Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to continue my contribution to the debate on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015. As I was saying last night, I am Chair of the Education and Employment Committee, which was tasked to produce a report on this legislation. Senator Lines made assertions last night about the lack of consultation in the development of this piece of legislation, and, contrary to the picture she attempted to paint of the committee's attempts to shut down public discussion about it, I stand here before the Senate as the chair of that committee to reject those assertions. We did indeed, as I said last night, receive four submissions. We promoted the inquiry in the usual way that we do in Senate committees—online, in newspapers, and we sent letters to various stakeholders such as unions, businesses, state governments and the like. We got four submissions back—one from the Department of Employment, there are no worries there; one from the ACTU; one from the ETU; and one from the CFMEU-controlled Victorian government. When the secretariat read those submissions they advised the committee that the report be done on the papers. I believe in transparency, I believe in a committee process that allows all senators to have their say and for stakeholders in the community to have their say, but in the interests of time and because of the fact that there were only three submissions, we did actually do the report on the papers without having to go through a public hearing.

I stressed to senators in the committee that we do have a process of questions on notice when we are doing a report into legislation, which for those listening to this fascinating debate today is a process whereby any senator from any political persuasion has the right to submit questions to those stakeholders that have submitted to an inquiry—whether it be the department, the ACTU, the ETU or the Victorian government—to flesh out in a little more detail anything about their written submissions that a senator thinks might be appropriate to bring to the public debate. After I listened to Senator Lines yesterday, I was quite concerned that she felt she had not had the chance, I think the words she used were, to delve a little more deeply into the written submissions and pull out some more conversations.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are four submission, aren't there?

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Three, if you do not count the department, Senator Canavan. I went back to the secretariat concerned that Senator Lines felt that she had not had the opportunity to delve further into those submissions and flesh out some of those concerning aspects for her. The secretariat advised that no questions on notice were submitted by senators during the process of the report being developed. To me that indicated that no senator had any concern with what the ACTU had written, what the ETU had written or indeed what the Victorian government had written, and that no senator wanted to flesh out in any greater detail the submission from the Department of Employment on this bill. So, Senator Lines, I reject the fact that there was not an open and transparent process in the writing of the report on this piece of legislation.

Senator O'Neill, in her contribution, started to extol the virtues of human rights and the different international conventions and treaties that the human rights committee has to go through to assess whether legislation is compatible with our human rights. I did not quite get from Senator O'Neill's contribution what the conclusion was of those particular processes; however, I am happy to report to the Senate that, having gone through the human rights process, the bill is indeed compatible with human rights because it advances the protection of human rights.

Some key issues came out of the report, but the primary purpose of the bill is to ensure a Commonwealth authority does not exit the Comcare scheme without contributing appropriate ongoing costs for injured employees who remain in the scheme and to cover liabilities—the primary purpose of the bill is to protect the system that protects workers. The Comcare scheme, as we heard earlier, covers a range of workers compensation and work-related injuries to Commonwealth and Australian Capital Territory public servants, employees of Commonwealth and ACT statutory authorities and corporations, ADF members for injuries before 1 July 2004 and employees of corporations who have a licence to self-insure under the SRC Act. In February 2015, the ACT government announced its intention to leave the Comcare scheme due to long delays in the scheme, excessive premiums and ineffective rehabilitation. That was sourced from a Canberra Times media report of 26 February 2015.

The ACT government—and I think at the time the Chief Minister was current Senator Katy Gallagher—made the decision, which seems quite sensible, to leave a scheme that was costing that government money because of excessive premiums and ineffective rehabilitation. There were issues for the ACT government and issues for the workers covered by the scheme because it was not providing appropriate rehabilitation. The ETU submission to the inquiry supported the ACT government's move to exit the Comcare scheme for these reasons. So I am looking forward to Senator Gallagher's contribution to this debate, because in this place the Labor Party is obviously not in support of the ACT Labor government's decision and the implementation of that decision through this bill's primary function. But we should not be surprised, Senator Canavan, at the hypocrisy of the federal ALP opposition in not supporting the ACT government's previous decision. The flexibility in their policy position knows no bounds. In fact, for the next Olympic Games, we might hold some trials on the ovals on the Senate side of Parliament House to see which Labor Party senator is the most flexible—we could get them in the gymnastics comp to the Olympics. Anyway, I digress from the bill and I apologise for not staying relevant to the material before us.

