Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Hansard source

The drafting of this legislation—no doubt, a lot of the work on this was done when Senator Wong was finance minister.

Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—

I said that minutes ago, if you were listening. Keep up; you'll do fine. When Senator Wong was finance minister, a lot of work was done on this. The extent to which what is in front of us is a direct reflection of that, no member of parliament knows. There will be members of the Public Service who have gone through this in a lot of detail. That is good and that is their role. Members of parliament have a role too. That is why we are elected; that is why we are here; that is why Australia is not a country where the public servants simply make executive decisions and can change the law. Constitutionally, that responsibility rests with us.

We have a circumstance where not one of the 150 members of this House is going to be across the detail of what is in this bill beyond what we were told in the second reading speech by the member of the executive when it was introduced. That is all we are going to have to go on. I am not reflecting on the second reading speech. It would have been given in completely good faith. But every member of this parliament has been placed in an impossible situation, and no member of this parliament, in dealing with this bill, is going to be able to properly exercise our own constitutional responsibilities—not one of us. This is not a problem unique to members of the opposition; it is members of the government as well, and it will go all the way to the person who introduced the bill.

There are occasions—and many of us have been in these circumstances—where we have, during the course of debate, found holes, gaps, in legislation. Earlier this week, the government itself, on one of the bills that gets the maximum level of scrutiny, an appropriations bill, discovered that there was nearly $1 billion missing because a schedule had been omitted. A cursory check of the legislation showed that there were meant to be two schedules, and only one was included. These errors do occur and, during the course of the debate, they get worked through and fixed. That does not mean that we will not still have policy differences across them and political differences—of course we will—but there is also a straight scrutiny role that is played by this parliament. The mismanagement, the chaotic management, by this government means there will not be a single member of the House of Representatives who knows the contents of this legislation when we vote—not one of the 150.

Mr Ewen Jones interjecting—

Those opposite who are interjecting from time to time might be comfortable with that, but those who have been in this place a little bit longer, including you, Deputy Speaker Randall, have been in circumstances where legislation has significantly benefited from the scrutiny that is offered within this chamber. None of that is going to occur on this bill. There will be a significant debate on one of the parts of it, because one of the parts of it involves a direct broken promise that does not even date all the way back to before the election; it actually dates back to Monday. On Monday we were given guarantees by the Prime Minister about the pay for cleaners. We know that, in this bill, that is going to get undone. Be in no doubt that the opposition will be moving amendments to take those provisions out that affect cleaners. Be in no doubt that we will be doing that. If those amendments fail here in the House of Representatives, we will still support the legislation. We will not be voting against the legislation if our amendments fail here, because there are deep problems for probity in governance if the rest of the legislation does not get through. But, if our amendments protecting the wages of cleaners are successful in the Senate, be in no doubt that we will insist on those amendments. The onus will then be put back on the government to decide whether or not they too want to play a role as responsible as the role that the opposition is prepared to play on this.

The minister's second reading speech went through the extraordinary scope of the legislation in front of us. Normally the quick way to work out what is in legislation is to pick up the explanatory memorandum. This one is bound. It is not a little stapled document; it is bound. What we have here is far-reaching legislation. I hope there are not errors in it. But the truth is: if there are errors in it, they are not going to be worked out during a gag debate within the House of Representatives. If there are errors here—mistakes that will then have significant consequences for governance and probity—it will be found out after the event, when something has gone wrong, because there will be no parliamentary process capable of properly bringing it to light.

The act commences operation on 1 July. It will replace the two significant governance acts that we have been dealing with for a long time in this House. Anyone who has been engaged in committee work or roles in the executive has a working knowledge, at least, of the differences between the Financial Management and Accountability Act, known as the FMA Act, and the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act, the CAC Act. Whenever you deal with an agency, as a member of the executive, your first question is always, 'Is it an FMA or a CAC Act agency?' because that then determines a whole lot of governance processes that go with it. That entire model and that framework gets replaced by what is before us now.

This goes to the heart of the entire way that the Commonwealth is governed. It goes to the heart of the rules around the probity requirements for the Commonwealth public servants we have and the framework within which they operate. Effectively, this legislation is the gateway between the parliament doing something and the Public Service implementing it. That is what is in front of us. This is no small side piece of legislation that happens to have been rushed through; this is actually at the core.

I can understand that there are circumstances when the Public Service will want to check and go through details and will take longer in getting a brief up to a minister. The truth is, though, that the web page had made clear that the Public Service believed that this was going to be ready to be introduced on 2 June, and there seems to be no doubt at all that the blockage has been because we have a Minister for Finance who is doing the job of two people. If anyone thought, 'Let's just get Senator Sinodinos to stand aside, and we'll sort it all out later on; we'll just park the position; Senator Cormann can carry the load of both, and it won't be a problem,' well, it is a problem. The problem is that we now have 150 members of the House of Representatives, none of whom are able to do their job properly on this bill, and it is a bill that affects the full range of Commonwealth departments and agencies.

