Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

To the extent that there are any arguments agin this motion proceeding, there are essentially two: firstly, that it is somehow a departure from past practice for the president of a national industrial tribunal to appear before this Senate estimates committee; and, secondly, that somehow a president of the national industrial tribunal enjoys judicial status that would somehow be violated by his or her attendance before estimates.

As to the first argument, past practice is irrelevant to the present day. Past practice is irrelevant for two reasons: it does not bind this committee nor does it bind this Senate. This Senate has not decided to never call a public officer of the nature of the president of the national industrial tribunal. The past is also irrelevant, for two reasons of substance. Firstly, these are estimates under the Fair Work Act. The Fair Work Act commenced operation in July this year. It is new legislation. Secondly, the new legislation for the first time expressly gives the President of Fair Work Australia responsibility for the administration of Fair Work Australia.

As to the argument that there is somehow judicial status: yes, the current President of Fair Work Australia happens to be a ‘chapter 3’ judge of the Federal Court. But he does not wear that hat in his capacity as President of Fair Work Australia; nor can he, because Fair Work Australia ain’t a ‘chapter 3’ court. It is a statutory body exercising arbitral powers, not judicial powers. The closest analogy is the President of the Human Rights Commission. She is also titled ‘Justice’ and also happens to be a judge—not as President of the Human Rights Commission—but she attends estimates. The President of Fair Work Australia should get over it, get on with it and get his butt in front of Senate estimates.