For very good reasons, the ACT government decided to leave the scheme, and, as we proceeded through the submissions, the committee noted:

… maintaining the financial sustainability of the Comcare scheme through appropriate exit contributions for ongoing claims management and liabilities is integral to ensuring the long-term sustainability of the scheme to pay claims and support injured employees.

Again, this goes to the very heart of the difference between that side of the chamber and this side of the chamber. On this side of the chamber, we are interested in policies, legislation and approaches that go to financial sustainability. Financial sustainability is in our DNA—in everything we do and in everything we bring to this chamber. Indeed, it is a hallmark of our budget, brought down this week. We are a government committed to ensuring not only the financial sustainability of the Comcare scheme but, indeed, the financial sustainability of our entire nation. I will be happy later in my contribution to go through some of the measures announced this week that reflect our commitment to financial sustainability. The committee noted concern regarding the potential impact on employees. However, the report states:

The committee is satisfied that the bill will not change any existing benefits or entitlements for injured workers.

That brings me to some of Senator Lines's other assertions made during her contribution. She continually asserted that this is an anti-worker bill. Quite the contrary—it is a bill that attempts to ensure the financial sustainability of a scheme that underpins many workers' compensation entitlements. For her to put forward, once again, the rhetoric that our government does not care about workers right throughout Australia is, again, just attempting to use language to paint this side of the parliament in a certain way, when nothing could be further from the truth.

The Abbott government is the best friend the workers of Australia have ever had. If you look just at our budget, we are completely focused on ensuring that young people throughout this nation are able to access jobs through youth transition programs. We are looking at overhauling apprenticeship programs so that we can ensure they have the skills they need that are relevant to our industries within our communities. We have programs to ensure that older Australians are supported back into the workforce. Our entire jobs program is focused on those long-term unemployed and on assisting them back into the workforce.

That is one end of that conversation; the other end is that you have to actually support the employers of the workers of Australia. If you do not have employers, you cannot have jobs for the workers of Australia, and that is why our budget is completely focused on bringing capacity and support to the small businesses around Australia, to ensure that they can go out into their communities with confidence and build their balance sheets so that they have the money in the till to put on that additional employee—because, if you do not get it right as a small business owner, the impact is significant.

Another assertion Senator Lines made was that we on this side believe that all red tape is bad—that our commitment to not having over-burdensome red tape is somehow in our DNA. What we are interested in is effective and efficient legislation and regulation. We want to achieve positive outcomes for our communities, individuals, businesses and economies, but we do not want to make that regulation so burdensome that we stifle innovation and growth, at either an individual level or an economic level.

One piece of regulation that I think has been a great initiative of the Abbott-Truss government relates to the Foreign Investment Review Board changes. They are important for Australia's growth and innovation, contributing to the prosperity of our businesses, our communities and the broader society. We absolutely welcome foreign investment in this country. It stimulates our economy and grows our local community, providing, once again, jobs for Australians young and old. But we have to ensure that that foreign investment is in our national interest. It does not matter whether you are an American company wanting to buy a farm or a Chinese investor wanting to buy an apartment in Toorak—it does not matter who you are or where you are from; we need an appropriate mechanism to assess that investment to ensure that it is, indeed, in our national interest. We should not shy away from that. That is a piece of regulation we have implemented that I think has been of great benefit and something that the community has long called for. I am very proud of our government achieving that.

I also want, in the time left available to me, to go through some of the fabulous ways that our government are supporting the workers of Australia through our budget. We have been focused on stimulating small businesses. Those businesses with turnovers less than $2 million will be able to access tax relief in terms of purchasing assets. That is going to run ripples right throughout the community. Right across regional Australia the biggest employer in the community—75 per cent of employment—comes from the small business sector. This is going to have huge flow-on effects for the towns that I care about in regional Victoria, that Senator Canavan cares about in regional Queensland, and that is important. It is very important.

