Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I am Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment. I thank the chair for his comments. I will commence my speech on the Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013. I am dismayed to report the coalition members were unable to make a recommendation at all in relation to this bill. The reason is that we feel the committee system is being abused in the current parliament. I know, Mr Deputy Speaker Oakeshott, you would probably feel quite strongly about this issue, considering your involvement in the new parameters for how this House operates. Currently the committees are being overloaded with inquiries and consequently the inquiry times have been shut off to such an extent that we, the coalition members, feel we could not fully get to the bottom of the meaning of the legislation.

I thank the secretariat—in relation to both of the reports I have in front of me at the moment—for their diligent work in this area. But I am very concerned they are being overloaded beyond their ability—beyond anybody's ability—to respond to the time lines which are put in front of us at the moment. On this bill, the Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013, we were unable to have any public hearings at all. Although we had, I think, nine submissions, we were unable to ask many difficult questions, which remain unanswered—for instance, we do not know, and we could not find out, when the last school will come off transitional arrangements. We could not find out whether we really have a national funding system, because we read in the press that New South Wales, for instance, will be operating on 95 per cent of the student resource standard while Western Australia may be operating on 111 per cent. But this committee is not able to get that information. It is, I think, a wrongful use or an abasement of the committee system that we have not had the opportunity to explore the ramifications.

There was a list of schools put forward by Victorian minister Martin Dixon to the Victorian parliament last week; he said 481 schools in Victoria would be worse off over the next six years under the deal offered to Victoria. But, as with the Australian Education Bill itself, the committee has not had the opportunity to actually get to the bottom of the meaning of the bill and now the transitional arrangements. In fact we spent 2½ months working on the original version of the Australian Education Bill—which, I would have to say, did not say much at all—and then we were not even given an opportunity to look at the 70 pages of amendments that were rushed through this parliament in the last sitting week. Under those circumstances, how on earth can a committee with any integrity actually offer advice to the parliament on whether it should or should not pass those bills? So, for the Australian Education (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2013, we have put in a dissenting report and pointed out those factors about this very short use of the committee system that I think is just wrong, and we have not made a recommendation to the parliament.

For the second bill before us, the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013, we have also put in a dissenting report. While we recognise that the government has nominated an extra $300 million to go into the sector, we are very disappointed that it is only a two-year funding line, and nothing has been addressed about what happens after that first two years. There is conjecture about how much of the sector that money will get to. We have received reports that it will be between 27 per cent and 40 per cent. It has created absolute division and anger within the childcare sector that some people will be getting a wage rise and others will not. The vast bulk of the submissions—99 in all—actually raised this as a key point.

Not only has it become divisive in the sector; it also became apparent very quickly from reading the submissions—because once again, owing to time lines, we were unable to have a public hearing—that the union, United Voice, has been in the workplace telling people that they must sign up to the union to qualify for the new wages deal. It is quite widely reported; they have been saying that each workplace must have in excess of 60 per cent of their workforce signed up to the union so they can negotiate the EBA on their behalf. I have a letter from the department which was sent to a union official advising them of the correct arrangements; but, to my understanding, the union has not been rebuked or pulled back into line. Further to that, there is an underlying tone of bullying in this. This House has recently been considering issues of bullying in the workplace and certainly this has been a case of bullying in the workplace. One particular owner-operator of a childcare centre had their house and their name identified and then were publicly—on the internet, at least—accused of not being able to understand what workers in this sector think. That is outrageous. Evidence was given about that to the committee, but we suppressed it because we did not want to draw attention to the individuals. It is outlandish and it should not be accepted.

So, because of the inequity and the fact that there is no future after two years for this funding arrangement, and because this has been debased by union interference in the workplace, the coalition members have recommended that, due to the time frame, equity and wage claim matters raised in this report, the bill in its current form should not proceed at this time.

I would also like to make the case that we recognise that there are low-paid sections of the workforce, and that people have every right to pursue a better deal but there is a correct place and a correct mechanism with which to do this. That place and mechanism is within Fair Work Australia and the industrial provisions the government provided in its first term in office.

This new arrangement selects between 27 and 40 per cent of the workers within the sector—with no understanding, by the committee at least, about how that group will be selected. The minister at one stage said that it would be on a first-come, first-served based. The arrangements have very murky guidelines and there are indications coming from the union movement that workers must be union members to achieve the higher wages. So it is a bad deal. It smells. The fact that this is being used by the union to lift its membership, and this union is a very strong contributor to the ALP, causes great concern to the coalition members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Education and Employment; hence our recommendations.

See this speech in context