Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share 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that businesses, including cleaning contractors, can employ more, let us look at the Fair Work principles that were repealed.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.