Ken O'Dowd (Flynn, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I wish to speak on the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013, which I oppose in its entirety. This legislation seeks to establish a $300 million fund to provide wage increases to around 30 to 40 per cent, although this figure is not clear, of the long day care workforce and it only lasts for two years. As for what happens after two years, we guess it reverts back to where it is today. The centres will need to enter into enterprise bargaining agreements with staff and meet eligibility criteria. Given the limited pool of funds, it could be on a 'first in' basis, yet this is not even clear. After the two years workers will revert back to their previous wage. This would be history-making if this were the case. This bill is unbalanced. It is divisive, it is unfair and it will create a wage war.

The bill has come around as a result of the union involved waging the Big Steps campaign, seeking to increase wages and conditions in the early childhood sector. The United Voice union—previously the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union, or the LHMU—have been campaigning for an increase in childcare sector wages since 2008, with their requests for increases ranging between $7 and $10 an hour. They proposed that the government fund this increase, and they were actually originally looking for $1.4 billion a year—and indexed.

The coalition have a number of serious concerns with this bill. We do not dispute that childcare educators are low paid. We know these workers are skilled and work long and hard hours. Any wage increase should come through the Fair Work Commission, the body that the government has established with the responsibility of determining appropriate and fair levels of remuneration. Yet the United Voice union has refused to lodge a wage claim with the Fair Work Commission. Can you believe this? They rely instead on a Labor government to just hand over money hand over fist. It is unheard of.

This $300 million is nothing more than an act of appeasement to the unions, which will use it to enable them to go on a recruitment drive within the sector. In my seat of Flynn union delegates have been around the child-minding centres, telling the workers and management that, if the staff do not join the unions, which will cost around $500 a year, they will not be eligible for this pay rise. When they are confronted with this, they say they do not know anything about it, but I can tell the House that I have numerous people saying they have gone to just about every agency that I know of. They have been there. They have even got the contracts to join the union. This $300 million is nothing more than an act of appeasement to the unions and has to be stopped.

How is the increase in salaries going to be distributed to roughly one-third of the staff? How does this work in practice? It does not. It is going to send a wedge through the workforce. Thirty per cent are going to get a wage rise; the other 70 per cent will miss out. This is going to cause bedlam in the industry. You will have staff jumping ship and going to where they can gain $7 to $10 an hour extra in their pay. Why wouldn't you jump the fence if it meant getting an extra $400 a week in your pay packet? Think of the carnage it is going to cause. The operators, if they want to stop the staff from jumping the fence, will have to increase their wages, and where does this money come from? They will have to put their fees up, and it is going to have to come from the public themselves. It is a very unfair system. How can anyone rule that one-third of the workforce gets it and two-thirds miss out? It is totally incredible that anyone could devise a bill that would say that to the staff. Imagine if one-third of your staff had the wage increase and two-thirds did not have it. What would you tell them as an employer? You would be ducking for cover.

We are still unsure how many workers will be eligible for the pay rise. There is even an argument going on between Minister Garrett, who says 68,000 people are involved, and the media, who say there are 78,000. There is a difference of 10,000 staff.

See this speech in context