Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated Monday, 7 July 2014 from Senator Moore:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I move that, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

"The actions of the Minister for Employment in making the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines Repeal Instrument 2014 which repeal the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines 2012 and slashed the wages of cleaners covered by Commonwealth contracts."

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Deputy President, and congratulations on your appointment today. I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The actions of the Minister for Employment in making the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines Repeal Instrument 2014 which repeal the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines 2012 and slashed the wages of cleaners covered by Commonwealth contracts.

I rise to speak about the plight of cleaners and the actual impact on cleaners of the guidelines that Senator Abetz refuses to take responsibility for in this place. In question time today Senator Abetz tried to put the responsibility for cutting cleaners wages by $5 an hour onto the Fair Work Commission. But the truth is Senator Abetz himself has cut the wages of cleaners. There is no way of getting around that; it is not Fair Work, it is not anyone else—it is Senator Abetz who has made the decision to cut the wages of cleaners, and he has done that very early on as the Minister for Employment. In fact, really, he is the 'minister for unemployment' for cutting the wages of cleaners in such a harsh and cruel way.

Senator Abetz has made this decision, saying it is something about red tape. There is no red tape involved in cutting cleaners' wages by $5 an hour. Clearly the minister does not understand what was put in place by Labor. The minister said on the Insiders program that he wants a level playing field. That is exactly what Labor put in place—a level playing field. Labor said, if you are a contractor—and in this case a contractor cleaning company bidding for Commonwealth work—then there is a rate of pay that needs to be paid, there are a set of conditions that need to be adhered to, and there is a work rate which has been thoroughly investigated and set. What that did was ensure that cleaners, who might work in the same building for 30 years but have five or six different employers, did not go from contract to contract facing this uncertainty. What was happening before Labor put in place the level playing field was that, at contract change, cleaners did not know even if they had a job. So every time a contract changed—every couple of years—cleaners faced the prospect of having no employment and of finding themselves on the scrap heap of unemployment. Labor fixed that through the guidelines.

The second thing Labor did was take their wages out of competition, because one of the other things that contractors used to be able to compete around was whether they paid the award for cleaners, which is around $18 an hour, or whether there was an enterprise agreement in place. Labor said, 'No, if we are going to have an even playing field, then cleaners deserve to have the same hourly rate—not to have their wages go up or down or indeed be out of work every time somebody else, not the cleaners but a government bureaucrat, makes a decision to change a contract.'

Labor also put in place a fair work rate because, when cleaners were kept on by the contractor, they would be told suddenly that their cleaning area had doubled. Obviously that is not fair. Labor amended all of that and put into place a set of guidelines that said, 'If you are contracting for government work in government buildings there is a certain standard.' Minister Abetz has come along and just slashed that. There is no red tape about this. This is ideological hatred of workers in this country. He demonstrates it day after day in this chamber. Standing here today in response to questions put to him on behalf of Labor, asking him why he did that, he tried to shift the blame to the Fair Work Commission.

The Archbishop of Canberra and Goulburn is so concerned about this that yesterday he raised this in the media. In fact, he has called cleaners 'the new battlers'. Senator Abetz rubbished him as well and said that he did not know the full story. Well, the test is coming, Senator Abetz, because on 1 October the Garrison Support contract will change. Those cleaners currently have their rate of pay, their right to continue to work, their conditions of employment and their workload set by Labor under Labor's standards under those guidelines. Those guidelines were slashed and burned by Senator Abetz a couple of weeks ago. So Senator Abetz said to those 50-odd cleaners at Garrison Support: 'I don't care about you. I'm going to hide behind the Fair Work Commission and red tape and I'm going to slash your pay.' That is the detail underpinning that quick signature that Senator Abetz sneakily put on a piece of paper a couple of weeks ago. He has absolutely directly—no-one else is responsible for this but Senator Abetz—threatened the ongoing employment of those cleaners at Garrison Support.

So that is their first issue. Do they have a job on 2 October? If they have a job, will they have lost more than $100 a week in pay? The new contractor coming in under Senator Abetz's new guideline can just take their current pay and drop them back to the award, no questions asked—'If you want the job, this is the rate you sign for.' We have all been there before in the old Work Choices days. Senator Abetz has threatened their employment. If they are given a job, they could be asked to sign at the lower rate. In addition to that, they could have their hours cut, their conditions cut or their workload increased. For those cleaners at Garrison Support what the minister has done has absolutely guaranteed they have no certainty about the future.

