Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I find it to be absolutely remarkable in this place, in the Senate of the parliament of Australia, where we are to be representing the people in terms of accountability, that we are even debating whether or not an accountable officer of a statutory organisa­tion should or should not have to come before estimates to be accountable. As a past chief executive officer, and accountable officer, of a government statutory authority in my state, it was automatic that I was expected to attend estimates, or its equivalent, on each occasion called by the parliament of that state, to be accountable, through the parliament to the people.

The fact that we are here even discussing this particular motion is disappointing. If we were to take away the personality and have regard for the position, not only of this statutory authority but of all statutory authorities and departments, this argument would fall away. For example, if this accountable officer can choose to come or not come to estimates to present herself or himself to scrutiny, why would the head of any other agency of government want to come? Why would the Reserve Bank? Why would any head of any agency? Why would Ms Lisa Paul want to come? I know of no provision in this legislation where there is the power of delegation, for example, for this accountable officer. And if this accountable officer wants to bring others with him, indeed let him bring others—but this person remains, as I understand it, the senior accountable officer.

I also go to the quotation from the former Clerk of the Senate Mr Evans. And I do not think that, in his quotation as presented by my leader, there was any suggestion at all that the incumbent president had in fact refused to come. But I will repeat it. This is from the former Clerk of the Senate Mr Evans:

The first observation I make is that it is disturbing that a public office holder of the Commonwealth should refuse a formal request by a committee to appear before the committee in a hearing relating to the expenditure of public funds ultimately under the authority of that public office holder.

I have suggested to Senator Marshall that there is nothing at all which suggests that this gentleman has refused to attend. The point made by the former Clerk is that he should not refuse to attend. The former Clerk's comments get even more interesting, because the President of Fair Work Australia gave two reasons for his refusal of the committee's invitation—the first being that 'the committee's questions may best be answered by the general manager'. I do not think the general manager is the accountable officer. I am not aware that, under the legislation, the general manager signs off on the annual report and the presentation to the minister. Therefore, it is certainly not appropriate that the general manager would appear in place of the president.

But more important is the second point to which Mr Harry Evans refers. This was the second reason given by the President of Fair Work Australia for his refusal to attend:

It is accepted that heads of similar Common­wealth institutions, such as the High Court, the Family Court and the Federal Court, who have responsibility for the administration of those bodies do not appear.

Then the former Clerk Mr Harry Evans's comments are most interesting. He says:

The Senate has never acknowledged, however, that it will observe any such convention, and it would be open to the Senate or its committees to require the attendance of a judicial officer to explain the administration of the courts established by the Constitution of Australia.

Therefore it is within the powers of the Senate to decide if it wants the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia to appear before the Senate or a committee to answer questions upon the administration of that court. I go back to the point that it is irrelevant whether the particular gentleman occupying the position now is a justice or not; it is simply a question of the accountability of the position.

We see further then that the Fair Work Australia president is an 'officer', as per Senate standing order 26(5), from whom committees may seek an explanation about expenditure. The document goes on to say that statutory bodies are accountable to parliament for the expenditure of public funds, one of the primary reasons that we exist. It says that it is a statutory body, that the president is responsible for ensuring that the FWA performs its functions and exer­cises its powers efficiently and adequately to serve employers and employees, that it is the FWA president who is obliged to present Fair Work Australia's annual report to the minister—not the general manager and not some other delegated party but the president himself or herself—and that the Fair Work Australia president's statutory respon­sibilities are comparable with those of heads of other statutory authorities, who are expected to and who do attend estimates.

Is this what we want to have in this place—the fact that one particular statutory officer, for whatever reason, decides that he or she could not, should not or may not need to appear before estimates committees of the Senate to be accountable? I am very strongly of the view that that is a dangerous precedent that we certainly would not want to see come into this place. In fact, the final document from which I am quoting says, 'It is unheard of for a public office holder to put forward a case that they do not appear at estimates at all.'

My final comments in opposing this motion are these. As mentioned by Senator Abetz in his contribution, Fair Work Australia must perform its functions and exercise its powers in a manner that is, firstly, fair and just; secondly, quick, infor­mal and avoiding unnecessary technicality; thirdly, open and transparent: and, fourthly, promoting harmonious and cooperative workplace relations. I come back to the third of those four pillars: openness and trans­parency. Openness and transparency is best discharged by having the accountable officer on every occasion present themselves before the Senate of the Australian parliament.