Division
Ken O'Dowd I wish to speak on the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013, which I oppose in its entirety. This legislation seeks to establish a $300 million fund to provide wage increases to around 30 to 40 per cent, although this figure is not clear, of the long day care workforce and it only lasts for two years. As for what happens after two years, we guess it reverts back to where it is today. The centres will need to enter into enterprise bargaining agreements with staff and meet eligibility criteria. Given the limited pool of funds, it could be on a 'first in' basis, yet this is not even clear. After the two years workers will revert back to their previous wage. This would be history-making if this were the case. This bill is unbalanced. It is divisive, it is unfair and it will create a wage war. The bill has come around as a result of the union involved waging the Big Steps campaign, seeking to increase wages and conditions in the early childhood sector. The United Voice union—previously the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union, or the LHMU—have been campaigning for an increase in childcare sector wages since 2008, with their requests for increases ranging between $7 and $10 an hour. They proposed that the government fund this increase, and they were actually originally looking for $1.4 billion a year—and indexed. The coalition have a number of serious concerns with this bill. We do not dispute that childcare educators are low paid. We know these workers are skilled and work long and hard hours. Any wage increase should come through the Fair Work Commission, the body that the government has established with the responsibility of determining appropriate and fair levels of remuneration. Yet the United Voice union has refused to lodge a wage claim with the Fair Work Commission. Can you believe this? They rely instead on a Labor government to just hand over money hand over fist. It is unheard of. This $300 million is nothing more than an act of
House of Representatives, 2013-06-25. affirmative: ayes 74, noes 70.
Question
Ken O'Dowd I wish to speak on the Early Years Quality Fund Special Account Bill 2013, which I oppose in its entirety. This legislation seeks to establish a $300 million fund to provide wage increases to around 30 to 40 per cent, although this figure is not clear, of the long day care workforce and it only lasts for two years. As for what happens after two years, we guess it reverts back to where it is today. The centres will need to enter into enterprise bargaining agreements with staff and meet eligibility criteria. Given the limited pool of funds, it could be on a 'first in' basis, yet this is not even clear. After the two years workers will revert back to their previous wage. This would be history-making if this were the case. This bill is unbalanced. It is divisive, it is unfair and it will create a wage war. The bill has come around as a result of the union involved waging the Big Steps campaign, seeking to increase wages and conditions in the early childhood sector. The United Voice union—previously the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union, or the LHMU—have been campaigning for an increase in childcare sector wages since 2008, with their requests for increases ranging between $7 and $10 an hour. They proposed that the government fund this increase, and they were actually originally looking for $1.4 billion a year—and indexed. The coalition have a number of serious concerns with this bill. We do not dispute that childcare educators are low paid. We know these workers are skilled and work long and hard hours. Any wage increase should come through the Fair Work Commission, the body that the government has established with the responsibility of determining appropriate and fair levels of remuneration. Yet the United Voice union has refused to lodge a wage claim with the Fair Work Commission. Can you believe this? They rely instead on a Labor government to just hand over money hand over fist. It is unheard of. This $300 million is nothing more than an act of
How each member voted
Per-member votes are not present in this static export. Consult the original division record.
Related bills
Only formal divisions leave a per-member record. A procedural vote is not necessarily a vote for or against a bill.