And good on the Archbishop for Canberra and Goulburn for speaking out, because it is not okay to take $170-odd away from cleaners who work full time. They have bills to pay. They have families to feed. All of those 50-odd cleaners at Garrison Support are facing that real threat on 2 October.

The other person I would like to talk about is Chris Wagland, a long-term cleaner in government contracts. She has worked in a Defence building for about 30 years. She lost her job previously under John Howard and his harsh Work Choices laws. Chris, despite fronting up to work every day in the Commonwealth building and doing a great job raising a family with boys in high school and so on, refused to sign an Australian workplace agreement and—guess what—was sacked. Chris is back there now; but, again, once her contract comes up, she is facing uncertainty. Will she lose her job? Will her hourly rate be cut? What will happen to her workload? In the 30 years that Chris Wagland has worked at that Defence contract building she has had five or six different employers. It is the same building, same cleaning and same staff she probably interacts with every day of the week, and yet on five occasions her job has been threatened, her livelihood has been threatened and she has also been sacked.

So Chris was one of the cleaners who was very excited when Labor signed these Fair Work principles, and what she is now seeing is same old, same old under this Abbott government. This is a Prime Minister who also on Fairfax radio promised no worker would be worse off under the government led by Mr Tony Abbott. Guess what? Here we have 50 low-paid cleaners—and, when you walk into a government building, they will be the lowest paid people there. Two weeks ago Senator Abetz sneakily—he did not tell anyone or signal he was going to do it—cut their rate of pay. There is no getting around this. There is no trying to blame Fair Work. The blame for this rests fairly and squarely with Senator Abetz. Those 50 cleaners at Garrison Support on 2 October will not know whether they have a job, what their hours of work will be, what their rate of pay will be or what their work rate will be, and that responsibility rests fairly and squarely with the 'minister for unemployment'. That is what he is really doing. Responsibility for their welfare and their future rests with Senator Abetz.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I start by disabusing those listening: no-one has had a pay cut. This is a dishonest campaign being run by the ALP.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a future pay cut, so that makes it all okay! Tell the truth for a change, Connie.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

True to form, Senator Lines, Senator Wong and all of you across there never let the facts get in the way of a false and misleading scare campaign that the ALP is running in this instance. So let me tell the Senate and remind those opposite of the facts.

These are the facts. As part of repeal day the coalition government revoked the Fair Work principles and the associated Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines with effect from 1 July 2014—

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And cut cleaners' pay. That's what you did.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lines, if instead of trouting on you just sat there and listened, you might learn something.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Fierravanti-Wells, direct your comments through the chair, please.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Every day, we are working to implement our economic action plan. That Australia is open for business is a key part of that economic action strategy. We are determined on this matter, and that is why we are cutting the regulatory burden. It is why on the first red tape repeal day we scrapped 10,500 unnecessary regulations and laws, saving $700 million a year. It is why we have taken the action we have in revoking the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines.

The former government created the Fair Work principles for cleaning service providers, which make them subject to additional workplace relations rules that are outside the mainstream workplace relations and procurement framework. These were created as a concession to United Voice—your former union, Senator Lines. United Voice, of course, is a trade union and an amalgam of the Federated Miscellaneous Workers' Union. While the principles were initially brought in by an earlier minister, Bill Shorten as workplace relations minister signed off on updated principles and guidelines in 2012. These ad hoc arrangements created by Labor create confusing and cumbersome red tape for suppliers. There is no reason to create different rules for businesses that want to supply the government. Workplace relations laws, the modern award system and the Fair Work Ombudsman—the government regulator—already provide strong safeguards. There is no reason to have different rules just because a cleaner is working in a certain type of government office in a specific location. As I have said, workplace relations laws, the modern award system and the Fair Work Ombudsman already provide strong safeguards for all cleaners, no matter where they work.

These guidelines were not about pay. They were about a leg-up to the union. We know this, because the guidelines were all about giving the unions access to the cleaning-room floors. The guidelines required employees to be provided with information by union officials about joining a union, contained a requirement that union delegates attend all staff inductions, and scheduled employee meetings with union officials.

