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

This legislation yet again highlights the shambolic legislative agenda that this government is presiding over. It is little wonder that, if one cannot manage the Senate agenda, one cannot manage the country, and all the consequences of that are there for the Australian people to see.

This bill, which is allegedly non-controversial, was rushed into the House of Representatives at 4:30 pm on Wednesday, 31 October and then brought on for debate the very next day. The Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations might like to explain to the Senate how that fits into the new paradigm of parliamentary process and transparency that we were promised under this rainbow alliance of Greens, Labor and the country Independents. She might also like to explain why it was necessary to exempt this bill from the cut-off. She might also like to explain, in the context of this new paradigm, parliamentary processes being followed, parliamentary processes being honoured and individual senators being given the opportunity to genuinely examine legislation. She might like to explain why the Senate committee looking into this bill was only allowed one day of hearings—when I say one day I mean part of one day—with four witnesses.

What is the great rush? Why was the parliament denied the normal courtesies and considerations that should and would apply to any other piece of legislation?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz raises the normal courtesies of, I assume, both the House and the Senate. He knows as well as I do how this fits within those normal courtesies if we reflect on the passage of a variety of different pieces of legislation over the course of both his own and my own career. For a piece of legislation upon which wide consultation has occurred; indeed, as has been reflected in the second reading contributions in this debate, where it is relatively non-controversial, taking into account some of the issues that have been canvassed; and where, generally, progress on this first one-third of the recommendations of the review panel work, the time frame that he has outlined is not at all exceptional and neither is exemption from the cut-off where we have the position of this bill where there is general support for progressing these generally agreed recommendations. Whilst I understand that Senator Abetz wants to make a few political points about appointments or, indeed, the name of the tribunal, I think it is fair to reflect that progressing these generally agreed amendments is not something of any great contention.

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

If this has all emanated non-controversially out of the review panel, clearly the review panel's recommendations have been deliberately ignored in relation to the name change—and there is no doubt about that. The most courteous way of putting it is to say that it has been ignored, when every single submission to the review suggested the deletion of the name 'Fair Work'. The president of Fair Work Australia recommended it. The panel recommended it. It is hardly ever that I would find myself on a unity ticket with the Maritime Union of Australia. There is widespread support. The only thing stopping that change is the vanity of the Prime Minister herself.

But I was not talking about the name change in relation to the questions that I was posing. I was posing those questions in the general term, because some of the proposals that are before us this evening, in this rushed, shambolically put together legislation, do not find their genesis in the Fair Work Act Review Panel's recommendations. Indeed, they do not find their genesis in any of the submissions made to the Fair Work Act Review Panel.

It seems that an ex-union boss had a chat with another ex-union boss and, as a result, they agreed that certain new positions ought to be created. As a result, you have got to rush that through the parliament. As a result, you cannot even allow the Law Council of Australia to make a verbal submission to the Senate committee. This is the parliamentary process of which I speak. This is the parliamentary process which we were promised in the so-called new paradigm. The promise that was made, signed, sealed and delivered by the member for Lyne in particular and by the member for New England has been broken day after day after day with their complicity, with their silence and, might I add, with the complicity and silence of the Australian Greens—so full of promise and yet so very shallow when it comes to delivery. I ask the parliamentary secretary again in relation to those aspects of the bill that do not find their genesis in the Fair Work Act Review Panel's recommendations: how does she justify the government rushing them through the parliament without proper consultation?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz has visited these points on other occasions. He and I will both recall the last estimates, when I think quite a lengthy period of time was covered in relation to the name of Fair Work Australia. Senator Abetz, I do not know your understanding of consultation, but mine does not mean that if someone raises something it is adopted, but nor does it mean that if the government does not completely accept the proposition put forward to someone they have shown some blatant disregard of their point of view or they have ignored people.

During estimates we covered the name of Fair Work Australia. We traversed the issue that there were essentially two issues. One was a concern with Fair Work Australia's standing with respect to some of the issues that have confronted Fair Work Australia in recent times. The other one was a concern with the colloquial-type name of 'Fair Work Australia' and a view that 'commission' would be more appropriate. Apart from you, I am yet to hear anyone who has taken extreme exception to the notion that we retain 'fair work' and combine it with 'commission' to remove the colloquial aspect that has concerned some people.