The act which was one element of Commonwealth financial accountability review reforms, which was undertaken when we were in government, will consolidate in one piece of legislation all the governance, performance and accountability requirements for Commonwealth government entities. The act aims to improve transparency and consistency across Commonwealth operations. Whether the act does that as intended, I cannot tell the parliament, and no member of this parliament can either, because none of us are across it because none of us have had time. The act is also designed as an evolution of the existing financial framework, so it builds from the base that we are already at, containing new elements which are designed to improve the quality of public financial management in the Commonwealth. The act itself was subject to a two-year-long consultation and consideration process prior to being passed by the parliament last year. The act sets out the principles of a coherent financial framework for all Commonwealth entities. The act aims to create a financial framework where Commonwealth entities have the flexibility and incentives to adopt appropriate systems and processes that help them achieve their objectives efficiently and effectively.

We in the opposition recognise that the amendments contained within these bills are for the purpose of facilitating the transition from the existing framework to the new framework under the new act. We know that that is what they are there to facilitate, but none of us knows whether they do it effectively. All we can say—and all any member of parliament can say—in this debate, because of the circumstance which has been forced upon us, is that we know what the bill intends to do. I do not presume any ill will from the government in terms of the intention behind this, but I do presume a complete, appalling failure on the part of the government to properly manage this process, where they thought they could get away with pretending that one minister was not there for a while and letting the Minister for Finance do the Assistant Treasurer's job as well. All of that has now fallen in a heap, and the parliament is the loser as a result.

The main bill, the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2014, is meant to have the effect of replacing references to the FMA and CAC acts with the equivalent provisions in the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act. It is intended to simplify enabling legislation where provisions of the act cover a matter which had previously been dealt with in the enabling legislation. It is intended to amend enabling legislation to clarify which matters, and to what extent, are covered by the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act and which matters, and to what extent, are covered by the enabling legislation. Examples of this are things like disclosure-of-interest arrangements. The main bill also has provisions to provide clarity in relation to provisions in the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act which would commence after 1 July this year and provisions within the existing financial framework which would continue to operate beyond 1 July.

There are other bills that are associated with this bill. As well as this one, we have this one, another one here and another one here. Not a single member of parliament, not one of us, has read all of these, but they are all here and they are all being debated right now. We are all meant to vote on them and decide whether they should be the law of Australia on the basis that we know what they are intended to say, but none of us are actually sure what they do say.

These extra bills—the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Consequential Modifications of Appropriation Acts (No. 1), (No. 3) and (No. 5)) Bill 2014, the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Consequential Modifications of Appropriation Acts (No. 2), (No. 4) and (No. 6)) Bill 2014, and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Consequential Modifications of Appropriation Acts (Parliamentary Departments)) Bill 2014—relate to amendments to appropriations bills to ensure that Commonwealth entities have access to the funding that has been approved by the parliament. All of the detail of this seems pretty mundane, in that it is not something that is going to be part of mainstream public debate on these issues, but the whole work of our Public Service actually hinges on them and hinges on the detail of this being right. The amendments in the bills being debated should ensure that we get a smooth transition to a new financial framework, which had largely been developed when we were in government. The new government has continued with that, I believe, in good faith. As I say once again, I do not presume any ill will, but I do presume a fair degree of incompetence in the way that this has ended up before us.

The amendment which we will not be supporting is that part of it that relates to cleaners. Some of us will remember the bonfire that became the fizzer that was known as repeal day. One of those amendments stipulated that the owner of a mule or bullock required for naval or military purposes shall furnish it for such purposes and that the owner may have to register it from time to time. There was another one removing the hyphen from the word 'e-mail' and changing the wording from 'facsimile transmission' to 'fax'—all changes which I am sure small business were hanging on because it would make a fundamental difference to the red tape they had to deal with! But, in the middle of those relatively harmless changes, there was one substantial change. This was the move to abolish the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines under the guise of red tape.

The Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines have been important and they have affected the take-home pay of some of the people on the most modest wages in our country. They have a very direct impact on their take-home pay. The Prime Minister gave a guarantee on Monday that their pay would not be cut. Let us have a look at what this bill does and how we have a Prime Minister who we used to think could not make his election promises last a few months, from before the election till after, but we now discover cannot make his promises even see out the week.

The Prime Minister's red tape stunt to axe the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines, which regulate the minimum pay and conditions for cleaners, will provide real pain for some of Australia's lowest paid workers. It is a cruel and callous move and it is totally unjustified. The government tried to bury the attack on minimum conditions for cleaners among some other 8,000 regulatory changes. Not only did it come without any warning from the government but it came this week after a guarantee from the Prime Minister that it would not occur. I would love to believe that this has slipped through because of the way it has been rushed, but I reckon this is the one clause that they did know about. I reckon on this one the government knows exactly what it is doing.

