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

My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Abetz. I refer to the government's decision to tear up the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guideline and the Prime Minister's statement:

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

Can the minister confirm that cleaners at the Department of Immigration and Border Protection have suffered a pay cut of $2 per hour as a result of yet another broken promise by the Prime Minister?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Lines for the question. The simple reality is that when the guidelines were removed in July, nobody's pay was cut. Nor was anybody's pay cut in August or in September or in October. I understand that a situation has arisen in the Department of Immigration and Border Protection where some workers are now subject to a new contract regime. So let's get this clear: it had nothing to do with the removal of guidelines, which was a vote of no confidence both in the trade union movement and in the Fair Work Commission. What these guidelines basically meant was that the union movement's enterprise bargaining agreements were not seen as good enough where the unions had signed off on them and where they had gone to the Fair Work Commission in the modern award saying, 'This is something that we agreed to', and signed off on. What they did as a government towards the end of their term was to seek to boost certain wage outcomes in only a very few offices of one per cent of cleaners, where you had, for example, offices owned or operated by Comcare being cleaned by cleaners on different pay scales.

What we say to those opposite is very clear: wages should be set either by an enterprise agreement or under the modern award and not by government interference. The changes that have occurred at the Department of Immigration and Border Protection are a result of new contractual arrangements because the contract—

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

It is because of your guidelines being removed. It is you!

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Wong, whenever you point at me or anybody else on this side, can I remind you there are always three fingers pointing back at you.

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I refer to a promise made last year by the Minister, Senator Abetz, that:

No cleaner will have their wages reduced as a result of the Guidelines ceasing to apply.

What sort of minister makes cutting the wages of cleaners a priority and fails to honour promises made to low-paid workers who clean his office and the offices of his ministerial colleagues?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Whenever a contracting company negotiates a new contract under new circumstances, they need to—

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You had nothing to do with it!

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

You cut their wages!

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

On my left.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite are just shouting their no confidence in the trade union movement's capacity to negotiate enterprise bargaining agreements. What you are saying is: the enterprise bargaining agreement, under which these workers are now operating, is unsatisfactory and is not paying workers what they deserve. If that is the case, they should go to the Fair Work Commission, argue their case and get a pay increase through that mechanism rather than have a Labor Party government, as happened, trying to throw around money to placate a trade union including, as part of the deal, that every cleaner had to be introduced to the trade union. I wonder why that might be! It was for the dividend, which would have cost more than $2 an hour, I am sure. (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I refer to a letter sent by the cleaners to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, which said that the pay cut:

… may not seem like much to you but when you don't earn a lot this really does make a big difference.

Has the minister been provided a copy of the letter? And what is the government's response?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At this stage I have not been provided with a copy of the letter, but I fully understand that any worker who has their pay reduced—

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

By you! By you!

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

would find that very difficult. But I say to Senator Lines, shouting as she always does, from her own home state of Western Australia the CFMEU negotiated a wage decrease with a builder to keep that business—

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

Mr President, I raise a point of order on relevance. The question was about cleaners in the department of immigration. It is not about any other industrial matter, as much as the minister would like to ignore it. While I am on my feet, if I may, Mr President, could I respectfully request that you consider the Hansard subsequent to this question time as to whether this minister, in fact, misled the Senate when he said that the pay cut was 'nothing to do with the removal of the guidelines'? I would ask that you consider that subsequently.

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

Firstly, Senator Wong, the second matter is not in order for you to raise with me, in the context of a point of order in relation to the question. Secondly, the minister was directly relevant. He answered the question up-front and he has continued his answer. I suggest you reflect on Hansard there. Minister, you are relevant; you have the call.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What those opposite do not want to hear as well is that, if I recall correctly, the National Union of Workers, for their warehouse workers of the Coca-Cola Amatil warehouse in New South Wales—

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

Pause the clock! Point of order—Senator Conroy?

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I am struggling on a point of order of relevance to see how the NUW have anything to do with the cleaners in this building. I would ask you to rule his answer not relevant and ask him to come back to the question.

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

It has been a consistent practice over many years, Senator Conroy, that once a minister has answered the question and has been directly relevant the minister can enhance their answers if they wish to. That has been a constant practice for many, many years—ever since I have been in this chamber. Minister, you have the call.

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When contracts are renegotiated sometimes, regrettably, it does mean that wages need to be renegotiated as well. The CFMEU has acknowledged that, the NUW has acknowledged that, as has the AMWU or the AWU, in relation to SPC. It is matter of regret, but it is what— (Time expired)