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

by leave—I move opposition amendments (15) and (1) on sheet 7305:

(1) Clause 2, page 3 (at the end of the table), add:

(15) Page 191 (after line 8), at the end of the Bill, add:

Schedule 12—Australian Workplace Relations Commission

Part 1—Amendments

Fair Work Act 2009

1 The whole of the Act

  Omit "Fair Work Commission" (wherever occurring), substitute "Australian Workplace Relations Commission".

2 The whole of the Act

  Omit "FWC" (wherever occurring), substitute "AWRC".

3 The whole of the Act

  Omit "FWC's" (wherever occurring), substitute "AWRC's".

Part 2—Transitional and consequential provisions

4 Regulations may deal with transitional etc. matters

(1) The Governor General may make regulations dealing with matters of a transitional, saving or application nature relating to amendments made by this Schedule.

(2) Despite subsection 12(2) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, regulations made under this item may be expressed to take effect from a date before the regulations are registered under that Act.

(3) In this item:

amendments made by this Schedule includes amendments made by regulations under item 5 of this Schedule.

5 Regulations may make consequential amendments of Acts

(1) The Governor General may make regulations amending Acts (including the Fair Work Act 2009) being amendments that are consequential on, or that otherwise relate to, the amendments made by this Schedule.

(2) Despite subsection 12(2) of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003, regulations made under this item may be expressed to take effect from a date before the regulations are registered under that Act.

(3) Amendments of an Act made by regulations for the purposes of this item can be incorporated into a reprint or compilation of the Act as provided by the Acts Publication Act 1905.

For all this government's rhetoric about consultation and listening to people, we have another good example of where the rhetoric does not actually match the action. The government set up the Fair Work Review Panel, stacked as it was, skewed terms of reference as they were, and the panel strongly recommended that the name Fair Work Australia should be changed.

What is the government's recommendation here: that the offending part of the title is not 'Fair Work' but 'Australia'. They want to delete the word 'Australia' and insert 'Commission' in direct rejection of the review panel's recommendation that it is 'Fair Work' that is the tarnished name. 'Fair Work' is the sullied name; 'Fair Work' is the name that has fallen into disrepute. Why? Because of this government. This government has tried to make Fair Work Australia into a political vehicle. We know that Fair Work Australia's reputation is diminished and tarnished because of the Health Services Union inquiry and the inquiry into Mr Craig Thomson. I do not need to canvass that scandal any further other than to say that after three long years Fair Work Australia finally came to the conclusion that I think that every other Australian had come to about 2½ years earlier that Mr Thomson was a bad egg, that he had misspent members' moneys. It took Fair Work Australia three long years to come to that conclusion.

It is no wonder that the review panel into the Fair Work Act came to the conclusion that the name should be changed with the deletion of the words 'Fair Work'. Let me remind senators of the actual recommendation. It says:

The panel recommends that the Fair Work Act be amended to change the name of Fair Work Australia to a title which more aptly denotes its functions. It is recommended that the new title contain the word “Commission”—

and the government has done that—

and that it no longer contain the words “Fair Work”.

Was this a bolt out of the blue? No, it was not. The President of Fair Work Australia, Mr Ross, no less, when I asked him at a Senate estimates in May about these matters in relation to the name change, said:

I have put forward two suggestions. Frankly, I do not mind as long as it is not the same as the name of the act. The two names I have put forward are: the Australian Workplace Commission or the Australian Workplace Relations Commission. The key point is not really what the name is. It is that it be separate from the name given to the act and that there be a clear distinction between the administrative functions of the organisation and the adjudicative functions.

So you have got the Fair Work Act Review Panel making this recommendation and you have got the President of Fair Work Australia making that recommendation. Guess who else makes that recommendation? It is not often that we in the coalition would rely on these people as our allies, but listen to this: the Maritime Workers Union said:

The MUA welcomes a return to the inclusion of “Commission” in the name of the Tribunal.