The Cleaning Services Guidelines only applied to cleaners in some government buildings in some parts of capital cities. There is no immediate pay cut. Existing employment contracts continue to apply. Suppliers to government will continue to be required to certify that they comply with all the laws and policies of the Commonwealth, including the Fair Work Act. The guidelines do not impact on all the industry, as has been suggested.

As Senator Abetz has highlighted, there is unfairness in the current system, which was put in place by the former Labor government. How is it fair that cleaners who clean the Comcare building in Canberra are to be paid more than cleaners who clean the Comcare offices anywhere else in Australia? I understand that it does not stop there. In my own state of New South Wales, cleaners of Commonwealth offices in Penrith are paid a different rate than the cleaners in Parramatta. This is not fair and it is not reasonable. Nobody in the Labor Party can explain why the same class of worker is treated differently. This government has said quite clearly that there should be a level playing field.

Let me give another example. The guidelines create benefits for one subset of cleaners—those who happen to work in a building where the government is the contractor, in certain parts of capital cities—Chatswood, but not Campbelltown; Parramatta, but not Penrith. How is this fair? How is this equitable? Cleaners currently working in government offices will not be subject to a pay cut, and claims to the contrary are wrong. The terms and conditions of current employment contracts continue to apply by law until those contracts expire or are renegotiated, whether those contracts are enterprise agreements or other contracts for above-award rates of pay. Beyond that time, employers and employees have the flexibility to negotiate above-award pay rates in the future, should they so wish.

The present guidelines create inequitable benefits and obligations. A cleaner in the same building and in the same location, but occupied by the private sector, would have different rates and conditions. The general provisions of the fair work principles, which, for example, require a declaration of compliance with the Fair Work Act 2009 add no value. Government procurement policies and processes already require decision makers to ensure tenderers comply with the laws and policies of the Commonwealth.

The Fair Work Ombudsman is the correct regulator to ensure all workers receive their correct legal entitlements. The Fair Work Ombudsman will further increase its education and compliance activity in relation to the cleaning services. The guidelines did not impact on all of the cleaning services industry, as may have been suggested. The guidelines created benefits for one subset of cleaners: those who happened to work in a building where the government is the contractor, in certain parts of capital cities. There were only ever around 25 cleaning contracts that were subject to the guidelines, representing a tiny proportion of the total industry and a very small proportion of total government cleaning contracts.

Prior to the introduction of the guidelines there were at least 65 contracts with government agencies that included the higher rates of pay and other conditions. Agencies continue to have that flexibility, and to consider a range of quality as well as price factors when awarding tenders. That is as it should be. We want to give business a leg-up, have less red tape in the way of doing business, and less intrusion into how they operate businesses. In that way we help business help Australia to build a strong and prosperous economy, to create more jobs and more growth for the betterment of all Australians—all Australians, not just the favoured few protected by the unions, like United Voice, that enjoyed the patronage of the previous government.

I reiterate that this is a dishonest campaign that is being run by the Labor Party. The facts should prevail, and not the scare campaign.

Penny Wright (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dishonesty is clearly in the eye of the beholder, it seems to me. It is hard to know who the Abbott government holds in more contempt—this parliament or the cleaners who clean it. No doubt the true answer is that the Prime Minister and the

First the Prime Minister promised not to cut the pay of cleaners. Then, breaking his word, he and Senator Abetz sneaked through these changes, buried in the 9,500 regulations to go under Prime Minister Tony Abbott's so-called 'red tape repeal day', on Wednesday. Buried in more than 50,000 pages of regulations and acts of parliament to be scrapped was the revelation that from 1 July the government would abolish the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines for cleaners employed on government contracts.

In the last sitting period the Senate rightly voted to protect the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines, which ensure fair pay and working conditions for cleaners working in Commonwealth buildings. However, in another low point for this government, Senator Abetz secretly moved to abolish the guidelines and rip away more than 20 per cent of the cleaners' wages by reducing their minimum wage from $22.02 per hour to $17.49 per hour, which can amount to $172 per week.

