Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That the Senate—

  (a)   notes:

  (i)   the opening statement made by the President of Fair Work Australia on 1 June 2010 during his appearance at an estimates hearing of the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee, and

  (ii)   in particular, the request made in that statement that the Senate reconsider its order of 28 October 2009 which requires that, on each occasion on which the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee meets to consider estimates in relation to Fair Work Australia, the President of Fair Work Australia appear before the committee to answer questions; and

  (b)   modifies the order of 28 October 2009 by indicating that the Senate expects that the President of Fair Work Australia will appear should his or her presence be requested by the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee in the future, while relaxing the requirement that the President attend to answer questions on all occasions when the Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Legislation Committee meets to consider estimates in relation to Fair Work Australia.

This issue goes back some time and has some history. Prior to the establishment of Fair Work Australia we had the industrial tri­bunal under various names and, histori­cally, the oppositions of the day had never required the head of the judicial arm of the tribunal to appear before Senate estimates. It was always considered an inappropriate thing to do because, clearly, those who are actually providing independent decision-making processes and who are conciliating and arbitrating between parties need to be free to do so without any sort of political interfer­ence or political pressure. The convention always was, as I clearly understood it, that the Senate would not seek to put pressure on or be seen to be putting pressure on or politically interfering with the role of those independent arbitrators and conciliators.

With the establishment of Fair Work Australia the opposition took a different view and, for the first time that I am aware, they have sought to call the head of Fair Work Australia to appear before Senate estimates. Given the structure of Fair Work Australia it is, in fact, the general manager who is responsible for the expenditure of Fair Work Australia. It is the general manager who runs the day-to-day business of the mechanisms that support the judicial side of Fair Work Australia. It is he or she who actually exercises the role of expending the money that is appropriated from this parliament for the running of Fair Work Australia. So if there is an officer from Fair Work Australia best equipped to answer questions from Senate estimates and who can, quite rightly, answer questions on the expenditure of government funds and the role of Fair Work Australia in exercising its duties, that officer is the general manager.

The ALP, and the ALP even when in government, I do not think, has ever questioned the ability of the Senate to call any officer to Senate estimates if it so desires; it simply had never desired to do so prior to the establishment of Fair Work Australia. Clearly, the government was of the view that the calling of the President of Fair Work Australia could put in jeopardy their ability, without any political interference or pressure, to make decisions and consider issues brought before it fairly, openly and honestly. It is to this that Justice Giudice, the present President of Fair Work Australia, has primarily objected to. It is his view, as it is the committee's view, that the most appropriate person to appear before Senate estimates is in fact—