However, the MUA supports calls for further amendment of the name to its natural form, “Australian Industrial Relations Commission”.

The Commission has been and remains a cornerstone of a functioning Australian democracy and is renowned for its fair and efficient management of industrial relations following federation with the enactment of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904.

As such, the Commission deserves a name that is recognised throughout Australia and should revert to its longstanding and accepted form.

So we can go from the extreme and the ridiculous with the MUA, who actually support this, right through to the Australian Metals and Mining Association who submitted:

Enacting a name change from Fair Work Australia to the Fair Work Commission will do little to rectify the branding challenges—

Isn't that a polite way of putting it? Some of us might say the 'trashed reputation', but very diplomatic language was used here. The submission continues:

the tribunal has experienced in the wake of the Health Services Union investigation or to clear up the confusion between the judicial and administrative arms of the Fair Work infrastructure. A more objective name for the tribunal such as the Australian Workplace Relations Commission (AWRC) if far more appropriate.

In its response to the Fair Work review, the ACTU said that they strongly supported the recommendation as it was.

So I ask the question: who is standing in the way of the name change? We have got the ACTU, we have got the Maritime Workers Union of Australia, we have got employer group after employer group—from the big ACCIs and AiG through to the Master Builders, the Housing Industry Association, the Independent Contractors Association, the Council of Small Business of Australia, and we have even got the Law Council of Australia—all supporting this.

Who has submitted or argued that the name should be 'Fair Work Commission'—nobody other than Ms Gillard, who created Fair Work Australia and the legislation. Her vanity is what stands in the way of this very sensible, practical recommendation. Indeed, Labor senators in considering this legislation—and rushed as the committee process was; a matter that I had previously canvassed—said this in paragraph 2.40:

A number of submitters saw merit in resurrecting the title 'Australian Industrial Relations Commission', on the basis that the name is well known and accepted in the community.

Even they were mugged by the overwhelming number of submissions in relation to this.

So, for good judicial and administrative purposes the President of Fair Work Australia has recommended this change. The Fair Work Review Panel, stacked and packed as it was by Labor for a certain outcome with skewed terms of reference, were also mugged by all the submissions that this name change should occur.

Indeed, the Orwellian name of Fair Work Australia, or now Fair Work Commission, has all the hallmarks of the sort of Orwellian naming that this government loves, but it has fallen into disrepute. The name 'Fair Work' is now a trashed commodity within the Australian community and within the workplace relations space. Everybody knows it, from the Maritime Union of Australia right through to the ACTU, all the employer groups, the panel and President of Fair Work Australia and even Labor senators on the committee; but who does not get it? The Prime Minister, in her vanity. Indeed, that is what some of the submitters have suggested. The feedback they have got is that this very sensible change was stopped at the very highest levels of the government.

I am not going to spend any more of this chamber's time on this, but it is yet again another window for the Australian people to see how this government operates. Let us start with consultation—'We will take into account community concerns. We are going to have a thorough, robust panel looking at this.' They made a recommendation that was supported by everybody—it was unanimous. Yet the government will not do it. Why? Because of the vanity of the Prime Minister.

It is a matter of great concern when the proper judicial and administrative functioning of such an important tribunal cannot be rehabilitated with a name change simply because of the vanity of the Prime Minister. She created Fair Work Australia. She appointed the initial personnel to Fair Work Australia. Of course, Fair Work Australia is now a trashed brand. That is recognised across the political divide, across the employer-employee divide and within Fair Work Australia.

Whilst we would argue that a name change is only a small change and there may need to be some cultural change attached to it, this government cannot even bring itself to a name change. If it cannot bring itself to such a basic change as that that has been so overwhelmingly recommended and so overwhelmingly endorsed, it stands to reason that the Australian people will come to the conclusion that this government will set its own course irrespective of the national interest and irrespective of the interests of having good functioning tribunals in this nation because the overriding factor will be the vanity of the Prime Minister. I commend the amendments to the chamber.