This appears to be a deliberate attempt by Senator Abetz to subvert the parliamentary process. While the parliament was debating this matter, the government was secretly subverting it. Secrecy and subversion is becoming a hallmark of this government, and so is rank dishonesty. The Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, told parliament on 16 June:

I want to make it absolutely crystal clear that no cleaner's pay is reduced.

But, as he and Senator Abetz know full well, that is not the case. These cleaners, some of the country's lowest paid workers, could lose almost a quarter of their weekly wages under these changes quietly introduced by the Abbott government. Thousands of workers will be hit by the changes, which will strip between $172 and $225 a week from the pockets of full-time contract cleaners who clean government buildings.

The guidelines are a form of collective bargaining that lift the wages of workers working for businesses that win government cleaning contracts by between $4.53 and $5.93 an hour above the minimum wage—and the minimum wage is very minimum. This brings their weekly wage from $664 to $836 for a 38-hour week for level-1 workers and from $724 to $950 a week for level-3 workers. These are not princely sums of money—with the wages we earn in this place we are very aware of that—and there can be no rationale for reducing them further. The Greens believe in fair work, we believe in a fair country and we believe in looking after those people who are on low incomes. Unlike this government, we do not believe in taking from the 'have-nots' and giving to the 'haves'.

The Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines were established to ensure that the cleaners of government buildings are protected and receive fair pay and working conditions. This was because of the woeful and well-documented history of underpayment, exploitation and unsafe work practices in the cleaning industry. A 2010 Fair Work Ombudsman's audit of cleaning contractors found that 40 per cent of audited businesses did not comply with workplace laws and it recovered almost $500,000 for 934 underpaid workers. But, with those changes being scrapped, cleaners working on government jobs could again be reduced to being paid at the lowly award rate, thus reducing their already low pay of $836 for a 38-hour week to $664. Well, now, what do you know? Senator Abetz is dialling back the clock to reintroduce these conditions for some of the lowest paid people in Australia. In his perverse universe it is those who are already better off who are entitled to extra benefits, tax breaks and advantages, not those who are some of the lowest paid in the country.

All this is at a time when income and wealth inequality is growing globally and in Australia. The ABS statistics for 2011-12 reveal that the wealthiest 20 per cent of Australian households had a net worth that was 68 times as high as that of the least wealthy 20 per cent, yet we have a government that is intent on reducing those low-paid workers' wages even more.

The Prime Minister knows very well that the removal of the guidelines from 1 July this year will leave cleaners vulnerable to pay cuts when current cleaning contracts expire and government agencies go out to tender. So, in reality, the Prime Minister and Senator Abetz know very well that, despite the Prime Minister's assurance, the government will run open tenders for future cleaning service contracts, with absolutely no specification for above-award wages. It says a lot about the Abbott government that it is moving to cut the already low pay of the very cleaners who are cleaning the offices of the Prime Minister and Senator Abetz. We in this place know the work the cleaners do. We know they are the people we greet as we come in to work at the break of day. We know the value they provide in keeping our offices clean. This is yet another broken promise to add to the Prime Minister's growing list of untruths. The Prime Minister has deceived cleaners and he has deceived the public yet again.

The Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines prescribed minimum hourly base rates of pay. They prevented Australian government agencies from accepting any new tender for cleaning services unless the tenderer agreed to comply with the guidelines, including paying employees no less than the prescribed above-award wage rates. The Greens believe that the removal of the guidelines will encourage future tenderers to bid at only the award rate in order to secure the cleaning contract. This means a return to what always happens to exposed and low-paid workers: cheap is good. It will mean those on the lowest salaries will be exploited.

It is typical of the Abbott government—which only thinks in terms of, 'Is this good for the one per cent?—that, in trying to justify his sneaky repealing of this regulation, he reportedly said that it was costing suppliers $5 million a year. That additional cost put food on the table for some of the lowest paid people in the country. Senator Abetz calls that red tape. The cleaners and their families know that this helps them to make ends meet and makes the difference between living above the poverty line or falling below it. Just like the rest of the Abbott budget, these impending wage cuts will make life harder for the 'have-nots', while the Abbott government are helping make life much easier and better for the 'haves', their one per cent barrackers.

The workers at Parliament House now face the likelihood of a pay cut when the contract is up for renewal. I understand that, at a rally of the hard-pressed cleaners outside parliament to protest these cuts, the United Voice union rightly named the Prime Minister as the winner of its 2014 'golden toilet brush award', which recognises 'the individual, company or organisation that has done least in the past year to give cleaners a fair go'. Not a very meritorious award to win, I would have thought.

