Senate debates
Monday, 22 September 2014
Questions without Notice
Workplace Relations
2:23 pm
Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is to the
2:24 pm
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I thank Senator McKenzie for her question. The government is committed to doing everything that we can to create jobs. We announced our Improve the Fair Work Laws policy in May 2013, more than four months before the election. Our plan will improve business competitiveness and fairness to workers.
It includes reforms to greenfields agreements which will stop rogue unions extorting unfair deals from employers—a serious impediment to national productivity and jobs. Our plan closes Labor's 'strike first, talk later' loophole in the bargaining laws that Labor refused to fix and we were promised would never occur. It clarifies individual flexibility arrangements, confirming the way Labor promised they would operate under the Fair Work Act. Employees can only trade up, must genuinely agree to the arrangements and be better off overall.
Our plan will also re-establish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Fair, productive and lawful commercial building sites are critical to Australia's competitiveness and job creation potential. After Labor abolished the ABCC, the bad old days in the construction industry returned: wildcat stoppages, militant protests, demands that mates be employed on projects, and an increase in disputes.
I remind senators of the recent allegations of corruption within the CFMEU, including kickbacks to keep the peace, favours for crime figures and threats to kill those who are prepared to speak out against the dodgy union deals. It is time these reforms were passed so that we can facilitate jobs growth in our nation.
2:26 pm
Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question: can the minister advise the Senate of any support from unexpected quarters for the government's proposed workplace relations reforms?
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Yes, I can. I can inform Senator McKenzie that, on our policy for a registered organisations commission, former Australian Workers Union National Secretary, Paul Howse, has noted: 'I have no issue with coalition policy. There should be zero tolerance for any criminal activity.'
On our plan to bring back the Australian Building and Construction Commission, former ACTU president and Labor cabinet minister, Martin Ferguson, recently said:
It should be seen for what it was: a mechanism that holds both sides to account and which can help deliver projects on time and on budget
In relation to the Fair Work bill, Mr Ferguson said that the reforms are:
… a step in the right direction, they are really quite modest.
Even Professor Andrew Stewart, who was the architect of the Fair Work Act, said it was pretty straightforward and modest. (Time expired)
2:27 pm
Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question: is the minister aware of any criticism of the government's proposed workplace relations reforms; and, if so, what is the government's response?
Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Employment) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I am regrettably aware of some criticisms. Labor and the ACTU, however, have received no support for their criticisms of the coalition's package since we released that policy in May 2013. But now, they are still trying to demonise individual flexibility arrangements, accusing the coalition of wanting to 'strip protections for workers on individual contracts' even though the current system does not have statutory individual contracts, and we aren't introducing them.
The opposition employment spokesman, Brendan O'Connor, has even entered Alice in Wonderland looking-glass world only last week asserting that 'They—that is the government—introduced what is called an individual flexibility arrangement.' Mr President, Labor introduced individual flexibility arrangements in its Fair Work Act, and the union movement specifically campaigned for it. (Time expired)
2:28 pm
Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is to the still acting Assistant Treasurer, Senator Cormann: is the minister aware of comments by David Murray in the government's financial services inquiry into a report that said:
… the principle of consumers being able to access advice that helps them meet their financial needs is undermined by the existence of conflicted remuneration structures in financial advice.
Minister, is Mr Murray right?
2:29 pm
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I thank Senator Dastyari for that question. Of course Mr Murray is right, which is why we have kept, in our improvements to our financial advice laws, all the consumer protections that matter but have cut all of the unnecessary red tape which is just pushing up the cost of advice—making it harder for people across Australia, who are saving for their retirement and managing financial risks through life, to access high-quality advice. What we have done in our improvements is keep the requirement for advisers to act in the best interests of their clients. We have kept the ban on conflicted remuneration. So what the government has done is entirely consistent with the observations that Mr Murray has made and that I agree with.
We have also cut all of the vested interest driven red tape that Labor imposed on the financial services sector. We have achieved $190 million in savings a year, which means that we will be able to drive down the cost of advice for people across Australia saving for their retirement. People will be able to access advice that is high quality and more affordable, which means that more of their own money will remain available for their retirement—rather than fund all of the vested interest red tape that Senator Dastyari's friends in union dominated industry funds are so keen to impose on everybody else.
2:31 pm
Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Minister, noting your answer on conflicted remuneration, is the minister aware of recent allegations, from a senior Westpac whistleblower, that the minister's watering down of FoFA has put bonuses for bank staff back on the table. Minister, isn't a sales bonus just another way of constructing conflicted remuneration?
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Firstly, I completely reject the premise of the question, which suggests that we have somehow watered down consumer protections—
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
We have not watered down consumer protections; we have cut unnecessary and costly red tape which was pushing up the cost of advice without actually delivering consumer protection benefits. We have also kept the consumer protections which matter—
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Is a sales bonus conflicted remuneration?
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
If the Leader of the Opposition stops interjecting, I can answer Senator Dastyari's question.
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I was very quiet until this drivel.
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
We have also kept the consumer protections that matter, including the ban on conflicted remuneration. People can call it whatever they want—
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Is a sales bonus conflicted remuneration?
Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Pause the clock. Order, Senator Wong. Senator Dastyari, a point of order?
Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I specifically asked the minister the question: is a sales bonus conflicted remuneration?
Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
On the point of order, Senator Dastyari, you also asked, 'Is the minister aware'. And, at the commencement of the minister's answer, he indicated that he rejected the premise of the question. Minister, you have the call; you have 15 seconds.
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
People can call it whatever they like. If it is conflicted remuneration, it is banned and it remains banned. I refer you to ABC Fact Check, which describes these sorts of accusations as 'inaccurate scaremongering'. Don't take my word for it; take ABC Fact Check's. (Time expired)
Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Is a sales bonus conflicted remuneration?
Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order on my left.
Government senators interjecting—
And my right. Senator Dastyari is waiting to ask his final supplementary question. Senator Dastyari.
2:33 pm
Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Given the many outstanding concerns about the financial advice industry, will the minister rule out introducing legislation until the final financial services inquiry report is handed down in November?
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I am not sure how I can rule out introducing legislation which has been before the parliament for six or seven months, and which has been the subject of two Senate inquiries. How can I rule out introducing legislation that is before the Senate right now?
Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
You can hold off introducing it to the Senate until the FSI reports in November. What is the rush?
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Senator Dastyari, that is just an incredible question. Let's just remind ourselves: what are we doing?
Opposition senators interjecting —
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
We are implementing commitments we took to the last election that have been subject to two Senate inquiries. The first Senate inquiry recommended the passage of the legislation; the second Senate Economics committee inquiry will be reporting in the near future, and I look forward to their recommendations and to hear what they have to say—
Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
If you are not worried about the FSI report, wait for that. You've got your regs. What's the rush?
Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
That particular inquiry is also assessing the terms of the agreement that the government reached with the Palmer United Party and the Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party, supported by Family First and the Liberal Democrats
Senator Dastyari interjecting—
Senator Dastyari can jump up and down all he wants; we are pursuing good reform in the national interest. (Time expired)