These colloquial phrases emanated from the Howard government, as I recall. I fondly recall one particular piece of legislation—More Jobs, Better Pay. We ended up calling it the 'MOJO bill' because it was a sign of then Minister Reith's mojo. Indeed, the fashion of coining phrases and names like that for tribunals and organisations emanated roughly during that period. I certainly favour a move to the Fair Work Commission. Whether it is 'fair work' or 'workplace relations' is a different issue. There is some strength to the argument that we now have a Fair Work system involving, for instance, the Fair Work Ombudsman as well. There certainly is the view that the Fair Work system is more broad than simply the Fair Work Commission. Senator Abetz may or may not agree with those considerations. You might seek to make some cheap political points about the Prime Minister's vanity, but I think there are some quite solid arguments for why Fair Work Commission is an appropriate response to a variety of the submissions that the government received.

Senator Abetz, given your earlier comments, I should cover more broadly the issue of the consultation and, indeed, what is in this bill. Consultation occurred not only with respect to the processes of this parliament but also with the National Workplace Relations Consultative Council, where all of the provisions in this bill were canvassed over time. In relation to the response to the first third of the recommendations by the Fair Work review panel, members welcomed Minister Shorten's intention to introduce legislation in the near future to implement the first tranche of legislation in response to the review panel's report covering these matters.

The other matters in this bill, with respect to responding to Justice Ross's concerns about the name and standing and responses to the standing of the Fair Work Commission, are an important component of addressing some of those concerns, and I think all parties would be keen that the government respond to those issues. It might be to the political advantage of some people to continue to have the commission confronted with issues about managing their internal arrangements, but I think that all agree that in the longer term, for Australia's industrial relations harmony, it is important to have an effective commission operating, and that is indeed what Justice Ross is seeking to do in his recommendations both on the name change and on the appointment of these new vice-president commissioners.

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

That's wrong. That's just wrong.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, you will have your opportunity to say that is wrong if that is your view, but these are very important considerations for the ongoing operations of the commission, and this is what the government has been responding to.

With respect to the superannuation reforms, again the government is seeking to progress matters that have concerned some parties, and I have highlighted also that further amendments will be looked at to address some particular issues to improve the industrial superannuation arrangements and how they are managed. I only need to remind people, after listening to Senator Cormann, that it was a Labor government that introduced industry superannuation. It is very, very near to our heart. We are proud of our arrangements, we are proud of our improvements to industry superannuation and we will fight tooth and nail to maintain the integrity of that scheme.

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

As is the wont of the parliamentary secretary, she traversed everything but the actual issue that was raised. I will not get distracted—as the parliamentary secretary studiously seeks to distract the Senate in this debate—by the name change, because we will specifically deal with that later. But Mr Ross himself, at Senate estimates, said he favoured the removal of the words 'Fair Work' from the name of Fair Work Australia or the commission. So do not try to verbal Mr Ross and suggest that he was—

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I didn't.

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

You suggested that he was agreeable to the name change.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, that's not what I suggested.

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

Have a look at the Hansard of what you just said and also of Senate estimates. But when the Fair Work Act review was done—and I have made commentary about the panel itself and the skewed terms of reference in the past, so I will not traverse that—one of the important procedures of it was that people could make submissions. Those submissions were made public. After that, people could respond to the submissions made, so there was actually a bit of dialogue taking place. Where was that opportunity afforded when one ex-trade union boss had a chat with another ex-trade union boss to create these new senior vice-president positions in Fair Work Australia? Was the Law Council of Australia, for example, given the opportunity to respond to that suggestion? No, it was not.

What is more important is that we now, I think, have an understanding of why this legislation was introduced on 31 October and rushed through the House on 1 November, because it is now on the public record that the two country Independents might well have voted differently on the issue of the senior vice-presidential positions had they been aware of the Law Council concerns as they have been so articulately expressed in recent times. Can I say to the parliamentary secretary that that is once again an example of what happens when legislation is rushed through. Sure, you have whacked it over them and the country Independents are unfortunately in lock step with you—they will never let you go and they will keep you on life support—but they have now indicated their concerns about the 'jobs for the boys' that this scenario will create and the diminution in stature of Fair Work Australia as a quasi-judicial body. So one wonders why it was rushed through the House of Representatives, because these hapless country Independents voted for the government and the government's legislation only to find out that they have now helped pass legislation about which, according to the public record, they are now genuinely concerned.

