Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

So when did the government decide to make sure that those things would be preserved by regulation? Undoubtedly, that is something that should have been in the legislation itself, but it will seek to cover a deficiency via regulation. Just in case anybody who is listening thought that there was a substantial argument made out by the parliamentary secretary that that which I had asserted does not stand up to scrutiny about the stacking of Fair Work Australia, let me just ask them—in particular the parliamentary secretary—that, out of the 17 appointments made thus far, who can tell us how many were ex-trade-union bosses, given the promise that it would not be an endless tribe of ex-trade-union officials? Would you think one or two, possibly? Three or four? Five or six? All right, let's go halfway at eight out of the 17. Nah—you got it wrong; it is 12 out of the 17—over two-thirds. But that is not an endless tribe of ex-trade-union officials according to the parliamentary secretary. Heaven help us if two-thirds plus is not an endless tribe. What it means is that a 100 per cent stacking and packing of Fair Work Australia also would not be an endless tribe to Fair Work Australia appointments.

Need I remind the parliamentary secretary of the appointment of the very first manager of Fair Work Australia—an ex-trade-union official. What was that person's role? The oversight of the Health Services Union inquiry and the inquiry into Craig Thomson. And just when the heat was getting on, just when we as a coalition were seeking to have questions asked of him at a Senate estimates hearing, what does the government do? It miraculously appoints him to the commission of Fair Work Australia to put him out of reach of senators' questions as to the absolutely disgraceful handling of the Craig Thomson and the Health Services Union matter. So this manager, who oversaw this absolute disregard for process and this disgraceful delay in the Craig Thomson-Health Services Union matter, is not chided but rewarded by this government and elevated to the bench of Fair Work Australia. If that is not enough, there is a vacancy created in the managerial role of Fair Work Australia. I wonder what sort of person we might appoint to that vacancy. Guess what! Another ex-trade-union official. But it is not an endless tribe, you understand; it is not an endless tribe of ex-trade-union officials being appointed!

Well, chances are that I misinterpreted what Mr Rudd meant when he said there would not be an endless tribe of ex-trade union officials being appointed. I actually took him at face value. Clearly, I was wrong, as the Australian people were wrong in relation to the no carbon tax promise made at the last election.

We have been told that these appointments are open, transparent and merit based, as undoubtedly was the appointment of that greatly successful manager of Fair Work Australia who oversaw the Health Services Union debacle—open and merit based. What a fantastic job! They did a great job looking into the Craig Thomson Health Services Union for—how many years was it?—three years or whatever it was. Great! And merit demanded that this sort of performance saw this person put onto the bench of Fair Work Australia.

What about the trade union official who was in diabolical trouble with his own trade union, the Electrical Trades Union, which was suing him, if I recall, for about $1 million? They were wanting back pay for the moneys he had received while sitting on one of those industry super funds as a board member, milking out money. There will be more talk about the industry super funds and the default funds under the modern award system later on today. But guess what happened to this person? The day before his announcement to Fair Work Australia was made public—it was just serendipitous; it was just coincidental—the case with the union miraculously settled. Oh please! Merit based? Open? Transparent? I could go on with a list. I think the government knows it cannot claim honesty in relation to that assertion.

Coming back to the issue that Justice Ross says is required, namely, a 'high level of expertise', I think the term was, I am sorry but, with great respect, is the government asserting that that high level of expertise does not currently exist on the bench of Fair Work Australia? I can tell you, there are many people who would clearly fit into that category who would be, I am sure, more than willing to assist the president if he were willing to use their expertise, their experience and their reputation to assist him in the management and running of Fair Work Australia. I say to the government again that no genuine argument has been made out for this enhanced stacking and packing measure of Fair Work Australia.

I finally make a comment in relation to female appointments. It is amazing. The second-last time around, when I pursued the so-called merit based appointments to Fair Work Australia, it was astounding how the selection process showed a complete dearth of quality private sector people worthy of the short list. But, oh, the ex-trade union officials made the short list. They were in there, right through. They made the short list as high-quality individuals. All I would ask you to do, Parliamentary Secretary, if you do want to look for female candidates for appointment to workplace relations tribunals, is look no further than the new LNP government in Queensland, which have appointed for their industrial commission a very distinguished lady, Minna Knight. But people like that, I am sure, simply would not make the short list or would—

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

I am not going to indicate whether or not, because there are privacy considerations involved.

But it is interesting that, when you have an LNP government elected, all of a sudden it finds meritorious female candidates to appoint to its industrial tribunals, yet this government, with all its quotas and other things, seems to have great difficulty.

I will leave my contribution to this amendment at that. I commend the amendment to the Senate. I believe it is worthy. I simply say to the Greens: even if you want to discount every single word I have said in this debate, as is usually your wont, please do so—please be my guest—but you cannot discount—