The Greens condemn the repealing of the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines 2012. The Greens condemn the way that these guidelines were repealed, which was low, dishonest and undemocratic. And the Greens condemn the Minister for Employment, Senator Eric Abetz, for doing both, because he was responsible for repealing these guidelines and he was responsible for the way they were repealed. The Greens stand with our cleaners and we will fight for fair pay for those on low incomes. Unlike the Abbott government, who look after their mates, the Greens stand for the 99 per cent in Australia.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am absolutely appalled that we have to have a debate in this place about the exploitation of cleaners, some of the poorest workers in this country. They are some of the workers that do some of the dirtiest jobs around this place. They are the workers who keep this place looking fantastic for senators and members as they go about their business. They keep the toilets clean for the public, they keep the toilets clean for the senators, they keep the toilets clean for the Prime Minister and even for Minister Abetz, who is about cutting their wages and conditions.

I listened to Senator Fierravanti-Wells when she was giving her lame excuse for why some of the lowest-paid workers in this country should have their wages cut. She did say that at this moment no-one will have their wages cut. But I have been around industrial relations for many years in this country—27 years a full-time union official—and I know a bit of a con job when I hear it. And we had the con job of all con jobs from the coalition when they stood up here and said, 'No-one will lose out of what we are seeking to do. We are simply trying to remove red tape.'

The coalition's red tape is food on the table for cleaners and their families. The coalition's red tape will simply open up those cleaners to exploitation in the future. We know that because this is simply about opening up those cleaners to exploitation in government establishments, where contractors will come in, try to undercut the rates, try to get the job at the lowest possible rate. Cleaners with any decent rates of pay and conditions at the moment, will have, at the next moment, when they sit down to negotiate their agreement, have their bosses say, 'There is no floor under what we can pay you now; there are no conditions in place. We must cut your wages to remain competitive.'

I have seen it before, and the argument from Senator Fierravanti-Wells that this is about opening Australia up for business is code for opening cleaners up to exploitation. Why should workers on $17 an hour be the workers who are attacked in this parliament? We have seen all these unfair budget positions, where pensioners are getting belted up, where students are getting belted up and where schools and education are losing funding. We have seen all of these unfair government positions, but this has to rank as one of the most unfair positions I have ever seen.

Senator Fierravanti-Wells said that this was outside mainstream industrial relations. Well, I have news for Senator Fierravanti-Wells: for a major employer to say that he, she or that organisation wants a decent underpinning of wages and conditions for contractors who bring workers onto their site is nothing new—absolutely nothing new! There are many workers in weak bargaining positions and there are many workers who do not have the muscle, or the skill or the ability to get a decent rate of pay and conditions. But why should the cleaners in government establishments be amongst the lowest-paid workers in the country when most other workers in here are amongst the highest paid? Why should we create more differentiation between the high-paid people like me and the lowest-paid people, who come in here and clean up after we make the mess? Why should that happen? I just think it is absolutely outrageous—absolutely outrageous! And to run the argument that you cannot do this because it is really a front for the union to sign workers up is probably the worst argument you could put forward.

These are the workers who need union organisation; these are the workers who need support. These are the workers who need to act collectively because they are the workers with the least industrial muscle. It is okay for us, arriving in the big, white Comcar every day, getting chauffeur-driven up here. We get out of the Comcar, we waltz in, we do whatever we like in the office and it is clean the next day. It is cleaned up the next day, and who does that? It is the cleaners. And this government wants them to do that on 17 bucks an hour. I do not think that is fair and I do not think that is reasonable. Senator Fierravanti-Wells, again, used that baseline proposition that the coalition are using for everything, that we have to be economically responsible. Well, sure, you have to be economically responsible but not at the expense of the poorest, most exposed and weakest workers in the country—the cleaners in government establishments.

