELL: Mr. Burke, briefly, are you confident the government will win the Dunkley by-election?

BURKE: We never take anything for granted. Never take anything for granted. With Jodie, we've got a fantastic candidate there, a local mum who's been involved in a whole lot of groups helping needy Australians the whole way through. She's just a fantastic candidate. We're very hopeful. At least in the lead up to the by-election, people are seeing very clearly the different priorities between Anthony Albanese wanting to deliver for all Australians and Peter Dutton wanting to say no to everything.

CLENNELL: I'm about to have Adam Bandt, the Greens leader on the program. What's your message to him on whether the Greens should vote for this tax cuts package? He says it doesn't go far enough for low to middle income earners, $16 extra a week.

BURKE: I think every Australian should vote for it. The Treasury advice says that we have found a way to deliver relief for every taxpayer in Australia and it's also being done in a way that will improve workforce participation and won't put inflationary pressure on. There's not many measures that meet all of that. We've got one in front of the Parliament now. We want every member of Parliament to be voting in favour of it.

CLENNELL: Tony Burke, Workplace Relations Minister, thanks for your time this morning.

BURKE: Great to talk to you.

ENDS