2GB with Ben Fordham
Topics: ‘Same Job, Same Pay’, Brittany Higgins
6 June 2023
E&OE.
Ben Fordham
Now, the government has a fight on its hands, they want to push through a new IR laws. They’re calling it ‘same job, same pay’. It’s a good catchphrase but business groups are not buying it; they have joined forces to oppose the federal government’s changes, and they’ve started up a new multi-million dollar ad blitz. The first ad starts with a younger worker with six months experience, the camera then pans to another older worker with 20 years of experience, and it says there’s got to be a better way because ‘same job, same pay’ takes your reward for your experience away. The shadow employment minister Michaelia Cash joins me on the line from WA. Michaelia Cash, good morning to you.
Senator Cash
Good morning, Ben, and good morning to your listeners.
Ben Fordham
The fight is well and truly underway.
Senator Cash
As it should be. I have to say, today Mr. Burke’s out there this morning saying the employers don’t know what they’re talking about. Well, I say this to Mr. Burke: instead of insulting employers, who are the job creators of this country, perhaps you need to actually sit down with them and take on board the feedback they are giving you instead of the sham consultation that you are undertaking at the moment. If the employers are saying this won’t be ‘same job, same pay’, it’ll be ‘no job, no pay’ for labour hire workers, then I’d sit down with them and start talking. But that’s not what Mr. Burke likes to do, is it?
Ben Fordham
Okay, we know that workplace deals and awards have different pay grades for employees. Often it’s based on things like experience or expertise or responsibility, so isn’t this a way for businesses to sidestep any concerns that their workers with different levels of experience will all be paid the same?
Senator Cash
What businesses are saying is the Australian labour market is diverse, and it provides forms of work for different people in different circumstances or of different needs. What we do know is the Albanese Government has no respect for this diversity; they only respect union controlled forms of work. So, what this legislation – and this is the point businesses are making – is actually about is about discouraging different forms of employment across Australia. Mr. Burke was out there yesterday saying all that our policy will only apply in certain circumstances, but that’s not what his consultation paper says. Mr. Burke – if he truly means that this policy will only apply in certain circumstances – needs to come out and rule out everything else and tell businesses the very, very narrow circumstances in which this policy applies. Guess what? He can’t even say at the moment how many workers his policy will impact, and what’s worse is his own department can’t even tell you if it’s going to apply to the Australian Public Service.
Ben Fordham
Okay, but you’re not denying the fact that they can always just use these different awards in different deals to pay people differently?
Senator Cash
Absolutely, people doing different things are paid differently, and that is the whole point that businesses are making. They believe in reward for experience, they believe in reward for hard work and effort, and based on the consultation process that businesses are going through, they are very, very clear that ‘same job, same pay’ takes that away. What Mr. Burke is saying is, for the first time ever, under Mr. Burke’s proposal, labour hire employees will be the only employees in Australia who were denied any role in negotiating their own wages. What an absolute disgrace that is. Labour hire workers choose to engage in this work for various reasons: it could be it provides additional flexibility; they like the tailored working conditions; a lot of people like the variety of work that’s undertaken; and the heightened independence to determine my work options. Well guess what? Mr. Burke is going to take that away from labour hire employees in Australia, and he’s going to tell them the conditions they need to be employed under.
Ben Fordham
Our guest is Michaelia Cash, the Shadow Employment Minister. Michaelia Cash, I want to ask you about the Brittany Higgins case for a moment. We know that there was a payment of up to $3 million given to Brittany Higgins. That was decided after a one day hearing. Should that payment be referred to the new Federal ICAC?
Senator Cash
Well again, you’d need to speak to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, because as you know, he excluded both myself and former Minister Linda Reynolds from any form of that process, threatening to withhold legal assistance if we were in any way involved. It’s now up to Mr Albanese and his government to justify the payment as it was signed off by his government. So Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, he certainly has a number of questions to answer. But I have to say Ben anyone who watched the program on Sunday night, you came away with more questions than answers, and in particular in relation to Tanya Plibersek’s role, and I see she struggled to answer questions yesterday about her involvement; Katy Gallagher, she needs to be called upon to properly explain her role in all of this. But also, The Project need to release, for the public to listen to themselves, that five hour recording that Janet Albrechtsen in today’s Australian refers to and says: it’s damning for all involved.
Ben Fordham
Okay, so when that mediation was happening, if you wanted to participate, you were told you wouldn’t have access to Commonwealth legal funding?
Senator Cash
That is correct. Absolutely. And your listeners may note that you are entitled to, as a minister, Commonwealth legal assistance when something occurs in your role as a minister. So that’s Liberal or Labor, that is actually the process that’s put in place. So Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, and Senator Reynolds has spoken about this, and certainly Janet Albrechtsen has written about it, wrote to both former Minister Reynolds and myself and threatened to withhold legal assistance if we were in any way at all involved. And again, on that basis, you need to speak to the Attorney-General.
Ben Fordham
Let me just get my head around this, because Brittany Higgins worked for you and Linda Reynolds, and the compensation was paid based on her treatment in the workplace. Surely, it was in their interest to hear your side of the story and Linda’s side of the story?
Senator Cash
Well again, I can’t answer that question, can I? Because both Linda and I were told we could not be involved under the threat of withholding legal assistance.
Ben Fordham
Brittany Higgins worked in your office, was she ever treated badly?
Senator Cash
Absolutely not. And my position has been very clear from day one. The first time I ever heard the word rape was actually, Ben, when I received questions from a journalist after Miss Higgins had left my office.
Ben Fordham
We appreciate your time. Thanks for jumping on the line.
Senator Cash
Great to be with you Ben.
Recent Comments