Before the election we were told that the Prime Minister would not touch workers' pay and conditions. There is no way of reading this part of the bill without seeing it as an attack on pay and conditions. Cleaners stand to lose up to $344 a week. We have a Prime Minister who has been talking ad nauseam about the impact of $550 a year that is fully compensated. Here is an impact of up to $344 a week for some of our lowest paid workers—a cut from the Clean Start rate of $22.02 to the award rate of $17.49. As I said in the debate on gagging this legislation, how do you argue that that is anything other than a cut? How does anyone argue that that is anything other than a cut? The Clean Start rate under the guidelines is $22.02 an hour and the award rate is $17.49 an hour. If those opposite can argue that the $17 figure is higher than the $22 figure, good on them—it will make them eligible for the top job because they can give similar answers during question time.

This is a cut. This is a broken promise from the election. It is a broken promise from Monday. On Monday we were given a guarantee by the Prime Minister during question time and by Wednesday we have legislation in the parliament providing a hit to the take-home pay of cleaners employed by the Commonwealth. This is under the guise, of all things, of removing red tape. I do not think there is a single low-paid worker who believes that their wage is red tape. We already know the way the government's first budget acted to hurt many low- to middle-income Australians. Now through these bills the government is seeking to cut the pay of some of Australia's lowest paid workers. The Prime Minister said on Monday:

I want to make it absolutely crystal clear that no cleaner's pay is reduced.

And:

This government has not reduced the pay of any cleaner full stop, end of story. This government has not reduced the pay of any cleaner.

The second quote was actually true on Monday. They had not—they waited until Wednesday to do it. But, after this has been voted on and proclaimed, the guidelines will be ditched and we will have a situation where cleaners' pay gets cut. The second quote was true at the time but the first one was an absolute broken promise, which did not even last 48 hours:

I want to make it absolutely crystal clear that no cleaner's pay is reduced.

The Prime Minister stood there and gave a guarantee to some of our lowest paid workers but 48 hours later he is cutting their pay.

Labor opposes the government's decision to abolish the guidelines that apply to cleaners working for Australian government agencies and contractors. We will do everything we can to block this move. When we have the debate here we will move amendments to take this out. If the Prime Minister's word means anything, the government will support those amendments and then we can all support this legislation, presuming what we think is in it is in fact there. If our amendments are defeated in the House, we will still not oppose the legislation for the very simple reason that our entire governance framework for the Commonwealth will be at risk if these bills are not in place by 1 July and we are not going to behave irresponsibly. But we will then move those amendments in the Senate if they still do not form part of the bill. If our amendments are successful in the Senate, be in no doubt that we will insist on them. We will not be resiling from the fact that we do not want to see the circumstance where Australia's lowest paid workers have their pay cut.

The government can make up its own mind as to whether it believes the Prime Minister's word should last a week and as to whether it believes the Prime Minister's word is worth anything. We were all here. We might not know what is in this bill, but we all know what the Prime Minister said on Monday and we know that this bill does not reflect it.

The revocation of the guidelines is not the only thing that should be concerning Australian workers. We have a series of issues that have come here. We have comments from Senator Abetz with respect to individual flexibility arrangements, the spectre of AWAs and now what they are doing with the budget with the increase in the retirement age. We all know the physical toll that jobs that involve physical labour—not white-collar jobs like we enjoy in this House—take on people. What is a perfect example of that? Cleaners—people who will take a direct hit with an increase in the retirement age and the pension age going out to 70. The government, with that move, is causing real pain. Labor will have none of it. We will fight it here in this House; if not successful, we will allow the bills through and fight it again in the Senate, where I hope our amendments will be successful. I hope they are successful here. If the Prime Minister meant what he said on Monday he will be voting for them—but we have seen a record of how long this Prime Minister's word lasts.

We will be fighting that part of it, but I do not want to underestimate the importance of the legislation as a whole. The legislation that is before us is critical to the entire governance framework of the public service. Australia has a very proud record of a highly professional Commonwealth public service. The good governance arrangements within which it operates have been a feature of that. There is goodwill from both sides of the House to improve the governance framework and move to this new model. To get the transition right, the detail of this legislation needs to be right. We have the embarrassing situation where, because this government has failed to make a decision about the future of Senator Sinodinos, every member of the House of Representatives is now forced to vote for legislation when the truth is not one of us has had a chance to read this since it was introduced at 4.30 pm yesterday—not one of us. We will have 150 members of the House of Representatives voting on this legislation as a leap of faith because none of us are sure what it says.

See this speech in context