The government will use their numbers in this place, as they did in the other place, and completely disregard the normal parliamentary processes and the proper consideration of legislation. Indeed, it was this parliamentary secretary—only yesterday, if I recall correctly—that was in this chamber moving government amendments to the government's own legislation because there were unforeseen consequences. Why? Because they had rushed it through the other place and did not want proper consideration, and then they realised that they themselves had mucked up their legislation and had to amend it. Here we have a similar situation where the House of Representatives was denied proper consideration and now some of those House of Representatives members are reconsidering their position—albeit chances are it is too late for them. I simply say to those country Independents: if you genuinely believe in what you said when you signed your lives away with Ms Gillard about a new paradigm of parliamentary process, ensure that it happens, because if you do not then you will be left with egg all over your individual faces, as has now occurred.

Can the parliamentary secretary advise us as to the cost of these changes that are to be made—these two new vice-presidential positions and the cost of changing the name of Fair Work Australia?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will deal with some other matters as I wait to see if we can find a specific response to Senator Abetz's query regarding—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just be like Wayne Swan and have a guess!

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am hoping to provide the Senate with some more accurate information, if that is immediately available, Senator Williams. Whilst I wait for that I will deal with some other aspects of Senator Abetz's commentary.

In relation to the consultation with respect to the senior vice-presidents, I recall the meeting of the National Workplace Relations Consultative Council on 15 October where these appointments were raised with that consultative council and, indeed, announced if they were not announced prior to that. So from 15 October those organisations that may have had some critical concerns about that issue, such as Senator Abetz claims that the Law Council may have, and whether they would have had an impact on the view of the Independents is probably quite another question. But it is not as if the government launched these positions out of nowhere. It is not as if there was some private conversation between the minister and the vice-president and no further consultation. And it is not uncommon for there to be a one-day legislation inquiry on not greatly complex legislation and generally agreed non-controversial recommendations from an independent review.

Senator Abetz may want to progress the debate about why time was not made for the Law Council. I am not sure but I do not recall that having been made an issue by his colleagues on that committee. I do not recall a concern that there was not sufficient time or that the appropriate witnesses were not there. So I suspect on this point that Senator Abetz is simply making a stab in the dark, trying to find one way to undermine what is generally an agreed process and trying to characterise a concern of Justice Ross's that the government is responding to as something that was just a private conversation between the minister and Justice Ross, which is just absolutely ludicrous.

Let me deal with the cost figures that he raised. The Fair Work Australia general manager is conducting an internal review to determine what will be required to change the name, including the cost. They have an internal committee process established to do this. It is not complete yet. I will take an exact figure on that point on notice. I note that some estimates have been bandied around about what the cost would be for the appointment of the senior vice-presidents. On advice, as I understand it the costs that may be involved there will be determined or are yet to be determined by the Remuneration Tribunal.

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

So the Remuneration Tribunal is going to determine the cost of the name change. I do not think so.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, that is not what I said.

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

Well, tell us what the cost of the name change is going to be.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will repeat the remarks I made earlier with regard to the name change. The general manager of Fair Work Australia is conducting an internal review to determine what will be required to change the name, including the cost. They have an internal committee process established to do this. It is not complete yet and I will take the exact figure on notice.

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

That is exactly what we were told at the Senate hearing one week ago. Mr Kovacic took this matter on notice on behalf of the department. Here we are, a week later, being asked to vote for legislation where we do not know what the costs will be.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yep.

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

Senator Collins says 'yep'. Do you know what, Mr Temporary Chairman? That is why this nation has had the four biggest budget deficits in its history. That is why this nation is now confronted with the biggest debt it has ever had in its lifetime—because of that sort of high-handed approach by ministers in this government. They could not care less about the cost because I think they are relying on the coalition coming in sometime soon to clean up the mess yet again. That is, unfortunately, our history. After the Whitlam government we had to do it. After the Keating government we had to do it. And there is no doubt that we will need to do it after the Rudd and Gillard failures. We are also told that the senators on the Senate committee somehow did not object to—

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was not aware of it.

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

The minister who is handling this says that she was not aware of senators' concerns about the time.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where did they report it?

