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

My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Abetz. I refer to the industrial action being taken this week by Parliament House cleaners following this minister's decision to scrap the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines. Does the minister agree with the parliamentary cleaner who said:

We are low paid workers. It is harder and harder for us. The cost of living is so high on a cleaner's wage. All we want is a small pay increase, under $1.80 an hour, for the work we do.

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

Mr President, you have to admire the cheek of the Australian Labor Party to ask questions about cleaners' pay, given the record of Senator Cameron's leader in this very area!

However, can I indicate to Senator Cameron that the cleaning contract at Parliament House was never subject to the Cleaning Services Guidelines. Even if the guidelines still existed they would not have applied to this contract. The issue here is about an employer renegotiating an enterprise agreement, something that requires the agreement of their workers.

As is the case for the rest of the industry, negotiation of above-award wages in enterprise agreements is a matter for cleaning contractors and their employees, not government. A key factor in these negotiations should rightly be affordability and value for money. Undoubtedly, that is what the union and the employer will deal with.

But there is no reason to have different rules just because a cleaner is working in a certain type of government office in a certain location. The guidelines to which Senator Cameron referred applied only to some government offices. They applied in Chatswood but not in Campbelltown. They applied in Parramatta but not in Penrith. They applied in Melbourne but not in Geelong. They only ever applied to one per cent of workers in the industry.

What did these guidelines do? They required employees to be provided with information about joining a union by union officials. They had a requirement that union delegates attend all staff inductions and a requirement to schedule employee meetings with union officials. That is why the Australian Labor Party champions this bizarre intervention by government that should be determined by the umpire, namely the Fair Work Commission. (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I remind the minister of his previous statement on this issue on 16 July 2014, and I quote:

Is there one cleaner in Australia today who is now being paid less because of the removal of the guidelines? The answer is no.

Does the minister stand by this statement?

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

Yes.

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

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Can the minister confirm that under this government $80 million can be spent on a biased and politicised royal commission but that Parliament House cleaners are denied a $1.80 an hour pay rise as a result of this minister scrapping the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines?

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

As I said, the Cleaning Services Guidelines have no relationship whatsoever with the dispute that is occurring currently with cleaners in Parliament House.

What the Australian people want to know is where Senator Cameron and the Australian Labor Party stand in relation to the Clean Event deals that were done whilst Mr Shorten had stewardship of the Australian Workers Union and how workers' conditions were simply signed away in exchange for money for the union. These are the matters that the Australian people want to know. That is why Senator Cameron will get up on a point of order, because he does not want to hear the facts—

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

Pause the clock! Senator Cameron, do you have a point of order?

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

Yes, Mr President. My point of order is on relevance. The question was specific: you can spend $80 million on a politicised royal commission but you cannot give the cleaners a pay increase. Senator Abetz has not gone to that issue.

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

Thank you, Senator Cameron. I remind the minister that he has 19 seconds in which to finish answering the question.

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

It was the so-called political royal commission that exposed Mr Shorten's dastardly deeds! And that is why they call it a 'political' royal commission. That is why Mr Caesar Melhem has had to resign. That is why Mr Shorten has now changed his declaration to the electoral commission— (Time expired)

And, Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper!