Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

I will get to that. The guidelines had placed an onus on employers, which was viewed by this government, certainly as unnecessary, and it was costing employers. The other two questions were: 'How many cleaners were affected by that deregulatory decision; and what was the effect on the wages?' To be able to answer that properly, what needs to be put on record here by the member—and it is something that I have seen failed to be put on record anywhere—is: 'What is the causal link between the deregulatory decision and whatever subsequent enterprise agreement was bargained between the cleaners and their employers?' As the member would know, having had some experience in these matters, enterprise agreements set wages. They are bargained often between union representatives for the individuals involved and they are the result of those arrangements.

In this instance, deregulatory changes were made. Immediately after those deregulatory changes were made there were no changes whatsoever to the wages and or conditions. Enterprise agreements that had a known termination date were then renegotiated by unions—many of which are affiliated with your side of politics—with their employers. What remains to be proven with any kind of substantial form is that there is a direct causal link between the two.

An opposition member interjecting—

It might assist my friend if I describe how wages are actually set. I might use the example that my parliamentary secretary colleague raised, which is Clean Event. Clean Event provides a perfect example of how wages are actually set. Wages are determined in enterprise agreements by negotiation, almost invariably, by unions negotiating on behalf of the workers with employers, to finalise an enterprise agreement that has a fixed term.

What has been put by the member for Rankin is that there is some kind of causal link between the enterprise agreement that was negotiated many months after a deregulatory decision—which was a far broader decision—was made. To clarify how it is that wages are set, I will use the example of Clean Event. A union negotiates on behalf of its employees with an employer to determine wages and conditions where the conditions will often involve things like leave, leave loading, holiday pay and other conditions of that type. Certain calculations must be made as to whether or not those employees are better or worse off, under the subsequent agreement, compared to previous agreements. Using the example of Clean Event—which has become somewhat topical of late—a view has been put that the cleaners, the employees, who were contracted with the relevant company, Clean Event, would not have been better off under the second compared to the previous agreement. In fact, they would have been substantially worse off. Interestingly, this decision—as the member for Rankin might be happy to concede—was not prefaced or predated by any regulatory or deregulatory decision, was it? It was just an enterprise agreement—

An opposition member interjecting—

What is being put without any evidentiary foundation is that the direct necessary condition that led to a subsequent enterprise agreement had something to do with a deregulatory decision in and about the same industry. What we are pointing out is that here is an example where, in a subsequent decision, a subsequent DVA—

(Time expired)

See this speech in context