Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for School Education and Workplace Relations) Share 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.