Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2014 and also indicate that the opposition has concerns with not only parts of the substance of the bill but also the way in which the government has sought to make potentially wide-scale changes to legislation. The member for Watson was absolutely right that if you have a bill of 500 or more pages introduced the day before and at the same time you seek to gag the debate on these matters then, clearly, due process is not being entertained. It is quite ironic that the bill itself is entitled 'public governance'. This is about governance and governing, yet the government itself does not want to have proper consideration of matters that will impact on 250 or thereabouts pieces of legislation and countless Commonwealth regulations.

Ms Brodtmann interjecting—

And, indeed, they go back for some time, as the member for Canberra has indicated. The fact is that the government's conduct here is that they do not want to provide due diligence in these matters and they do not want to illustrate the capacity to govern effectively. The other reference I would like to make to the title of the bill is accountability—'public governance, performance and accountability' is the name of the bill, yet what accountability is the government showing to the people of Australia by gagging this debate and not allowing examination of these matters?

It is quite ridiculous and absurd of the previous speaker to suggest that the opposition has had enough time—or, for that matter, that government members have had enough time—to absorb the contents of this bill. In fact, you would have to be reading a page about every three seconds to absorb the scale of the bill in question. That is the point the member for Watson was making, that if you believe you need to make these changes, that is all well and good, that is what the government should be proposing perhaps, but to deny the parliament the opportunity to examine the motives of the executive is not consistent with due process, it is not consistent with the Westminster system of accountability and it is certainly not in keeping with a good parliament by not allowing for that examination. So the opposition have grave concerns about the way in which this matter is being dealt with by the government and for that reason we strongly argue against the gag and reserve our rights to reflect upon much of the provisions of the legislation.

One thing that the member for Watson did highlight that has been of concern to the opposition for some time and has been the subject of answers by the Prime Minister in question time has been the potential to impact adversely on the wages of cleaners that are under Commonwealth contracts. Members would recall that questions were put to the Prime Minister in relation to the Clean Start rates, that is, the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines, which are regulated in a way that ensures a standard of conditions of employment and wages for cleaners, the people who clean our offices and undertake the provision of services under Commonwealth contracts. In answer to a question about whether cleaners would be adversely impacted by the abolition of these guidelines, the Prime Minister said there would not be cleaners that would suffer losses to wages. Unfortunately, wilfully or otherwise, the Prime Minister is wrong.

If this bill is enacted, the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines which regulate the minimum pay and conditions for cleaners will effectively wipe the floor with some of Australia's lowest paid workers. The impact of the abolition of the regulation would mean that future contracts that may be tendered would be tendered on the basis that those contractors could employ workers not on the minimum rate pursuant to this regulation but on the minimum rate pursuant to the award. The effect of that would be that cleaners would stand to lose up to $344 a week because of this government's decision, with a cut from the Clean Start rate of $22.02 to the award rate of $17.49. That is a cut of almost $5 per hour for cleaners who are under Commonwealth contracts, yet we have had the Prime Minister stand at the dispatch box here and, in answer to a question in question time, argue that cleaners' conditions of employment will not be reduced. This is symptomatic of a Prime Minister that does not know his own budget, that does not know his own legislation and that does not care about the adverse impact his decisions will have upon hardworking Australians. Indeed, it is also consistent with the intentions of this government to go further in changing conditions of employment for millions of Australian workers, I would contend.

So, firstly, we argue that the process by which this bill has been introduced is unreasonable. It has not allowed the opposition to properly consider these matters. It is being rammed through the parliament without proper consideration. And so far as the provision with respect to Commonwealth cleaning guidelines is concerned, we say that this decision, under the so-called guise of red tape, is a cruel and callous decision which is totally unjustified. It was clear from the outset that the government tried to bury this attack on minimum conditions for cleaners among some 8,000 regulatory changes. They came without any warning from the government. Now, with the introduction of these bills, we see how these guidelines will be abolished.

Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, you may recall—as you were, of course, a successful candidate in the last election—that before the election Tony Abbott said he would not touch workers' pay and conditions. He promised he would not cut wages or penalty rates. We know, however, that cleaners stand to lose $344 a week, as I said. We have concerns that there are other nasty provisions in this bill, and yet we have not been given the opportunity to examine the scale of the impact of this legislation upon other pieces of legislation and other regulations. We therefore caution the government on its approach; indeed, we criticise the government for its approach in ramming this bill through the parliament.

We have not only had denials from the Prime Minister in relation to the potential reduction in rates of pay for cleaners; we have also had denials from the Minister for Employment, Senator Abetz, who has argued that there will be no changes to cleaners' rates of pay—patently untrue. The minister is also introducing legislation to broaden the scope of individual flexibility arrangements, essentially heading back to those dark days of Work Choices. We are seeing the beginning, I would contend, of an agenda on industrial relations buried within this massive bill, which has not been given sufficient time for proper examination.

We, therefore, have grave reservations about the impact of this bill. I foreshadow that Labor will be moving an amendment to the bill at the consideration in detail stage of the debate to ensure that these guidelines remain operative. It will be, in the end, as always, Labor that will stand up for hardworking Australians and their conditions of employment. It will be the Labor Party that will stand between the government and hardworking Australians to prevent this government ripping away those conditions of employment. I will certainly be moving an amendment in the consideration in detail stage to do just that.

See this speech in context