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

The Fair Work Amendment Bill 2012 coalition senators' dissenting report. The senator at the table took such a keen interest she could not even get past the first sentence, which reads:

1.1 Coalition senators are highly disappointed that once again, the Government has rushed through the Committee a significant Bill that will affect each employer, employee and independent contractor in Australia without the Committee being able to conduct fulsome inquiries.

That was the concern expressed by coalition senators that had to deal with this about a week ago. It is still our concern. So be assured that that has been an exceptionally consistent approach.

The explanatory memorandum this bill tells the hapless parliamentarians who do not look at these things in detail, who do not have the benefit of a proper parliamentary debate, who do not have the benefit of a proper committee system, that this bill is to be cost neutral. It is going to be cost neutral, but we do not know what the cost is going to be. No wonder this is a government that has its budgets blow out in every single area of its endeavours. It is cost neutral, but we do not know what the cost will be. Isn't that a great way to run the country? Isn't that a great way to run the finances?

Unfortunately, this is just another—albeit relatively small—example. But do you know what? All these $1½ millions here and $1½ millions there actually add up to the tens of billions, and now over $100 billion, that this country is in debt for. But we will not get an answer to it. It was taken on notice at the Senate committee hearing, and here we are a week later, still without the relevant information. Yet again it reflects on this government.

Can I ask the minister: in relation to the review of the Fair Work Act, why did the minister and the minister's office decide to change the terms of reference as recommended by the department?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before I go to that question I might respond to a few of the earlier issues that Senator Abetz canvassed there, because there is some further information that might assist him.

I have to say that I am astounded at the level of verballing and the extravagance of some of Senator Abetz's behaviour at the moment. It seems that he was not listening earlier when I made the point that consultation does not necessarily mean that the government adopts every point that stakeholders, or partners with government in the delivery of services, make. Just because we did not accept the full recommendations, for instance of Justice Ross, around the name change or, indeed, the full recommendations in other respects, it does not mean that we have not listened and that we have not responded to the concerns raised, or that we do not respect the opinions of those with whom we are consulting.

Perhaps if I go to the other verballing that occurred in relation to my attempt to deal with Senator Abetz's questions around costs: I was attempting to isolate the particular issues that Senator Abetz raised, the first of those being the actual cost of the name change and the second around the appointments of the senior vice-presidents. Senator Abetz, with his fiscal concerns—or in the words of another senator, his 'fiscal manhood'—might appreciate knowing that Fair Work Australia will absorb the cost of the name change. So his concern about a million here and a million and a half there can be allayed. Fair Work Australia will absorb any additional cost with respect to the name change.

In relation to the changes to the terms of reference for the review panel: the Office of Best Practice Regulation was consulted by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations in relation to the terms of reference for the review. The OBPR was satisfied with the terms of reference. In response to correspondence from Senator Abetz, OBPR confirmed by a letter on 13 January 2012, which appears on their website, that it was satisfied with the terms of reference.

Unlike the opposition, we have nothing to hide here. We wanted to ensure that the independent review was comprehensive and met best practice requirements. The review was based on broad terms of reference, which were cleared by OBPR, and which, indeed, go beyond their requirements. The review's terms of reference refer explicitly to the objects of the Fair Work Act. Promoting productivity is in the objects of the act and so was clearly within the terms of reference.

In finalising the review, the department engaged with the Office of Best Practice Regulation to make sure that best practice regulation requirements were met. The OBPR confirmed that the review met best practice regulation requirements on 15 June 2012.

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

We know what the Office of Best Practice Regulation wrote to me after that. My office undertook an FOI request, and the FOI request blows the argument of the parliamentary secretary out of the water, because the email chain clearly discloses the concern of the department. Sure, they finally signed off on it. But to suggest that this was all hunky-dory and that there was no intervention by the minister's office is not to tell us exactly what happened. The documents I was able to obtain under the Freedom of Information request expose that. I must say that I have raised this with the Office of Best Practice Regulation at Senate estimates—that their letter to me was not the sort of independent, full response that one would normally have hoped for from a body such as that.

In relation to the parliamentary secretary saying that she was not fully aware, or aware, of when the Law Council expressed its concerns: the Law Council did make a submission to the Senate inquiry, and they have set out the principles in no uncertain terms. But, of course, that will be of no concern, because if they can stack out Fair Work Australia even further then that is what they will do.

