Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

The Greens nearly won me over with their argument. I thought having to submit this draft legislation to the ILO would be an opportunity for us to adjourn this evening—stop consideration, send it off to Geneva and wait for however many months before it came back! I ask, somewhat tongue in cheek, whether Senator Siewert and Senator Brown have the ILO tick of approval for their proposed amendments—I somehow doubt it.

Can I say to Senator Siewert: call me old-fashioned, as they do, but I happen to believe in parliamentary democracy. I happen to believe that the Australian parliament should be the master of legislation and its impact in Australia. By all means get advisory views from the ILO, but, at the end of the day, we as an Australian parliament should have the absolute right to say, ‘We happen to disagree with this particular interpretation by the ILO.’ The Greens amendment is nearly obsequious to the international convention-making corral that is out there in implying that their knowledge is superior to that of the democratically elected parliament of Australia. Sure, the ILO has an opinion, but I must say that, when you know that people like Ms Burrow sit on it and effect certain outcomes for political reasons, their consideration seems somewhat less robust—albeit there are about as many former ACTU presidents in this parliament courtesy of the Australian Labor Party, but that is an aside. While we should take the ILO’s views into consideration, we should not say in our legislation that we need to give effect to their views, and that is what the Australian Greens are seeking.

One of their amendments states:

This Act is to be interpreted in a way that is consistent with, and gives effect to, Australia’s international labour obligations.

Well, who is going to determine that? That would basically be saying that the democratically elected Australian parliament no longer has the right to determine laws for its people if the ILO, from on high, an unelected body—representatives are appointed to it—determines otherwise. That would completely undermine democracy and the right of Australian people to, through their elected parliament, make the decisions that are the best for Australia.

It will be interesting to see how excited Senator Siewert is in relation to this—I have it on very good authority that the International Labour Organisation considers small firms to be those with fewer than 50 employees. Wouldn’t it make for an interesting contribution to the unfair dismissal and small business categorisation in this legislation if we had to put our hands up and say, ‘We can no longer determine the definition of a small business for Australia because the ILO has determined in general terms that a small business is a business with 50 or fewer employees’?

Interestingly enough, as I understand the figures that are being bandied around in this chamber, we on the coalition side have the highest figure at exactly half of 50—namely, 25—because we believe that that is right for Australian circumstances. Family First I think want it to be 20. I would still like to know what Senator Xenophon is thinking, there in the stalls, but we will undoubtedly find out. We know that Senator Siewert and the government think the number should be 15. But here we have the ILO. If we were to take our cap off to them, listen to everything they say and give effect to all their pronunciations as to industrial relations law, then we might be confronted with having to accept 50 employees as the definition of ‘small business’. I have a funny feeling that that would not suit the agenda of the Australian Greens.

So I just say that sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for. It sounds good in theory but the chances are that both sides of this debate could cherry-pick through the ILO convention and demand changes. Sure, be informed by the ILO, but do not let them have the power and capacity to hamstring the Australian parliament.