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

Thank you very much. It makes the point very well that, for different sectors and for different industries, it is appropriate from time to time to have a separate set of rules. I trust His Honour Judge Murray Wilcox, Professor George Williams and others will see the wisdom of this approach when they deal with the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the unique niche legislation that was deemed necessary for the building and construction industry, just as this government now accepts and acknowledges that you need unique and niche legislation to deal with another sector—namely, the TCF outworkers. I have yet to go through the details of what is proposed, so I reserve the position of the coalition. But it does make a very interesting point that Labor now accept that it is appropriate to have niche and unique legislation for particular areas of industry where particular needs are identified. I just remind those opposite in relation to the Australian Building and Construction Commission that that was found to be necessary as a result of a very detailed royal commission by His Honour Mr Justice Cole, who exposed a culture of corruption in that sector.

To return to the specific questions that I asked before the dinner adjournment, Minister, will the government give a guarantee that no worker will be worse off, no employer will be worse off, no community organisation will be worse off and no consumer will be worse off? Are we to have shared with us in this place any economic modelling that suggests the employment growth or decline as a result of this legislation being introduced? Has any such modelling been done; if not, why not? I would also be obliged if some of the questions I asked before dinner in relation to my questions on notice could be answered.

Can I add to that pack of general questions the following in relation to award modernisation—and I know I am getting into an area of award modernisation where we have specific amendments but the answer may well obviate the need for us to draft other amendments. In the award modernisation process, how often can the default superannuation fund be changed? Is that just every four years or can it be changed by application by one or however many parties? Can it also be confirmed that a number of the so-called modern awards will have or will seek to establish monopoly superannuation funds? I am advised that a monopoly has been awarded in relation to award covered employees in the following industries: textile, clothing and footwear; hair and beauty—one that the minister will understand both of us have a very keen interest in; general retail; fast food; and higher education.