I ask the government: does the government accept the report of the Fair Work review panel as a considered body of work, and does it have the confidence of the government?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

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

Thank you very much! So the government accepts the report as a considered body of work, and it has the confidence of the government; so why is it not implementing their recommendations? Clearly, you do not have confidence in it because you are rejecting their proposals. You are rejecting their proposals—

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're not rejecting anything!

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

And the hapless parliamentary secretary interjects, 'We're not rejecting anything'. Can I remind her of recommendation 50:

The Panel recommends that the FW 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 that it no longer contain the words ‘Fair Work’.

And yet here we have the parliamentary secretary misleading this place and saying that you accept their recommendations, that you accept their body of work and that you have not rejected one of their recommendations. Clearly, you have. They have said that it should no longer contain the words 'Fair Work Australia', and the parliamentary secretary is now playing school debating tactics, saying, 'Oh no, we are not rejecting anything; we are only accepting in part.' You had already covered it, Parliamentary Secretary, and the roosters ought to be crowing, because we know what happens when there are three denials that are untrue. We now find that you are rejecting the panel's recommendations. Possibly, Parliamentary Secretary, you can explain to us how the government has expressed its confidence in this report and not rejected any of the panel's recommendations by retaining the words 'fair work' in the title when the specific recommendation is that the new title no longer contain the words 'fair work'.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not intend to travail this path much further. It has deteriorated to a considerable degree, I have to say, Senator Abetz, when I am told that we all know what happens when three denials occur. I am sorry, but you are definitely starting to go over the top. I know there is a bit of pressure from Senator Brandis occurring at the moment. I have to say that neither of you have quite the capacity in this area that you think you do.

For the third time, we will try. I explained in my summing up speech that, whilst you accurately describe recommendation 50, the government has decided to accept that recommendation in part. We have accepted that we should change the name by virtue of the word 'commission' but, with respect to 'fair work', I repeat: we think it is appropriate that we retain 'fair work' because the Fair Work Commission operates within the fair work system, which also includes, amongst other things, the Fair Work Ombudsman.

I do not intend to revisit this issue. I know that Senator Abetz wants to make a song and dance about this. He has made a song and dance about it before. I repeat my point: when the government consults, it certainly does not logically follow that we will accept every piece of advice we receive. It does not reflect a lack of confidence in the review panel. It does not reflect a lack of confidence in those whom we consult. It is the government's considered position with respect to those with whom we have consulted and with respect to the review panel.

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

Can the parliamentary secretary simply explain: if you do not accept one of the recommendations, does that not mean that the government believe that the panel got it wrong? If you accept that the panel got it right, why would you wilfully not adopt their recommendation? Here we have the parliamentary secretary oozing all the arrogance that this government displays on a daily basis. You corner them and they can no longer explain their disgraceful behaviour, their disregard for the parliamentary process and their disregard for the review panel's recommendations. And what do they do? They just sit there and say, 'We don't have to answer that.'

I know that you are following the example of your Prime Minister when it comes to the Australian Workers Union scandal. She had one media conference that was going to explain it all and she would not say anything more because she had answered everything. Well, where was she yesterday? She was having to come back and try to explain but, once again, simply arrogantly obfuscating—and that is what we are witnessing in this chamber tonight by the parliamentary secretary, who is saying she does not have to answer a very simple question. The very simple question was: if you are not adopting the panel review recommendation, does it not therefore follow that you believe they got it wrong?

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have already answered no to that.

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

If they did not get it wrong, does it stand to reason that they had to get it right?

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

I do not know what the parliamentary secretary had for dinner, but it clearly was not a brain stimulant. I ask her: if the panel did not get it wrong, does it stand to reason therefore that they got it right? If they got it right, why is the government wilfully not following their recommendation, which the government accepts is right? Explain it to the Australian people. They are entitled to an explanation, especially in circumstances where it is not just the coalition banging on about this. It is the widest coalition of support that I think you could find in this country, from the Maritime Union of Australia to the ACTU, all of the employer organisations, the Fair Work Act Review Panel and the President of Fair Work Australia itself.

And can I tell you that the issue here is not about why we need a name change. It is that the organisation has become discredited. It is a damaged brand, courtesy of Mr Craig Thomson and the Health Services Union scandal. So what does Labor do? It says, 'Do you know what the damaging part of the title is? It is the name 'Australia'. You've got to get rid of 'Australia'; that's the damaging part of the name. Get rid of 'Australia', replace it with the word 'commission' and, as a result, everybody will forget about Craig Thomson and the Health Services Union.'

