Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the honourable members for their questions. I begin by responding to the honourable member for New England, who asked me about prohibited content. Prohibited content is provided for in the regulations. The reason it was done that way, for the benefit of the honourable member, was that previously this was a matter which was part of the certification process in the Industrial Relations Commission. Having moved away from a certification process, it made sense to actually set out what the prohibited content is. It is true that there is an ability to modify or vary those regulations but I say to the honourable member that the government have no intention of doing that. The ability is there because, if something unforeseen arises, we obviously need a way to respond to that. What is set out there is what we basically thought was appropriate and, unless there is something untoward or unforeseen, that is what it will remain.

The other question that was asked of me by the honourable member for New England related to the Job Network and the position of rural and regional providers under the Job Network. The question about the relativity of cost is something we do consider and take into account. There are ongoing discussions on a regular basis with Job Network providers both individually and through the umbrella organisations—NESA in particular. This is a matter which we will continue to monitor. I accept and understand what the honourable member is saying, and it is something that we will continue to monitor. I say to him that, if there are any particular instances that he is aware of or particular difficulties that his Job Network providers raise with him and if he brings them to me, I will certainly have a look at them myself. I appreciate the spirit in which he asked the questions and the use he has made of this session.

Secondly, I turn to the member for Charlton, who I know is not here but who asked me a whole series of questions about Welfare to Work. Given the detail of those questions, I will provide some written answers to the member for Charlton as soon as I possibly can. Again, they were questions that were genuinely seeking information, in contrast to some of the other contributions to this debate. Perhaps, given the time, it would be better that I provide the answers to those 16 or 18 different questions in writing. I can say to her that some of them did cross over to the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Human Services, particularly in relation to the operation of Centrelink. If the member for Charlton is listening to this or reading the transcript, I will liaise with the Minister for Human Services and endeavour to have answers to those questions which do not fall particularly within my portfolio responsibilities.

Thirdly, there was a series of questions essentially about the same thing: the question of trade union training leave. I repeat what I have said on numerous occasions in the House: the Work Choices legislation provides in section 16(3)(c), as I recall, an exclusion from Work Choices, effectively, of matters relating to occupational health and safety. I do not have the provision in front of me but it also includes right of entry, as I recall.

The effect of that is that the states retain their powers in relation to occupational health and safety matters. Indeed, there was a discussion about this at a recent workplace ministers council meeting in Sydney. I understand that the state ministers conceded that that was the view: they still have powers in relation to those matters. I will point out a couple of things that reinforce this. There is the famous email involving the member for Perth and the member for Lilley—maybe it is an infamous email within ALP circles. The question was put by a constituent, so the impression being given, that employers are subject to $30,000 fines if they send employees to union-run safety training courses, is misleading. The answer, which came from the member for Lilley—who had consulted with the member for Perth about this matter, according to the email trail—was, yes, that is correct: an employer can send employees to union training.

See this speech in context