When we turn to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Exit Arrangements) Bill 2015 before us, our government is committed to actually getting it right. I have been hearing critique from the other side about the splitting of the bills. The opposition have a problem because we have taken the initiative and chunked that legislation down to bring it into the Senate and have the conversations, which this particular Senate requires us to have as a government. That is not a bad thing. Last week the opposition were critiquing us for putting too much in one bill, and in showing that some things were dependent on others, et cetera. We just cannot seem to get it right for the Labor opposition. I wonder whether they will get it right tonight. I am looking forward to the Leader of the Opposition's budget in reply speech. I noticed on Tuesday night that the opposition were very, very loud for, maybe, the first three minutes of the Treasurer's address. They increasingly got more and more quiet as our government's sole focus on families and on job creation, and the very real and common sense approaches we are taking to solving those problems became apparent.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You've got to be kidding.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately, Senator Cameron, you were not there. I saw the shadow Treasurer's face fall. He got more and more quiet. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition had a smile pasted on his face like some sort of comic relief or some sort of clown at the carnival where you put the ball in. You should have seen it, Mr Acting Deputy President, you would have had a wry smile.

The opposition had gone from loud attack, but as the initiatives rolled out, as our government's commitment to the future of laying the right foundation for our nation going forward became apparent, there was shutdown. I note that there has not been a lot of critique. Even question time in this place over the last three days has been pretty shoddy. It has been a pretty shoddy attempt at critiquing a budget that is seriously dealing with the real problems of our community, and of our society more broadly. It is setting us up to take advantage of the 21st century like never before by dealing with youth unemployment, which is so high in the communities I care about, and by dealing with the realities of women returning to the workforce in a way that allows families to access flexible childcare arrangements.

Senator Cameron interjecting—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Ignore the interjections, Senator McKenzie.

Bridget McKenzie (Victoria, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am trying to, Mr Acting Deputy President. I really want to return to this fabulous bill. We consulted with stakeholders, we conducted a comprehensive study as part of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, which recommended that the bill be passed, and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator McKenzie. Before you begin, Senator Canavan, I remind you that at 12:45 we move to other business.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for that, Mr Acting Deputy President, so I will keep my remarks to three or four minutes. It is great to follow Senator McKenzie, who is so knowledgeable on this bill and, as she outlined, had chaired an inquiry into this bill.

It is not a bill that I have followed closely, but one thing that became apparent while I was sitting here listening to Senator McKenzie's contribution was the position of the Labor Party. I do not understand why they are opposing this bill. This is a very administrative, technical bill. It makes very sensible changes. Apparently the Labor Party may not be opposing it as they have some weird position that we are in a grand conspiracy with the ACT Labor government and the former ACT Chief Minister, now Senator Gallagher. Maybe that is the case. Maybe I am just not high enough up the post to know. Perhaps we are in a grand conspiracy with these people.

Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, Senator Cameron noticed that I was laughing at the time. I was thinking that the opposition would pretty much oppose everything we put up at this stage. I am a fan of The Lego Movie that came out last year, which is a fantastic movie. In that movie there is an evil character called President Business, who decides to have Free Taco Tuesday where everybody can have tacos for free on a Tuesday. I reckon, if we came up with a plan for free tacos on Tuesday, the opposition would oppose it. They would oppose everything that we put up. It is not about what is in the taco; it is because the taco is being offered by someone called Tony Abbott. That is why the opposition are opposed to it. That is why the Greens are opposed to everything as well. They are opposed to anything that we come up with. That is fine and that can be their position.

If the opposition are successful in opposing this bill, they will be defrauding the workers of our country, particularly the public sector workers, because it is public sector workers that are largely covered by the Comcare scheme. This bill helps to ensure that the protections those workers—and I used to be a public sector worker—are offered under their employment agreements are maintained and funded throughout their working lives and beyond their employment with any individual employer. That is why I have struggled to understand why this bill is being opposed. This is a very simple and common arrangement for schemes like this.

In the very short time I have left I want to draw a comparison. What we are doing is establishing an exit fee. People who want to leave the scheme need to pay and make sure that they fund the future liabilities that may otherwise have accrued to them if they had stayed in the scheme. It is very similar to something we do in the Murray-Darling Basin when an irrigator wants to leave an irrigation scheme. We—and the Labor Party have supported this legislation in the past—have established a price that that irrigator must pay to the other users of the scheme to cover the network costs that they would have had to bear if they had continued in the scheme. It is fair on those that are left and it is fair on the person that leaves because it is an appropriate cost to reflect the other costs imposed on other people in the scheme. This bill simply does that. It is a Murray-Darling initiative coming to the public sectors of the ACT, and it should be supported.

Debate interrupted.