The president wants the name changed because it is discredited and the panel has recommended it. Yet here we have a parliamentary secretary completely and utterly unable to explain, given this vast body of support—and there is no dissent about the name change to delete the name 'Fair Work'—where the opposition has come from other than the vanity of this Prime Minister.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not think that I will go beyond what I think is about the fourth occasion when I have simply explained without hysteria that the government has accepted, in part, recommendation 50, and I have already explained at least two or three times the reasons for that and the place of the commission within the Fair Work system.

But I cannot let go unchallenged Senator Abetz's exaggeration around the level of concern with the name 'Fair Work Commission' so I will relate to him one anecdote. After the last estimates, when he put on a very similar performance to what we are experiencing today, I was asked by Ai Group to come and talk to a group of their HR specialists. I took the opportunity of that presentation to ask the room of somewhere between 50 and 70 HR specialists within Ai Group what they thought about the issue of the name change—and it was sitting in my mind recently, if I recall correctly, from around about the time of the estimates performance of Senator Abetz.

Do you know what they said, Senator Abetz? They said, 'Change it to commission.' They said, 'Change it to commission.' They said, 'Change it to commission.' Not one of them said, 'Change Fair Work.' Give us a break!

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just have a few questions for the minister and they go specifically to the issue that I raised in my second reading speech in relation to the default superannuation arrangements under modern awards. What I would like to know from the minister is why they are not prepared to fix up once and for all the anticompetitive, closed-shop arrangements under which Fair Work Australia selects default funds under modern awards through a widely discredited process. Even the Labor Party was embarrassed about it in the lead-up to the last election to the point where they had to be shamed into promising that if they were re-elected they would to fix it. Even the Labor Party had to recognise in the lead-up to the last election that what they did in relation to the selection of default funds under modern awards was fundamentally wrong and that they sold out the public interest at the expense of very specific vested interests—

Senator Back interjecting—

Very specific vested interests, Senator Back, of the union-dominated industry funds. Of course we do know how very close to the minister's heart the protection of these vested interests of the union movement are in the financial services and superannuation portfolio. In fact, for a minister who is supposedly in the financial services space asserting that he wanted to remove conflicts from the financial services space, he is the most conflicted Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation that we have had in the Commonwealth for a very, very long time.

This was a nice cosy arrangement that the Labor Party enshrined in this Fair Work Act for union-dominated industry funds. They said that they were going to get Fair Work Australia to determine who could be identified, who could be selected as a default fund under various modern awards, and then of course nobody else would be allowed to have a part of that business. That locks up straightaway a guaranteed share of the market for union-dominated industry funds. Why do you think that is?

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not for profit—

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'Not for profit,' he says. Here we have got the industry funds movement, quite frankly, which is completely outdated in terms of its corporate governance structure and is not prepared to engage in genuine competition. Having said that, let me just say—and I have made this point on a number of occasions to senior executives in some major industry funds—that this government is not doing them any favours by seeking to protect them from genuine and open competition. If they are as good as they assert they are then, quite frankly, why is the government trying to protect them from genuine competition? If they are as good as they say they are, they will thrive and prosper under competitive arrangements and people in default super will thrive and prosper, because only if you have got genuine and appropriate competitive tensions in the system will the benefits for people in default super be maximised.

I can see that the minister at the table is very touchy about all of this, because the Labor Party is always very touchy when it comes to their links and the vested interests of the union movement across Australia. This is big business. Superannuation is very big business for a large part of the union movement now. The conflicts that we have witnessed in recent years in the way that Fair Work Australia has made decisions about identifying industry funds as default funds under modern awards is breathtaking. We have had union delegates making representations to Fair Work Australia in their capacity as a delegate for a particular union in the context of Fair Work Australia without declaring that they were at the same time trustees for a particular fund that happened to be recommended for a particular award. Senator Sherry, who had a very distinguished career in this whole area of financial services and superannuation, was embarrassed. Senator Sherry wrote a letter to Fair Work Australia, saying, 'Fix it,' and Fair Work Australia said to him, 'Go away. You have not got the authority to tell us what to do.' Senator Sherry said that they should go through a more open and transparent process.

