COALITION SENATORS'
DISSENTING REPORT
1.1
Coalition senators consider this bill to be among the least meritorious
pieces of legislation put by the Government in the 43rd Parliament.
It proposes and promotes inequality in the workplace, and in doing so, creates
division and workplace disharmony. Coalition senators note that work in the
early childhood system is relatively low paid, performed primarily by women.
Coalition senators also acknowledge the professional importance of early childhood
educators, especially as research increasingly idenfies early childhood as a
key period of development and opportunity for impact.
1.2
This Bill however, does nothing to assist the professionalisation of the
sector as a whole. Coalition senators note the lofty aims of the Bill to 'improve
quality outcomes for children...by enhancing professionalism in the early
childhood education and care sector' rather than providing a pathway forward for
industry and the sector to establish clear targets and evaluation methods and
support structures, this Bill establishes an environment by which the United
Voice union is facilitated to recruit members. Even if the blatant
discrimination between employees in the sector was accepted as justified, it
does nothing to bring about a long term growth in wages for those in the early
childhood sector. As Mr Frank Cusmano, representing the Child Care Centres
Association of Victoria stated:
We submit that the creation of this inequitable two-tier rate
of pay is unfair and discriminatory, particularly given the use of taxpayer
funds, and will not achieve in any way the stated object of the legislation. A
fund that lasts two years and then leaves families and/or providers to pay the
higher wages cannot fulfil the object of the bill. Instead, it leaves a whole
sector in a state of turmoil and uncertainty for both those who have accessed
the funding and those who have not.[1]
1.3
Central to the Coalition senators' objection to the measure is the
advice on the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations' (the
Department) website that, in order to receive a grant, employees must be
subject to an Enterprise Bargaining Agreement (EBA).[2]
The committee heard evidence that only 20 per cent of providers currently have
an EBA.[3]
1.4
The consequence of this ill-founded and unjustified requirement to take
part in an EBA to obtain grant funding is that those in the sector doing
identical jobs of identical value will be paid different wages. Even United
Voice admitted to the committee that a quarter of its own members will not
receive the proposed increase.[4]
The evidence taken throughout the four hour hearing, confirmed that only up to 40
per cent of the workforce would be eligible for a wage increase. This clearly
indicates that United Voice members will receive a disproportionate benefit.
1.5
To make matters worse, the grant is payable only in respect of long day
care workers, and does not cover preschools, family day care, out of hours and
other forms of early childhood care or education. It is very common for
childcare centres to offer different kinds of care, and consequently to employ
different types of carers. This scenario is particularly the case in
hard-to-staff areas or where economies of scale are not achievable because of location,
infrastructure or workforce constraints. This bill results in the worst
Orwellian outcome, as some early childhood educators are more equal than others.
1.6
Workplace disputation would not be restricted to within childcare
centres, but also between them, as a result of the fact that the measure is
available on a 'first come first served' basis. Those who don't get in quickly
will miss out, resulting in differential wages for like work between different
centres. Child Care Centres Association of Victoria Chief Executive Frank
Cusmano raised the very real issue of smaller provincial towns where
opportunities for employment in early childhood education are restricted to two
centres within a town. If only one centre receives the grant due to the
arbitrary and flawed nature of the allocation process, staff will be paid more
in one than another for no other reason than they were quicker with paperwork,
leading to changed perceptions of quality in the community which may not be
based on fact.
1.7
As if this were not bad enough, the fact that the measure is
funded for only two years means that employees who are fortunate enough to
receive increases will be faced with the prospect of seeing a reduction
in their wages at the expiration of the funding. The obvious implication of
that is yet more tension and disputation in the workplace, and a highly
unenviable management situation for employers faced with the need to cut wages.
