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

Yes, that lawyer from The Castle that I was able to refer to last night in another speech referring to Senator Brown’s three-quarters of a million dollar slush fund comes to mind, Senator Fifield. It’s the vibe. That is what Minister Arbib is relying on here—the vibe. He says that there will be an imbalance. But I cannot see how there is an imbalance by allowing employer representation. At worst, as the minister said before, employers’ views are already there and are already taken into account; but we are told that the factors to be taken into account are the wishes of the members of the workplace group, and the extent to which particular employee organisations represent the employees in the workplace and the nature of that representation.

So it seems to me that we still do not really have a situation where employers are looked after in 137B. The employees’ views are already in the legislation, as I read out. Just for clarity, that is in 137B(1), subclauses (b) and (c). So the employees’ views are taken into account. I would be interested if the minister could point out in that regime of (a) to (f) where the employers’ views are taken into account. Fair Work Australia will take into account the consequences of not making the order for any employer or organisation concerned, the wishes of members of the workplace and the extent to which particular employee organisations represent the employees in the workplace and the nature of that representation. Why would it create an imbalance if you allowed the employers to have a say as well? This is just a one-way street and, if I might say, that is one of the tests that I have said we apply to this legislation and to amendments. We ask: does it impact small business or jobs adversely and does it have an unwarranted increase in union power? Clearly this allows the union to have a say but not the employer or employer organisations.

I think the minister then, after the word ‘imbalance’, relied on the word ‘inconsistency’ again but has not actually explained to us the inconsistency. Time is dragging on. I am sure I will not convince the minister otherwise, but for anybody who wants to study the development of public policy I suggest to them that these last few pages of Hansard would not be a good read for them in relation to government responses to opposition questions as to the detail of legislation.