The current process by which default funds are selected by Fair Work Australia under modern awards is a national disgrace. It is a secretive, closed-shop, anticompetitive arrangement which is widely discredited and which is there for one reason and one reason only: it is the government trying to protect the commercial interests of its friends in the union movement.

In the lead-up to the last election the government said they would fix it. After the election who is the new minister for financial services and superannuation who has got the responsibility to fix it? It is none other than Mr Shorten. We gave Mr Shorten ample opportunity. We had motion after motion pass through the Senate. In fact, the Senate passed a motion back in early 2011 when we actually referred to the Productivity Commission the request for them to develop a process to select default funds through a more open, transparent and competitive process. Minister Shorten stopped them going ahead with it. Minister Shorten said, 'Don't do that.'

So month after month came. Minister Shorten wanted to protect the commercial vested interests of his friends as long as possible. It took him until early this year before he commissioned the Productivity Commission review. The Productivity Commission did what they usually do—they did a very good job and came out with a very sensible interim report that recommended a strong move to genuine competition in the default fund market, but the government did not go along with it. Not only that, Minister Shorten effectively provided a response to the Productivity Commission review before it had issued its final report.

Those who know Minister Shorten and his modus operandi reasonably well will know that that is completely out of character. Normally when Minister Shorten is presented with a policy problem he will commission a review through the Productivity Commission or somebody else. That gains him eight, nine or 10 months. After he gets the report he will commission a roundtable, a consultation paper or a further review into the review to gain him another six, seven, eight or nine months. In fact, I think I might have called him in the past the 'minister for reviews, consultations, indecision and essentially not getting on with it at all'.

But on this occasion he was as quick as a flash. He was in like Flynn responding to the Productivity Commission review on how to introduce genuine competition in the default fund market before they had actually reported. Of course, the result was what was expected. The final report was a serious weakening of the draft recommendation. It was a serious move away from their initial recommendation to move towards a genuinely open, transparent and competitive process. But even the weakened recommendation was still too strong for Minister Shorten, so the legislation we have in front of us does not even go along with the weakened recommendation of the Productivity Commission.

I would like to know from the minister: why shouldn't every single MySuper product, which is a product that this government has designed, be able to compete freely in the default fund market? What is the government's problem with genuine competition? If the government have put forward all of the parameters that they think are important in a MySuper product and all the consumer protection requirements that they think are necessary for default fund products, then once a superannuation fund registers a product as a MySuper product that complies with all of those conditions, why should that product not be able to compete freely in the market? Why is there a need for an additional process, for further government intervention, through Fair Work Australia on top of the process that is already taking place through the MySuper registration process?

We know that this is a government that loves red tape. Senator Sinodinos has been given the very important job by our leader, Tony Abbott, of chairing a coalition deregulation task force, which is absolutely committed and focused on cutting red tape to achieve about $1 billion in savings per annum for business, which of course will flow through the economy and through the community in the form of lower costs of living and lower costs of doing business.

But this government is adding red tape on top of red tape on top of red tape. There have been more than 21,000 new regulations since the Labor Party was elected to government. No wonder the cost of doing business keeps going up in Australia. No wonder the cost of doing business has been going up under this government. No wonder we are less competitive internationally now than what we used to be. As Senator Sinodinos reminds us on many occasions, this is the government that went to the 2007 election promising that for every new regulation coming in they would take one regulation out: the one-in one-out policy, as was promoted by the then Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. But the only one that went in and out was the Prime Minister himself. Maybe he was too keen on cutting red tape and the Labor Party was not all that excited about cutting red tape.

Here is my question to the government. Why would you not pursue what you promised you would pursue in the lead-up to the last election—that is, a genuinely open, transparent and competitive process? Why would you persist with this widely discredited and inherently conflicted process through Fair Work Australia where clearly parties that have got interests under the equal representation model on an industry super funds board are also interested parties on other matters in an industrial relations context in Fair Work Australia? That is completely inappropriate. There is no need for it. It is inappropriate. It is costly. It is inefficient. It should be scrapped.

Given that this government has done what it thought it needed to do to put in legislation the features of a default fund product, as soon as that product has qualified as a MySuper default fund product there should be no other process. That is enough process. That is enough red tape. As soon as somebody has jumped that hurdle they should be able to compete freely. Minister, can you explain to us why this government does not want to do it? I am very interested in your response.

Progress reported.