Stuart Henry (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

No, I do not. The last two important national priorities are eliminating workplace hazards at the design stage and strengthening the capacity of governments to influence better occupational health and safety outcomes.

In a country with 10 million workers, many employers ask why there are eight different and quite separate occupational health and safety and workers compensation jurisdictions. This is exacerbated by the fact that there appears to be very little in the way of consistency and uniformity across the various schemes. A number of major national corporations have made their frustrations known. The National Australia Bank has previously complained about the fact that the current state based systems result in the bank dealing with eight different pieces of legislation which provide eight different levels of benefit and eight different definitions of injury.

In order to improve national frameworks for occupational health and safety and workers compensation consultation, the government undertook to establish the Australian Safety and Compensation Council—the ASCC. The ASCC includes representatives from Commonwealth, state and territory governments as well as employer and employee groups. It provides a new opportunity to coordinate workers compensation on a national level. Unlike the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, which it replaces, the ASCC will consider both occupational health and safety and workers compensation matters. Its main role will be to coordinate research and provide policy advice to the Workplace Relations Ministers Council. This is a national council comprised of the federal workplace relations minister and the state and territory counterparts. The ASCC met for the first time in October to discuss the council’s future priorities for moving Australia towards a more nationally consistent workers compensation framework.

Labor will oppose the bill for the sake of opposing it. They will do the bidding of the Labor states and territories, who are opposed to any corporations being able to self-insure under the Commonwealth’s Comcare scheme.

It is to be acknowledged that the unions have played an important role in the promotion of health and safety in the workplace. The ACTU played a central role in the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission and will continue to do so through the ASCC. However, I do not agree with comments made by the previous speaker, the member for Oxley, about the responsible involvement of unions in occupational health and safety. It has been very disappointing to see that the union movement has attempted to cynically exploit the grief and misfortune of people who are injured or killed in workplace accidents. I refer to the ABC’s Lateline, where the President of the ACTU, Sharan Burrow, was filmed at an ACTU campaign meeting saying:

I need a mum or a dad of someone who’s been seriously injured or killed. That would be fantastic.

Does that really demonstrate a responsible approach to occupational health and safety? I think not. Unfortunately, this demonstrates that the ACTU’s disregard for the wellbeing of workers even extends to taking advantage of family tragedies. What does it say about the union movement’s concern for workers and their families when its president states that a grieving family would be fantastic for her campaign?

The New South Wales government recently passed the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Workplace Deaths) Bill, where employers face up to five years jail and a $165,000 fine if they are convicted of causing the death of an employee through recklessness. It is of considerable concern that breaches of such serious and punitive laws, be they civil or criminal, are dealt with by the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission and not a court. This state of affairs will continue, given that the New South Wales Court of Appeal recently found that there was nothing to prevent the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission from hearing such matters.

It is even more disturbing that, under the New South Wales occupational health and safety laws, unions can prosecute employers for workplace occupational health and safety breaches and, if successful in their action, receive up to half of the fines awarded and have their legal bill paid by the employer—a great state of affairs! The New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission has fined the ANZ Bank over armed robberies at their branches, after action brought by the Financial Services Union. Patrick Stevedores were subject to an MUA prosecution for work practices that risked repetitive strain injury. New South Wales coalminers have been hit for using misleading maps prepared by the New South Wales government.

The New South Wales Labor Party is financially beholden to the union movement and relies on substantial donations from unions. When we look at this, we see that it is no coincidence that the Financial Services Union and the MUA have donated over $350,000 to the New South Wales Labor Party since 1995. This perverse situation exists only in New South Wales. In every other jurisdiction, only the relevant workers compensation authorities can prosecute for alleged breaches of work safety laws.

The Victorian government has also introduced the offence of reckless endangerment in its Occupational Health and Safety Act, carrying a potential prison sentence and large financial penalties. These states are essentially using occupational health and safety legislation to introduce industrial manslaughter laws by stealth. At least the ACT government has been more upfront in its intentions and has introduced the criminal offence of industrial manslaughter, which singles out employers for punishment despite the fact that some factors influencing occupational health and safety may be outside the employer’s control. This will serve only to discourage employers and employees from developing appropriate workplace relations and partnerships to address safety issues to ensure a benefit for all. Employers and employees will focus on defending themselves rather than progressively moving to cooperatively ensure safer workplaces.

Governments at all levels must be wary of seeking to amend or impose legislation which only serves to create uncertainties for employers. This government has introduced the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Amendment (Promoting Safer Workplaces) Bill 2005 to exclude Commonwealth employers and employees from the application of the ACT industrial manslaughter laws or similar laws enacted in the future by other states and territories.

The Commonwealth Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act allows eligible non-government corporations which meet stringent criteria to self-insure through the Commonwealth workers compensation scheme administered by Comcare. Self-insurance through Comcare enables businesses to be covered by one set of workers compensation regulations across all of Australia. For companies that employ staff across a number of jurisdictions, this is an understandably attractive prospect. The Australian government workers compensation scheme is the only scheme that provides single self-insurance arrangements, reducing costs and their compliance burden. This benefits employees by giving them access to a consistent benefit regime irrespective of their work location across Australia.

Optus were granted a self-insurance licence allowing them to self-insure through Comcare. This was in spite of considerable opposition and obstruction from the Victorian government, which tried on several occasions to stop Optus from self-insuring through Comcare and has most recently mounted a challenge on constitutional grounds which has now headed inextricably to the High Court. South Australia and Queensland will also join Victoria in this action.

If the states have an objection to companies seeking to leave their schemes and self-insure through Comcare then the onus is clearly upon the states to work together with the Australian government through the ASCC to put in place consistent and uniform self-insurance arrangements. The states and territories have to face up to the fact that, while there are eight separate workers compensation jurisdictions that provide little if anything in the way of consistency and uniformity, more and more multistate employers will seek to move to the Commonwealth scheme. I therefore support the amendment bill.

See this speech in context