1.8
The rationale for imposing the EBA requirement is said to be the need
for employees to be able to enforce the payment of pay increases flowing from
the grant.[5]
1.9
Coalition senators find this argument deeply unconvincing. The payment
of money by the Commonwealth is almost always conditional, requiring the party
receiving the funds to subject themselves to a legally enforceable undertaking
to spend the funds according to agreed terms. In addition, as was acknowledged
by departmental officials at the committee's hearing, it is routine for
officers of the Department or the Auditor-General or other applicable
government agencies to conduct audits of the spending of money received from
the Commonwealth. The granting of necessary access to information to auditors
and others is a condition of the grant being made, and the overall rates of
compliance are high.
1.10
Coalition senators also express grave concern for those employers and
employees who are already subject to an EBA covering more categories of
employee than long day care workers. In such cases, it seems to Coalition
senators that amendments to pay rates for long day care workers would raise the
prospect (if not the requirement) of an amendment to the EBA. What, then, of
the workers covered by the EBA but not eligible for a pay increase? All workers
subject to an EBA would be required to vote on any amendment to that agreement,
even when the change does not benefit them, and Coalition senators can only
imagine the cost, inconvenience, confusion, anger, disappointment and ultimately
disputation that would come of such ballots being required across the country.
This is a recipe for trouble in a sector which needs to become a focal point
for developing positive outcomes for all children.
1.11
Coalition senators can only conclude that the proposed requirement for
parties to be subject to an EBA before they can benefit from a grant is to
benefit the trade unions seeking to bolster their flagging membership. Indeed,
Mr Crosby from United Voice admitted to the committee that the EBA process is a
fillip for the unions:
Any enterprise agreement helps unions to sign up members,
there is just no doubt about that. Every enterprise agreement we do starts off
with a message to workers to join the union. We get our credibility, we get the
money to do our job and we get the ability to bargain on behalf of the group of
workers on the basis of 'Do we represent a majority of the workers or not?'. I
heard this attack, and I saw it in The Australian yesterday, that we are using
this to sign up workers. Of course we are. We have signed up workers all the
way through the Big Steps campaign.[6]
1.12
Coalition senators also note with disappointment evidence from
submissions such as that from the Australian Childcare Alliance, who informed
the committee that:
Many of our members have reported that... union activity has
been intimidating to both themselves and their staff. Our members around
Australia have been advising us of the strong arm tactics of the United Voice
Union organisers who have been telling members that they must have 60 per cent
plus membership to engage with them to submit the Enterprise Agreement...ACA is
also concerned as to how United Voice has accessed personal information on
approved providers and educators. We understand that information can be gathered
under the National Law through ACECQA but home addresses should not be made
available. The ACA President has had a photo of her home posted by a union
organiser on the Big Steps Facebook page with disparaging comments and also on
the same organiser’s personal Facebook page and her personal email address
advertised to the general union membership urging them to send her emails.[7]
1.13
When questioned on these allegations by the committee, Mr Crosby
acknowledged that some of the Union's organisers and members were "over enthusiastic
about saying, 'If you want the money you need to join'", and that this
caused damage to the campaign.[8]
There was also conflicting evidence to the committee about whether attempts by
the union to counter such misleading and deceptive behaviour by organisers and
members were sufficient, with some evidence suggesting that the conduct
continued well after the committee was assured it had stopped.[9]
1.14
United Voice also confirmed that a photograph of a private home had been
posted on a public social networking site and that this was regrettable.
However, the union declined to apologise for the action.
1.15
The union also refused to apologise for producing misleading material
suggesting to employees that, in order to be eligible for the pay rise they
must join United Voice. Furthermore, Coalition senators consider that the
material gave the impression to employees that the pay rise was guaranteed with
union membership. Neither proposition was or is the case.[10]
1.16
Coalition senators condemn this kind of behaviour, and make the obvious
point that it does a great disservice to the work and reputation of the union.
While robust debate is to be encouraged, personal attacks are not. In fact it
would seem incompatible to be both seeking to professionalise the workforce
when simultaneously claiming the purported advocates of that workforce behave
so unprofessionally.