The government is entitled to put a floor under those payments. The government is entitled to say that cleaners need to be treated with some respect and that cleaners do an important job. If you simply leave it to the market and you let contractors bid against each other as to who can screw their workers to the lowest common denominator, then the wages and conditions of cleaners in government establishments will be amongst the poorest in the country. When you have advisers for the government amongst the highest-paid advisers in the country, when you have frontbenchers and Liberal politicians amongst the highest-paid people in the country and when you have me and Labor people highly paid for the work we do, how can you justify taking away from the lowest-paid workers in the government establishments? There should be a clear and unequivocal position that anyone who works in government is entitled to some respect, some dignity and decent wages and decent conditions, because without decent wages and decent conditions there will be no respect and there will be no dignity.

I challenge any of the coalition members to survive on $17 an hour for two, three or four months—never mind your whole life, like some cleaners have to do!

What is being proposed here is absolutely outrageous and is simply a clear message that Work Choices is on its way back, because that is what this government is about. Many of the same senators who are voting to take away the rights of cleaners are the same senators who voted under John Howard to take away decent rights for workers in this country, to take away their penalty rates, to take away their annual leave loading, to take away all the conditions that they had. The workers were the ones who were left worse off. Those senators do not care about the low pay.

Government senators only want to look after their mates who are putting money into their election funds, these big, secret funds—the Free Enterprise Foundation and Eight By Five—that are set up by the coalition to finance their election campaigns. The slush funds that the coalition have are funded by some of these cleaning contractors that are going out there and screwing workers to the ground so they can make a profit to put money in the pockets of the coalition for the next election campaign.

This is just unacceptable. It is no wonder the archbishop of Canberra has come out and said that this is unacceptable. It is no wonder these workers' union is saying that this is unacceptable. There is no economic crisis in this country. There were three AAA ratings in this country when the government took office. There is no crisis economically and there is no crisis that would mean that you treat workers like disposable pieces of paper and that you should not give them decent rates of pay, decent rights and some dignity. Twenty-odd bucks an hour is not a lot of money to look after the toilets of the senators across the other side of the chamber.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that instructive effort at class warfare, Senator Cameron. You stand in this place and attack this side of the chamber and the government as if we do not care about low-paid workers. You care more about the spin and the rhetoric, about union memberships and your own slush fund, Senator Cameron, than actually looking at and creating the reform agenda that this nation needs to ensure that our businesses can actually—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. I ask that the senator retract those comments defaming the senator on this side. She knows very well what she said. I ask you to ask her to withdraw.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was not aware that Senator McKenzie said—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, calling, referring—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just a moment, Senator, you have asked me to make a ruling on words that I have not picked up and that you are refusing to repeat. If you care to—

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am quite happy to repeat them. She accused the good senator of having a slush fund. I ask her to withdraw that.

Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, the words I heard were the words: 'and your own slush funds, Senator Cameron,' a reference that I took generically to be the Labor Party in general. Indeed, the use of slush funds by unions is being well documented in the media at present—unions that, of course, were run by many of those opposite over the years.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, I am inclined to raise this point of order on exactly the position that Senator Birmingham's has just raised. The issue of slush funds is an issue that the coalition have lost a frontbencher over, in the last period of time.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is no point of order; that is a debating point.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The issue of slush funds is something that the coalition have—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, resume your seat. That is a debating point. I am inclined to go with the interpretation of Senator Birmingham that there was a generic reference.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, very much, Mr Acting Deputy President. This government is about ensuring a reform agenda that allows businesses in Canberra and businesses right around our nation, indeed in regional Australia, to be unshackled to increase their productivity. Senator Cameron is quite happy to quote certain economists. I would like to refer the Senate to Chris Richardson from Deloitte Access Economics and Ross Garnaut who both made comments over the weekend about our lack of productivity and how that has the potential to almost halve the growth in our living standards in this nation. So the government is very, very seriously addressing this issue about increasing the productivity of our businesses. The repeal of red tape is a cornerstone of our approach to ensuring that businesses can hire more Australians so that more Australians can get off welfare and into a job and start providing for their families and contributing. It is not an argument about minimum wages; it is about reducing the regulatory burden to Australian businesses.

On our repeal day we did revoke the Fair Work principles and the associated Commonwealth Cleaning Service Guidelines with effect from 1 July 2014. Repeal day was a good day, and I am disappointed that those opposite are not celebrating the fact that we are unshackling businesses in this nation to ensure that they can hire more workers. The best form of welfare is a job, not just for the money it immediately puts into the back pocket of the workers but also for the example it provides for children and the whole family more generally. Repeal day is an important part of the government's deregulation agenda under which we are seeking to cut $1 billion worth of red and green tape each year. We have designated two parliamentary sitting days as repeal days.

