Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013. In so doing I would like to particularly draw attention to three aspects of this bill. Firstly, I would like to raise in this House what it is that the bill intends to do and the associated consequences. Secondly, I will talk about why I believe this bill is being introduced, which I think is to appease the unions, and why it is that the government should govern for all Australians and not just a select few in the union movement. Finally, I will talk about why it is so important that we have affordable and accessible child care, not only as a social imperative but an economic imperative as well.

This legislation seeks to establish a $300 million fund to provide wage increases to around 30 to 40 per cent of the long day care workforce over two years. However, in order to qualify centres will need to enter into an enterprise bargaining agreement with staff meeting eligibility criteria. Given the limited pool of funds, it will be on a first in, best dressed basis, and after the two years workers will revert to their previous wage.

I want to make it abundantly clear the coalition understands the need to recognise the importance of those who work in the childcare sector. However, the answer to looking at wages of those in the childcare sector is not to introduce bad legislation that will only make the situation worse, especially in the long run. We, on this side of the House, have very serious concerns about this bill. Our concerns stem from a number of reasons. First of all, the government already has a mechanism for determining wage increases. It is called the Fair Work Commission. This legislation brought before the House this evening seeks to circumvent this process and gives the government the power to appoint whatever they believe is the appropriate wage claim. I ask: what is the point of having an industrial relations policy and the Fair Work Commission only to ignore the process and for the government to take matters into their own hands?

This process of the government simply making a determination lacks transparency and in truth demonstrates that there was no process at all. We also have serious concerns about the requirements that must be met in order to gain access to this special fund. Centres will need to enter into an enterprise bargaining agreement with staff and meet eligibility criteria. Clearly this is an overt attempt to increase union membership and has nothing whatsoever to do with their wages or the sustainability or the viability of the industry. As a result of these tactics, we have heard some very concerning comments. There have been reports that centre management are being told that 60 per cent of their workforce must join the union in order for them to receive the pay rise. The Australian Childcare Alliance submission to the House of Representatives standing committee includes a statutory declaration to this effect. This is quite wrong.

There are also reports that some workers are being told that if they do not sign up to the union, then their colleagues will not receive a pay rise. These are bullying tactics at their best. Upon signing up to the union, at more than $500 a year in membership fees, they are then being falsely led to believe that this will guarantee them a pay rise, which is simply not the case. We have seen, through these tactics, a change in union membership in this industry from what was only 10 per cent of the industry to now more than 25 per cent as a direct result of this bill. This has clearly been the motive of the United Voice union, previously the LHMU.

We are also concerned that only childcare educators in long day care centres will be eligible for this pay increase. This is despite the fact we know their roles are very similar to those at family day care, occasional care and budget based care and all of these are excluded from the fund that this government seeks to legislate. Unlike the Labor Party, we on this side of the chamber recognise that there are inherent dangers involved in picking specific winners, especially within a single industry, and the very severe and distorting effects that this has on the remaining players in the market.

Let me go to why the bill is being introduced. Make no mistake that this, along with other pieces of legislation that have passed already in this place—including those that relate to the clothing, textile and footwear industry; the trucking legislation; the reregulation of ports; the legislation that is still before this place for the contrived rorting of the 457 visa systems and the dismantling of the ABCC—are union driven pieces of legislation designed to increase their power and their influence in the Australian workplace and in Australian society. We know that the government are beholden to their union masters. It was this week three years ago that the faceless men of the union movement took down one Prime Minister and installed another. I think they can be quite satisfied in their decision, given the legislation that I have just alluded to.

It was the United Voice Union that orchestrated the Big Steps campaign. It was through this campaign that the union warned that they will not stop until every educator receives a change in their pay arrangements, irrespective of the $300 million fund already proposed and without any consideration as to the price increases and what effect this will have on the affordability or long-term sustainability of the industry. But I suppose we can expect that because this has often been the attitude taken that, no matter what the impact, it is simply all about the union, even if that means that for the workers affected there may be no job in the future. United Voice have run a very false and misleading campaign. In one of their propaganda pieces of material they have stated under the heading, 'How does my centre qualify' to:

1. Join United Voice;

2. United Voice a negotiates new EBA;

3. Owner/Operator signs agreement with government;

4. Get raise.

This misinformation is continued despite the department writing to the secretary of United Voice back on 11 April to indicate that union membership is not a prerequisite. Despite all of these demands, the union has never made a wage claim to the Fair Work Commission, the appropriate body to handle these cases. Instead they have gone direct to government to ask for the funds without any rationale or justification. That is simply an indication of how this Labor government operates. It operates to help its union mates who, in turn, help fund their campaign and help work on their campaign. Is it any wonder when we consider that this union has donated more than $7 million to the Labor Party over successive elections—quite a significant amount, I think most people would agree. This is yet another example of how the unions think that they are above the law and normal due process and think they can circumvent these due processes and operate in their own environment.

I come to my final point, why it is so important to have affordable and accessible child care. In the time remaining to me I want to talk about why it is that child care in all its forms needs to be flexible, accessible and affordable to cater to the needs of those that require its service. In Australia it is clear that we have a participation issue. Only 76 per cent of women aged 25 to 54 are in paid work compared with over 80 per cent in other developed economies such as Canada and Germany. One of the most effective ways that we can lift the participation rate is to encourage women back into the workforce after childbirth if that is indeed what they want. Clearly the coalition's paid parental leave scheme is just one mechanism to assist with this. Another way is to ensure that individual families can access child care that caters to their needs.

In this modern economy, where women can work in many and varied environments, one size does not fit all and we know that affordability is one of the key aspects to whether or not the women and families in this country can access child care. That is why I am concerned about the changes the government has made to the childcare system, including the National Quality Framework and universal access. These regulatory changes, while potentially good in intent, have not been thought through, like so much of the government's actions. At the time we were promised by the minister that the changes would only result in an increase in costs of around 57c per week, yet the reality is that costs have gone up by more than $100 per week. I recently met with a number of childcare providers and local councils to talk to them about the impact of these additional regulations on the services that they themselves provide and the impact of maintaining current levels of staffing. They have told me that it has a very direct impact as to the cost of services and one council told me that the impact of upgrading a number of their capital structures in order to comply with the new regulations was more than $1.5 million. Who will ultimately pay for that? I think the answer is clear: it will be the parents who choose to send their child to that childcare centre.

In conclusion, we on this side of the House have serious concerns about this legislation. That is why we oppose it. We also have grave concerns about the direction of this government as a whole and the direction they have taken when it comes to child care. We, should we have the privilege of forming government after 14 September, have been upfront with the Australian people that we will work hard to make sure that we meet their childcare needs and have said that we will have a Productivity Commission inquiry into how we can make the childcare sector more affordable and more accessible to all who require the services. Unlike this government, when we look at an issue we do not simply ask the question, how can we help our union mates? We ask how can we help all Australians? How can we be a responsible government, a government that governs for all and will restore hope, reward and opportunity?

See this speech in context