Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

There's no doubt that Australia is in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis. For Australian households, basic costs like rent, mortgage repayments, electricity, child care and GP services are going through the roof. Whoever would have thought that Hobart would have the highest rentals in Australia?

Everyone knows that we inherited this crisis from the previous government, but now that they're in opposition they have the temerity to demand that we instantly fix the mess that they created. If the opposition continue on their current course then it raises the question: what is their plan to get wages moving again? The fact is, they have none—zilch, zero, nothing. When those opposite have abandoned any commitment to real wage growth then they have zero credibility when it comes to talking about cost-of-living pressures.

When they were in government they presided over record low wages growth. They refused to support an increase in the minimum wage for Australia's lowest paid workers. We saw an explosion under the previous government of insecure forms of work such as labour hire and contracting, even in the Public Service. Those opposite stood idly by while gig economy workers were mercilessly underpaid and exploited. Who could ever forget the former finance minister admitting that low wages were 'a deliberate economic policy'? Those opposite admitted proudly and unequivocally that they sought to keep wages low. When those opposite cry crocodile tears about the cost-of-living pressures Australian households are facing, their words ring hollow because they have zero commitment to real wage growth—absolutely none.

When enterprise bargaining is working, productivity gains are shared between business and workers. But the bargaining system is clearly broken. In the last 10 years, business profits have grown 133 per cent. And how much have wages lifted? A little over 35 per cent. So who's reaping the benefit there? After waiting 10 years for their fair share of productivity gains, workers have waited way too long for a decent pay rise. How much longer do the opposition want them to wait? Come on, give me a timeline. How much longer do you want low-paid workers to wait?

To those listening, I would say: don't be fooled by all the confected outrage from those opposite on behalf of business. They do not have a monopoly on understanding the needs of business. For the benefit of Senator Hanson: I grew up in a small-business family and I've run my own business. I've also worked as a union official and negotiated agreements on behalf of workers. As a former early childhood educator, I think I can say with authority that it is one industry where wages really need to get moving. But those opposite would be happy to deny early childhood educators a pay rise.

This is a prime example of an industry, dominated by female workers, where the importance of the work and the level of qualification needed to do the work is simply not reflected in the pay. I challenge anyone on that side to spend a week changing other people's babies' nappies in an early childhood education area. Any one of you: change other people's babies' nappies for a week, and see how much you think they should be paid. I can tell you: I know people, especially males, that gag at changing their own babies' nappies, let alone going in and changing other people's. You have no idea how the early childhood educators work—not a speck.

Educators' pay is at complete odds with the value we place on children in their care, and it shocks me. It still shocks me that the arguments workers and their unions in that industry are making are the same arguments that I put forward when I worked in the industry more than 30 years ago. We're still having the argument, and those on that side want to block those workers from getting a pay rise. You are disgusting.

As a former educator, I was pleased to hear support for the government reforms from Ms Julie Price, executive director of the Community Child Care Association. Ms Price, who represents over 750 community not-for-profit early childhood education and care centres, told the Senate inquiry into this bill that multi-employer bargaining is 'a fantastic instrument to help ensure better wages and conditions'. She said that a multi-employer agreement covering 60 early childhood education services in Victoria was of great help to small community-owned centres that 'don't necessarily have the expertise in industrial relations to be able to negotiate an agreement themselves'.

Let's not forget that bargaining has benefits for business, not just for workers. For example, agreements can have a simpler set of tailored conditions when compared to the award, and businesses can negotiate productivity improvements with their workforces. It's unfortunate that others in this place have chosen not to play a constructive role, and some have effectively dealt themselves out of any meaningful engagement on shaping the provisions of this bill.

Sadly, the opposition have such an ideological hatred of unions that they will oppose anything that might involve them, even if it's good for business. It's a kneejerk, almost Pavlovian, reaction, not one based on the consideration of good, decent public policy. If they don't support this bill, let the record show that Labor sought to address the pain of cost-of-living pressures by getting wages moving again while those opposite continued to stand in the way.