Before I go into the benefits of getting rid of red tape to ensure that businesses, including cleaning contractors, can employ more, let us look at the Fair Work principles that were repealed. They were created by the former government to make cleaning service providers subject to additional workplace relations rules that were outside the mainstream workplace relations and procurement framework. They were created, in a sense, as a concession to United Voice. On so many occasions in this chamber in the recent past we have been subjected to the tussle between the Greens and the left wing of the Labor Party for the hearts and minds of United Voice members.

We remember only too well the other concessions they were given to United Voice, including the $300 million for the Early Years Quality Fund for childcare workers. Who can forget that fabulous arrangement? It was spruiked out there by the then minister as a fund that was going to address the low income and low wages of the child-care workers throughout our nation. But so important were these workers—and the work that they do for families and in educating young people right throughout the nation—to the ALP, that they only set aside enough money for 30 per cent of those lowly paid child-care workers. Only 30 per cent of them could actually access that fund.

I notice that those on the other side of the chamber are quite quiet on that front. They are very happy to go out and grab the first day's headlines on the Early Years Quality Fund but not so happy to actually mop up the mess afterwards. Expectations were raised right throughout the sector with parents and, often, with young women, who were sold a pup. They were sold a pup that this fund was actually going to increase their wages. No-one told them that their membership pact with United Voice—their signing-up as part of their wage increase—was a farce. Only 30 per cent of those in long-day-care centres were ever going to be able to access that wage increase. If they want to come in and peddle the stories about broken dreams and promises, I think that those on the opposite side have more than enough game in this area.

It should come as no surprise that the sop to United Voice—I have spoken briefly about that particular slush fund and the ad hoc arrangements—were undone as part of our repeal day measures, which removed the confusing and cumbersome red tape that suppliers of cleaning contracts were subject to. As we know, the Fair Work Ombudsman already provides significant safeguards in the workplace. There is no reason to have different rules just because a cleaner is working in one government office in a specific location. We have a range of mechanisms in place that already provide strong safeguards. It is not fair that different rules should apply for those who are cleaning offices within a government office as opposed to a bank or private enterprise.

These guidelines were not about pay. As I said earlier, they were about a leg-up for United Voice. The guidelines required that employees be provided with information, by union officials, about joining a union—a free kick, there. The guidelines also had a requirement that union delegates be able to attend all staff inductions—another free kick. And finally, there was the scheduling of employee meetings with union officials. So that is three free kicks to United Voice. I hope it paid off for somebody's pre-selection—that is all I can say.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's so cynical, Senator.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, but so true, Senator O'Neill—so true!

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Ignore the interjections.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am happy to have that conversation with Senator Lines any time.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKenzie, ignore the interjections and address your comments to the chair.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My apologies, Mr Acting Deputy President. As always, we do not want to let the truth get in the way of a good smear campaign. I think Labor, particularly, has some really great form in this area. They twist the truth. I would like to draw the chamber's attention to another area where the ALP has been out and about—indeed it may even be the same minister as previously, now the shadow minister Kate Ellis. We have seen the ABC's Fact Check on school funding. The smear campaign that the ALP has been conducting about this particular aspect of policy, right throughout the nation, is erroneous. I would like to point Senator O'Neill particularly to check out the ABC Fact Check of Wednesday, 2 July 2014. It is free to a good home. There is some good reading in there. I think she will appreciate being availed of the facts of the smear campaign that the ALP has been conducting on behalf of the AEU over a number of months.

But I have digressed significantly from my outlining of the importance of removing regulatory burden for Australian businesses so they can get on with the business of hiring more Australians and addressing the productivity—the almost bankruptcy—of this country. Why is a deregulation agenda important? It is important because, in the five years from mid-2007, Australia's multifactor productivity declined by nearly three per cent. As I mentioned earlier, Chris Richardson and Ross Garnaut have already made reference to the importance of addressing the productivity issues throughout our economy.