1.17
Coalition senators cannot help but remark on the irrationality of
the Government proposing this deeply discriminatory and inequitable bill while
at the same time proposing the establishment of a Pay Equity Unit within the Fair
Work Commission with the express purpose of achieving equitable pay levels for
workers. Indeed, the Department's
submission makes clear that the Government sees the two measures as
complimentary:
When the Government announced the Fund they also announced a
new Pay Equity Unit will be established in the Fair Work Commission with a
focus on conducting research, and collecting data and specialist pay equity
information to inform matters related to pay equity under the Fair Work Act,
Modern Award reviews and annual minimum wage decisions. The Pay Equity Unit
will examine gender and pay equity issues particularly in female dominated
sectors such as early childhood education and care.[11]
1.18
It is patently absurd to propose a bill which is in its very nature
discriminatory between workers, while at the same time introducing an
administrative arrangement designed to counter discrimination and promote workplace
equality.
1.19
Coalition senators also consider it noteworthy that the four groups of
young people identified as being most at risk of disadvantage during the
References Committee's recent inquiry into Teaching and Learning, and by the
Gonski report, do not stand to benefit under the proposal. Those who have low socio-economic
status, are Indigenous, have a disability or are from rural and remote regions,
are most at risk of disadvantage compared to other children, but would see no
particular benefit under this measure. This lack of targeting was reflected on
by Mrs Gwynneth Bridge, representing the Australian Childcare Alliance:
I would think that none of those groups, as a group, would be
benefited at all, because the funding is going to go wherever somebody applies,
wherever they get in before—remember that it is first in, first served. It may
not go into rural areas at all...It is not targeted to quality at all. It says it
is. But how do you define quality? There is no real definition of quality,
because there are too many parameters that make good quality. Children with
disabilities are not targeted, and we would love to see money targeted to
children with disabilities in the sector. It is not targeted to go to
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. It is not targeted to rural
children and nor to low socioeconomic children. They are amongst all services,
so there would be some of each in services.[12]
1.20
Finally, Coalition senators wish to draw attention to what they consider
to be an outright lie by the Minister for School Education, Early Education and
Youth, the Hon. Peter Garrett MP, in his second reading speech to the House of
Representatives on 30 May 2013. The Minister said, in part, that:
The fund...will enable grants to be paid services to supplement
wage increases of all educators and staff assisting in the
provision of quality early childhood education and care.[13][emphasis
added]
1.21
As the preceding pages, and all evidence to the committee, have
demonstrated, this is totally untrue. The Minister's statement is unjustifiable
and misleads the Parliament. The fund would allow for wage increases for some
carers, in some centres, for a short period. Even this would only be possible
after clearing numerous administrative burdens, some of which have the great
potential to cause enormous workplace disharmony and disputation, which in a
number of respects the bill fosters and encourages.
1.22
In light of the Minister’s comments, the union’s behaviour and the
evidence given, it would seem the government is, once again, big on promises
and short on delivery. The amount of money required to fund the initiative
across the sector for the first year, based on a flat $3 per hour increase for
the whole long day care sector, is $320 million per annum. This is
significantly more than what the Government has budgeted for. On 30 May the
Senate referred the Bill for inquiry and report and submissions were due by 7 June.
This is hardly sufficient time for industry and the public to consider the
Bill. It is also demonstrative of this Government’s bad governance practices.
1.23
Coalition senators note that the government’s wasteful budget campaign over
the last seven years has left it unable to make the real changes necessary. As such,
as usual, the Gillard government practice has not matched its rhetoric. This
Bill reeks of self-centred vote-buying rather than a genuine effort to address
the concerns of the lowest paid workers, who are reputedly doing the work most
valuable to a society, yet undervalued by this government; the care and
education of our young people.
1.24
It is counter to the Government's stated intentions, and to the needs
of the sector, and should be voted down by the Senate.
Recommendation 1
1.25
Coalition senators recommend that the bill should not proceed.
Senator Chris Back
Deputy Chair |
Senator
Bridget McKenzie |
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page