Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

It appears that the Deputy Prime Minister is going to stick to the idea that somehow governments around Australia can just sit down, nut out an agreement and then expect the parliament—not matter what has been decided—to just rubber stamp it. Why even bother having this chamber and why even bother having the other chamber if the federal government will just sit down with their state Labor mates—of course, with the exception now in Western Australia—hammer out an agreement and then expect, no matter what is decided, the parliament to accept it. I think that logic is profoundly undemocratic. For once, you will find me defending the very important prerogatives of the Senate.

I think it is very important that we outline the amendments. Again I would invite the Deputy Prime Minister to table the leaked cabinet submission that she keeps crowing about. I would be very happy for her to table it. She seems to think that that means we have improper motives. It says nothing of the sort. I would be very happy for her to table this alleged document. Then people could actually make a judgement about whether or not we have improper motives. We support the idea of a national OH&S system and, through these amendments, we are trying to improve the legislation that the government seems to think the parliament just has to accept no matter what.

I talked in my earlier contribution about the representation of the social partners on Safe Work Australia. I would be very interested in who the government thinks might best represent workers and employers on this body, because apparently they cannot decide that it should be the ACTU and ACCI. The Senate is being able to help them do that. These are appropriate representatives of employers and workers in this country. They are acknowledged as the peak bodies. If the Deputy Prime Minister has a different view about who should represent workers then we would be very happy to hear it. But we think it is sensible that it be the ACTU, as that is a role they have traditionally played. I would be very happy to hear it if she thinks they are not a genuine representative of workers or if there is a better representative body in Australia to sit on this body and represent the interests of workers.

With these amendments we—in conjunction with our partners in the Senate—are trying to stop the employers and the employees being drowned out by state government bureaucracies by introducing a more balanced voting process. It will help employers and employees engage with this process rather than be just appendages who will sit there and be consistently drowned out by state government bureaucracies. We have also moved to improve the independence of the social partners on this body. The government’s bill said that they will have a power of veto over anyone who is nominated to this committee. If ACCI wants to nominate somebody or if the ACTU wants to nominate a particular representative and the government does not like them, they will just say, ‘No, they cannot sit on Safe Work Australia.’ How can they be independently represented if that is the case?

We have also moved to improve the independence of the CEO, freeing him from unnecessary ministerial interference that could imperil his job if he was doing something that the government did not like. We think that is important because it gives him or her freedom of action to do their job without incurring ministerial displeasure. Let us say you were the CEO of this new body and you were pursuing a course that the government of the day did not like. Of course, this government will not always be the government of Australia; that will change over time. We believe that the CEO should have the capacity to act without having hanging over his head the threat of losing his job. These are all very sensible amendments designed to facilitate a fairer and more effective move towards a national OH&S system. They enhance the engagement of the very people within our community who are responsible for delivering workplace safety—that is, employers and employees.

The Deputy Prime Minister continues to hide behind this alleged commitment to the intergovernmental agreement and does not even countenance accepting these Senate amendments, yet she refuses to go back and engage with the states about whether they might accept them. We have had some indication that some of the states might accept these amendments, but she is too arrogant to even ask the question. You would have more credibility if you walked into this chamber and said, ‘I’ve gone back to the states; this will imperil the intergovernmental agreement.’ The reality is that you cannot even do that. I would be very interested if you would outline which of the amendments you feel does imperil the intergovernmental agreement. (Time expired)

See this speech in context