The Productivity Commission has estimated that regulation compliance costs could amount to as much as four per cent of Australia's GDP. We heard so often through the carbon tax debates over the past few years, 'Oh, it is only one per cent', but add all that up and it is people's jobs on the line. To those opposite who deal in vagaries and ideologies, and who do not actually understand the real impact of one per cent on a business's bottom line, it means that it is fewer people that they can employ. At the end of the day, the difference between those on this side of the chamber and those on the other side of the chamber in our views on how best to address the challenges for our nation is that those on this side of the chamber will ensure that we have an economic system that ensures our egalitarian principles—and the principles of equity and fairness that have underpinned this nation for over 100 years—continue, because we will have a sustainable economic position on which to base those policy decisions, unlike the recklessness of those opposite.

Senator Polley interjecting—

Senator Polley, go for it. I am happy to entertain, at any time!

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have just had a senator extolling the virtues of this incredible victory that she is claiming. I want to put on the record the words of James Campbell who, in describing this victory, from the point of view of those in government, said:

The consequences of his victory for the people who clean Commonwealth offices is that from now on instead of having to pay them $22.02 an hour, their bosses will only have to pay them the award of $17.49.

The reality is that it is going to make one awfully big difference to the people that we see cleaning this building.

I am sure that the people sitting up in the gallery today—if it is their first time to come to the parliament—would understand the symbolic power of this place. There are many people who come here and expect this place to be in great shape. And our cleaners do that. They do an amazing job. In all the places I have worked—including in schools, where the symbolic power of having a clean place for people to work in is important as well—it matters that we have people who do the very important work of cleaning and that we pay them a fair and decent wage.

We believe that we do important work in this place, and the cleaners who work here are proud to work here. It is my pleasure when arriving at parliament—often early in the morning—to see the cleaners out at the front gallery, the marble hall, cleaning it and preparing it for people to come and visit this great place, our parliament. They deserve a fair wage for the work they do.

We think we are doing important work in this place, but it may not always be of interest to the media or public. One of the important things being discussed here today relates to 'repeal day'. It was the government's position on repeal day to try to make cutting red tape much more interesting than it really is. They say there are 8,000 unnecessary regulations. This is the work of government. Normal governments get on and do that kind of careful cleaning-up of regulations. We got rid of about 16,000 of them while we were in government, last time, but we did not create a media circus. We did not create a day of stunts. We got on with the important job of repealing things that needed to go. But Tony Abbott's repeal day—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator O'Neill, I would ask you to refer to the Prime Minister by his appropriate title.

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, the Prime Minister's repeal day hurt many more people than it helped. We are seeing the consequences of it in this matter of public importance being discussed this afternoon. Included in the 10,000 proposed regulations to be removed by the Liberal government is one in the Australian Jobs Act that requires firms to source local goods and services for major construction projects. Another is in the Therapeutic Goods Act, with the removal of a clause requiring companies to release health warnings about their products. Caught up in this, among many other important pieces of legislation and regulation, was the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines. This is really about a fair day's pay for a fair day's work, and those opposite will attack it at every single turn.

These cuts that have been sneakily pushed through mean that Commonwealth cleaners will lose up to $172 per week. One cleaner is on the record as saying that the loss of money will mean that she will not be able to drive to work. So we have this mantra about creating jobs when the government is actually making it impossible for people to get to work, because of the savage cuts coming in through this legislation. It is good that Archbishop Prowse has gone on the record saying that there is a moral dimension here and that a wage is an important part of a job. It is not just having a job, it is being able to live with that job, being able to live on a decent wage.

The sneaky, disgraceful way in which this regulation has been brought into effect is documented in the paper—the Herald Suntoday. It explains:

But Labor and the Greens were not counting on the Abetz cunning. The Employment Minister accepted the Labor/Greens amendment but before it could come into effect he revoked the regulations.

This is the type of hidden agenda and sneaky process that we are seeing from this government. It does not want any transparency. It wants to cut cleaners' wages. It wants to hide the fact that it has done it. It wants to hide the fact that it has taken away important legislation and regulation at the cost of ordinary Australians. It is a government that wants to tax people. It is cutting education, it is cutting health and it is cutting wages. The worst days of Work Choices are signalled very clearly by this disgraceful cunning piece of powerful, political play and the people who will pay the cost for it are our good cleaners. (Time expired)

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.