Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Here we go again. Another own goal from United Voice. Another exit from the World Cup. Once again they have been exposed for what they are really all about. What has also been exposed is the pandering of the then Labor government to United Voice. There were several other unions, but on this occasion it was United Voice.

Anybody listening to Senator O'Neill in the last few minutes was invited to think that there has been a reduction in wages. Let me make this clear: cleaners currently working in government offices will not be subject to a pay cut. Claims to the contrary, Senator O'Neill, are wrong. Let me say that to you again: there is no difference in the salaries or wages that these people will enjoy. There is no immediate pay cut. Existing employment contracts will continue to apply. Let me make sure people listening to this exchange, this afternoon, understand this.

Why do I say it is another own goal for United Voice? I go back to the committee upon which I sat when we looked at the Early Years Quality Fund. This was a time when the then Labor government threw the figure of some $300 million at United Voice to provide some sort of improved wages and conditions—for some people only—in the long-day-care centres. I believe those employed in that sector are entitled to a higher remuneration. But what did we see in the case of United Voice, twisting the arm of the Labor government to spend and waste yet more Australian taxpayers' money? We saw a situation in which $300 million was supplied—but only for a two-year period.

When I said to the union: 'Should this be successful, who is going to tell this limited number of people who enjoy the increase in wages that it is only for a two-year period?' In their embarrassment they could not and would not answer that question. So we were going to have a scenario in which only those people whose employers had an enterprise bargaining agreement could apply. Remember that most participants in the early-years long-day-care sector were small employers, often families, so they were excluded immediately. We know that only a third of those people were to enjoy any benefit at all, for a limited two-year period.

What has the coalition done in government? It has taken what remains of those Labor funds squandered on United Voice and it has allocated those funds for further training, for everybody in the sector not just for the privileged few who joined up to United Voice. The subject we are discussing today is nothing other than a United Voice membership drive.

There is no occasion where there will be cuts to wages. There is no occasion where there will be a change in the conditions of employment. But what are we seeing?

We are seeing the most unusual set of circumstances, promoted by the now Labor opposition, then the government, in which different workers working for the same employer in different cities of Australia will be earning different sums of money. Let me give you a few examples. In the employment portfolio we have examples of confusion in the application of the guidelines. The Department of Employment, and indeed the Fair Work Ombudsman itself, are applying the guidelines in their offices through their cleaning contracts, but they are technically not required to in non-CBD locations. The Fair Work Building and Construction must apply the guidelines in its Melbourne office but not in the Sydney office because in Sydney the building owner provides cleaning services. The last time I looked, I did not think the cost of living in Melbourne was all that much higher than it is in Sydney. Safe Work Australia applies the guidelines only in the Canberra office. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency is located in the CBD, but it does not have to supply these conditions because, again, the structure is serviced by the building owner.

The problem that occurs here is the complete and utter lack of synchrony between workers and members and senators from the Labor side. By that I mean that less than 15 per cent of private sector workers in Australia are members of unions. If the information available to me is correct, more than 90 per cent of federal members and/or senators from the Labor side come from union backgrounds. Less than 15 per cent of workers out there are members of unions and greater than 90 per cent are influencing policy here in this place. That is where the difficulty comes from. It is absolutely and utterly duplicitous for those on the other side to come into this place to talk about pay cuts and the so-called actions of the Minister for Employment. All he has done is apply exactly the same principles that Labor did in government in this particular circumstance. With these inequitable benefits and obligations—circumstances that some cleaners enjoy and others do not—we have a situation where a cleaner in the same building and location, on this occasion is occupied by a private sector company, would receive a different rate of pay and conditions.

Let me remind those listening again that the coalition inherited a $193 billion deficit, racing to that figure again if Labor had continued in government, with $1,000 million a month interest on the debt. That is $100 per working person per month in this country. It is two new primary schools every day. A new primary school every 12 hours is forgone because of the interest we are paying on a debt that Labor created when they had inherited a surplus. You would think that Labor would be embarrassed. You would think that they would never, ever put up such an urgency motion.

Question agreed to.