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

What fine words from the member for Aston, who sums up very well what this move by the government is about. As he said, I was the deputy chair of the Standing Committee on Education and Employment that did a very rushed inquiry into this bill, the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013. I did speak on that report when it was tabled in the House, but I thought I would take this opportunity to further tease out some of the issues that I raised at that time.

I was very disappointed that we were not able to give this bill the consideration that I believe it needed. We had one short hearing from the department and a number of submissions—in fact, quite a number; 99, if I remember rightly—to the House of Representatives committee—largely expressing some distress with the legislation it must be said. Yet we had no time at all to call any of those contributors to come before the committee and express their concerns.

Earlier today the member for Barker spoke in his valedictory speech about the opportunity within this parliament for the House of Representatives committees to change their role somewhat. But unfortunately, under these kinds of timelines, there is an inability to appropriately consider legislation, as I think was intended originally under the new paradigm. It is unfortunate that in many cases much has been left wanting with these bill inquiries.

To the legislation itself, there is no doubt in my mind that this is really a fit-up. It is all about politics and not all that much about early years child care. It is difficult to rise and speak against a wage rise for people who are not highly paid, but when you realise, as I do, that the wage rise is only for a certain percentage of those in the industry—the government claims 40 per cent; in fact, others suggest it will only go so far as 27 per cent—and that the other 60 to 73 per cent will miss out, it is in itself very divisive.

Perhaps that is not that surprising because this government, this Prime Minister in particular, has chosen to be very divisive over a number of issues. There was the singling-out of wealthy miners. There is a case of dog whistling going on with the xenophobic calls around the 457s at the moment. There is certainly a tilt at men with blue ties. I would consider that the one I am wearing at the moment is a blue tie, but I do not think that that puts me in a box of unmentionable people. It is divisive within the industry. In fact, in the submissions made to the inquiry, Childcare Queensland, for instance, said:

The 27% - 40% of services that are successful in gaining the grant will only receive the funding for a period of two years as there is no provision for this grant funding to be continued past 30/06/2015. It will be extremely difficult for these services to reduce the wages at this time so they will all be forced to increase their fees by $10+ per child per day.

Kinda Kapers at Mount Hutton in New South Wales said:

This will create a two tiered wage system with centres who are not successful in attracting the grant money either dramatically increasing fees to enable them to match the wage increase or being unable to attract the very few trained staff who available for employment. Regional and rural centres will be most negatively affected as they are the centres currently most negatively impacted by the industry skill shortage.

I am sure you would understand that, Deputy Speaker Adams, as you do represent a large part of Tasmania that is regional.

That is a two-tiered system—there is no way of dressing that up. The big question is: what is to happen after the two years when the funding ceases? It is highly unlikely that these childcare centres will be able to encourage their staff to take a wage cut, and probably no-one would want to do that. So inevitably it will almost certainly lead to higher costs for those using the services. The other question, of course, is what happens to the 60 per cent to 73 per cent of childcare centres that do not get the extra funding in any case? I can tell you, Deputy Speaker, from the broad number of submissions that came in that a lot of people were very excited in the industry about the fact they may be getting a wage increase, only to be highly disillusioned when they found out that in fact it may not be coming their way. In fact, for the majority, it certainly will not be coming their way.

In particular, this divisiveness within the industry has caused widespread unhappiness. The Australian Childcare Alliance, for instance, noted that the announcement has already caused outrage and division amongst educators in the early education and childcare sector. Educators are understandably angry as their colleagues in the long day care centre across the road may receive the grant while they receive nothing. This is hardly a way to govern for all of Australia and I am very disappointed that the government should bring this legislation into the House dressed up as something which is benefiting the industry when in fact it is going to cause division and unhappiness throughout.

One of the things that particularly concerned the coalition members of the committee was the evidence we received about the campaign by the United Voice union with their Big Steps campaign which certainly preceded the government's announcement. It was commonly reported that the union was claiming centres could not qualify for the funding unless they had a 60 per cent unionised workforce. I am aware that the department wrote to one of the union officials and informed them what the correct state of play was, but we are given to understand that the campaign still continued and that, quite disturbingly, there was a sense of menace in the workplace. The Australian Childcare Alliance said:

During the last two years there has been considerable union activity at services Australia wide increasing substantially since the announcement of the EYQF grant by the Prime Minister. Many of our members have reported that this union activity has been intimidating to both themselves and their staff.

Our members around Australia have been advising us of the strong arm tactics that United Voice Union organisers who have been telling members that they must have 60 per cent plus membership to engage with them to submit the Enterprise Agreement.

Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, you would be very well aware that the minister for workplace relations only two weeks ago introduced legislation into this House around workplace bullying, which came after an inquiry that I was also the deputy chair of. While I did not agree with all of the recommendations that the government put forward on workplace bullying, we on the coalition were disappointed at the time the inquiry was formed that there was no provision to look at union bullying in the workplace. It would appear that it is alive and well. Certainly those quotes from the Australian Childcare Alliance say it all.

If that is the case and the union is using this government legislation to build membership, and they have lifted membership substantially around the campaign, it is worth noting that United Voice is a major contributor to the ALP. That synergy and those relationships that are behind the scenes are not clearly transparent on this legislation. It is one of the reasons that I will be voting against it. I think that the days of tip-offs and pay-offs for mates should be behind us. I believe the government will pay a heavy price for some of those links to the union movement in the very near future when the electors of Australia, perhaps on 14 September, come to have their judgment on this government.

All of us would like to see low-paid childcare workers adequately compensated in the workplace, but there is a course of action that workers and unions, if they wish, can take to achieve those wage outcomes. It was this government that established the Fair Work Commission, and there is a correct path for industry-wide wage increases should they choose to take that path. Up to this stage they have not chosen to do that. Instead they have done a deal with the government which will see, in effect, their members get the rewards and get the extra wage increase, and those who choose not to be members of the union will probably miss out. While I know that is not strictly the wording of the legislation, it is certainly the message that is out there in the workplace, and we should not allow that to happen.

I understand $300 million is about one-third of what is needed to give this $7 to $10 an hour increase that has been claimed as an outcome of this legislation and two years clearly is not adequate. It is just about a short-term time frame. In fact, I believe overall it creates more problems for the industry, more problems for the workers, than it solves. What it does do is try to push a political problem and a political kickback just a little further down the track and to push greater problems onto a government in two years time when this finding will cease. Whoever is in government at that time will be faced with a very loud call from those people who have been receiving the higher wages for government to continue what is, in effect, a subsidy. That will be at a time when childcare subsidies, the assistance for parents to purchase child care, will have been frozen. It is unbalanced; it is not good legislation.

It is divisive, to come back to my original point. It is pitting Australians against Australians. It will be pitting those who receive the money against those who miss out. It will be pitting long-term day care up against short-term day care and these are not good outcomes. What we need is fairness right across every industry in the way that we deal with people, not selectivity and not picking out favourites and giving kickbacks and support for those that support us. When either side of parliament forms a government, it should be for all Australians, not for selected Australians, and I will be opposing the legislation.

See this speech in context