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

I move the opposition amendment to the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2014, as circulated under my name:

(1) Schedule 2, page 28 (after line 15), after item 58, insert:

58A Guidelines

The amendments to section 65 of the FMA Act made by this Schedule do not affect the continuity of the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines 2012, as in force immediately before the commencement time.

As I said earlier in my contribution to the debate on these bills, the opposition has grave concerns about the impact of the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines and their potential impact upon cleaners' rates of pay going forward. In this place we had the Prime Minister, when questions were put to him on this matter during question time, give an unqualified guarantee that cleaners who work under Commonwealth contracts would not lose any payment or suffer any loss to or reductions of their hourly rate of pay. If this amendment is not supported by the government, those unqualified statements will be found to be untrue. The only issue is whether the Prime Minister intentionally misled this parliament by answering as he did the questions asked of him about the impact on cleaners under Commonwealth contracts.

As the member for Watson and the member for Bendigo have said in this debate, the repeal of this guideline will mean that, when future contracts are tendered, those tendering will be able—if they are successful—to reduce the rates of pay for cleaners under that contract by almost $5 an hour. That is what would happen to cleaners as a result of the provision contained within this bill. For that reason, and so that we can ensure that the Prime Minister did not mislead this place in question time when asked about this matter, we would expect the government to support this amendment. Clearly, if the Prime Minister and his government have no intention to cut that hourly rate upon the tendering of Commonwealth contracts to do with cleaning, then the government and the Prime Minister will support what we are putting in this amendment.

The contrary of course is also the case. If the government vote down or seek to oppose this amendment in this place when it is put, then clearly the intention of the government is utterly opposite to the commitment and guarantee the Prime Minister gave at the dispatch box a little while ago, a few weeks ago, when cleaners that are actually under those contracts were in the gallery. He would have effectively lied to their faces. So the government have to consider whether they want to make a liar of the Prime Minister or whether in fact they support the opposition and remove the provision that will expose cleaners on Commonwealth contracts. That is what we are now debating—whether you can trust the Prime Minister when he makes a commitment in this place when asked a question in question time.

We already know that there is a litany of broken promises insofar as what the Prime Minister said before the election and what he has done after the election—it is writ large in the budget—but here is a simple provision, the effect of which has a dire impact upon the conditions of employment for low-paid workers in this country. He has an opportunity, as does this government, to make clear that they have no intention to cut the rates of hardworking Australians under Commonwealth contracts. As the member for Bendigo said, the Prime Minister wants to argue for his Paid Parental Leave as ensuring that private sector employees receive conditions of employment commensurate with those of public sector employees. And yet with this stroke of a pen on this provision the government will be cutting conditions of employment for those who perform public contracts on behalf of the Commonwealth. That is now the question that is before us. There is an opportunity here for the government to make sure they do not make a liar of the Prime Minister, voting up this amendment and ensuring that that guideline is not repealed. I ask the government to entertain that view.

See this speech in context