Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors, Tourism and the Arts) Share this | Hansard source

As the shadow small business minister, I rise to speak to the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 [No. 2], the reintroduction of Labor’s bill with respect to the formation of Safe Work Australia from its original iteration as the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008. The bill, as many speakers in this debate have highlighted, will actually create and establish Safe Work Australia as the national body with responsibility for ensuring safe workplaces. It is, in effect, creating a national occupational health and safety system. Although the bill itself does not go to the framework of the legislation, it does of course establish the agency responsible for it in the form of Safe Work Australia.

Previously, I and other members of the coalition spoke in strong terms against the legislation as it stood at the time because of a number of key concerns that we had about how it would ultimately impact on workplaces all across Australia. Our concerns were supported in various ways by the Greens, Family First and Senator Xenophon in the other chamber. In the other place, the bill was defeated. It was defeated for good reason. It was defeated because the legislation contained a number of myopic attitudes with respect to the nationalisation of Australia’s OH&S system. Nonetheless, the coalition, with the passage of time, take the view that it is time to move forward.

Not everything about the bill is bad—that is for certain. I am happy to put that on the record. There are certainly principles and endeavours contained within the government’s legislation to try to establish a national framework that we are supportive of. In that vein, the coalition will let the legislation go through because, from our perspective, we do need to continue to move forward and not become overly stagnant in our approach to this type of legislation. More importantly, we recognise that, flawed though it may be, this Labor bill needs to go through to ensure that we take some steps towards a nationally harmonised system of occupational health and safety.

I reassert, as I have previously, that OH&S is not something that the Australian Labor Party has a monopoly on. I know those members opposite like to consider themselves the only friends of the worker in Australia—although you would have to question that, given how many fewer people actually have jobs these days than before the Labor Party was elected. Nonetheless, the reality is that the Australian Labor Party likes to hold itself out as having a monopoly when it comes to concern over safe workplaces. But, contrary to that opinion held by the Australian Labor Party, they do not have a monopoly. In fact, employees and employers working together have a dual responsibility to ensure safe workplaces. It is crucial that there is a bipartisan approach from those groups to ensure that workplaces are safe places to work and that Australians do not lose their lives or become in some way disabled as a result of the activities that take place in their workplace. That is especially the case with respect to accidents that unfortunately will occur.

In that respect, nationally consistent legislation does have merit. It has merit because it does provide for productivity gains for those businesses that operate across various jurisdictions. As I have outlined previously, my concern about the quest for nationally consistent legislation is that, outside of the operation of this bill, as part of the push by the Australian Labor Party to develop a nationally consistent framework, we will see the inverse of the lowest common denominator. What I mean by that is that the actual imposition of an OH&S system across workplaces all around Australia means they will effectively adopt a high-water mark when it comes to safe workplaces.

There might be many Australians who will say, ‘What is wrong with that? Why would we be concerned about having workplaces that might be considered’—for lack of a better term—‘too safe?’ Of course, you cannot have a workplace that is too safe. But what you can have is a workplace so shackled by red tape and bureaucratic requirements in the quest to develop safe workplaces that there is in fact a crimp in productivity, employment and the profitability of businesses all around Australia. As the shadow small business minister, that is at the core of my concern with respect to the ultimate framework that is laid out as part of a national OH&S system.

Unfortunately, the Labor Party just does not understand that, or if they do understand it they are not willing to concede it. It manifests itself in a number of ways in the legislation, We have seen a reduction in the membership of Safe Work Australia of private employer bodies like, for example, ACCI. This was a view that was also shared by those on the other side of the coin in terms of the trade union movement. Both these groups have something valuable to contribute as part of the discussion about what will take Australian workplaces forward to ensure that they are safe environments, yet both have largely been sidelined, in my view, as a result of this legislation that is before the House. It does require some panelbeating, and I look forward to being part of a coalition government that will ensure that we do apply an appropriate panelbeating technique to get this legislation—and ultimately Safe Work Australia and the national OH&S system—into a better form than is currently before the House.

The coalition have said that we are prepared to be pragmatic with respect to this piece of legislation. We want to ensure that we do not require the House to look at the amendments that were previously adopted by the Senate during the debate on the original bill. As I said, recently we were heartened by the response of the Workplace Relations Ministerial Council to the recommendations as part of the national review into model OH&S laws that concluded in January this year. This review had the challenging task of recommending a framework upon which a nationally consistent OH&S will be based. There are a number of recommendations which, in the coalition’s view, represent a balanced and reasonable approach to OH&S. Through the WRMC, the nation’s workplace relations ministers have assured their agreement on a number of the recommended principles for the new national OH&S laws. This consistency is certainly to be applauded in that respect. Modelling the laws broadly on the Victorian style OH&S laws, and not those of New South Wales, was a big step forward. That lay at the core of some of my concerns when I spoke about having an overly bureaucratic approach to ensuring a safe workplace.

As I travel around Australia, New South Wales is consistently cited as being the very worst example of what can happen when OH&S laws get out of control. New South Wales OH&S laws have certainly been a major impediment to the creation of employment in that state. One small business person after another has raised that concern with me. Their concern was that the OH&S system imposed by the state—not to mention the reversal of proof—was so onerous that it put a crimp in employment. At a time when cash-flow is a concern for 93 per cent of small businesses, when they are making decisions on a marginal basis about whether to employ someone or even to hang on to the employees they have got, this approach could have been the straw that broke the camel’s back. So I welcome the decision of the WRMC in that respect.

We continue to have some concerns with this bill, as I have outlined. The objects of the new body would certainly be an improvement to the bill. Restoring effective levels of representation to employee and employer representatives, the so-called social partners that I outlined previously, in the form of the trade union movement and ACCI, would be an improvement. Introducing a more balanced voting process that is designed to engage and that actually includes those people in our community who are directly affected by safety laws—that is, workers and their employers—would be an improvement. Ensuring that we do not have ministerial interference when appointing social representatives would be another step forward, as well as ensuring that workers and industry are effectively and ably represented by the peak representative groups that this bill refers to. I also believe—and this is the position of the coalition—that the CEO of Safe Work Australia needs to be able to operate without interference by the minister with respect to the management of Safe Work Australia. Finally, as has been outlined, an audit committee should be put in place to examine the finances and expenditure of Safe Work Australia. These are all sensible amendments that are designed to facilitate a move towards a fairer and more effective OH&S system, and we believe the government would be well advised to look very closely at incorporating these amendments into the legislation.

I make no apology for the fact that the coalition continue to harbour concerns about the approach that the Labor Party have taken. As much as they window-dress this legislation and try to say that it is purely and simply focused on safe workplaces, the reality is that we all know about that. We are all concerned about safe workplaces. But this side of the House is also concerned about good laws and ensuring that safe workplaces are developed in partnership with the goal of creating employment opportunities for young Australians and ensuring that we do not in any way threaten the viability or, indeed, the appetite of businesses, especially small businesses, to employ more Australians.

At its core, this legislation will not face any frustration from the opposition, but we certainly urge the government to be apprised of the fact that there are a number of deficiencies in the legislation as it currently rests. Although the ultimate goal is worthy of support—and that is why we will provide that support—there should be more done to ensure that this legislation more appropriately takes into account the very genuine and sincerely held view of many small business owners across this country that there are ways to improve this legislation.

See this speech in context