Eric Hutchinson (Lyons, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I do acknowledge the member for Moreton's contribution to the debate on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 and the examples that he gave. But I guess with all of these issues, whilst safety in the workplace is absolutely and should be at all times paramount, it is also about getting the balance right between productivity within the workplace in a country like Australia where we have challenges in respect of that. One of the fundamental commitments that we did make before the election of 2013 was to be a government that would get out of the way of business wherever it was appropriate to do so in the form of superfluous red tape. Nobody could argue that we have not embarked upon an aggressive deregulatory process to make things easier.

I acknowledge the passion with which the member for Moreton spoke. I will respond directly to some of the suggestions he made. The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 absolutely requires that in its decision to grant a licence the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission take into consideration whether:

… the applicant has the capacity to meet the standards set by the Commission for the rehabilitation and occupational health and safety of its employees.

So there are safeguards in place. The legislation also requires that the commission must not grant a licence if the applicant's past or likely future performance in complying with workplace health and safety legislation reveals that it has not met standards of state regulation in the past—the member for Moreton described the fine standards that obviously exist in his home state of Queensland—and is not likely to meet those required by Comcare, as the regulator for Work Health and Safety Act 2011, and the commission in the future. That is the framework. The safety net is there. I think all of us in this place believe that nothing in the workplace is more important than safety.

Previous speakers have gone into some of the details of this bill. I would like to focus a little bit on balance. I emphasise that in no way should we discourage or diminish safety in the workplace, but it is one of the biggest areas of regulatory burden and has become a self-perpetuating industry. As the member for Moreton highlighted, much of this regulation is state based. I give the example of an oyster farmer in my electorate. In running his oyster leases he runs 40-horsepower four-stroke outboard motors on the punts that he uses to access the oysters. I have a 125-horsepower, two-stroke motor on the back of my boat. I can assure you that his motors are a lot quieter than mine. He is required to provide his employees with Australian standard ear protection, which is fair and reasonable. But every six months he is obliged to send his employees to get their ears tested at his cost. That does not take into consideration whether on not on the weekend they enjoy loud music in a pub or they use chainsaws inappropriately. Last week I was in St Helens. I was stopped in the street by a fellow who assured me that he did not vote for me at the last election. Nevertheless, he wanted to get off his chest an issue he had about getting the NBN connected to his property. On the first attempt, the contractor who had been engaged by NBN Co. to do the installation was unable to get up his ladder because he did not have someone to hold the ladder. A subsequent appointment was made and the contractor came back with a chap who was able to hold the ladder, but he was still unable to get up on the roof, because the chap did not have the right certificate. It goes on and on. We have heard stories about things that are adding cost and that, frankly, are a disincentive to people employing other Australians. That is where the balance is out of kilter.

In my home state of Tasmania we have seen the demise of the forest industry, which is a relatively high-risk workplace where occupational health and safety is as important as in any other workplace. I will not go into the reasons for the demise of the industry; I have done so before in this place. The people who monitored and were responsible for the maintenance of occupational health and safety standards have moved into the agricultural space. There are increasingly requests that the owners of shearing sheds that have been functional, safe and adequate, in some cases for many years, pay frankly exorbitant amounts of money to bring them up to a standard that is deemed now to be the minimum requirement.

I spoke also recently to a fisherman. As a small-businessman, he is one of the foundations of our economy. His issue is around compliance. He has had a limited coxswain certificate for 30 years. When it was issued it was done so in perpetuity. He operates a small vessel by himself. He also has with his wife a quite successful business where he value-adds to the seafood that he catches. With changes made in respect of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, the national regulator, and to the state regulations his certificate is not acceptable. They require him to have greater certification. He is required to do a refresher course every three years if he is operating offshore. He is required to have a first-aid certificate. He said to me, 'I'm not quite sure how I'm going to administer first aid to myself.' He operates a one-man vessel. He is 59 years old. There are other people who are of a similar age and in their mid-60s who also are being obliged to upgrade their limited coxswain certificate to a restricted coxswain certificate. They are being asked to jump from a height of three metres into water in the dark. He said, 'Look, my body is old. I've been a fisherman all my life.' On top of that, it cost him $1,500. These are disincentives for people to get on and run businesses. These are people who have operated safely for all their lives. In this case, I think provisions need to be made for grandfathering these sorts of things.

These are examples of the overreach of the whole system of occupational health and safety in our country. Again, I acknowledge the contribution from the member for Moreton, because he spoke very well and passionately about something I think we all should acknowledge. But we have created an industry in and of itself. We have lost those fundamental drivers that were motivation for people and which, at the end of it all, made this a great country where people were prepared to take a risk, start a business and employ people. The excessive compliance means we are losing that.

We are seeing increasing costs in so many aspects of our lives, whether it be in building a house or whether it be for food. It has this compounding effect on the cost of everything we do. It is, quite frankly, insidious. Not just low-income earners but middle-income earners around this country are often doing without food because of the cost-of-living increases that we are seeing.

Ms Butler interjecting—

I know you have spent a lifetime in this space, Member for Griffith, and I hear you. I am sure your contribution will be worthwhile. But it is about getting the balance right. Again, I emphasise that this is not about compromising safety. For years, roofers wore sandshoes. They are now obliged to wear steel capped boots with rubber soles. Sandshoes were a perfect tool for the job, but they are not allowed any more. The regulatory burden is pushing up the cost of living, it is increasing the cost to business and it is a disincentive to people to employ other Australians.

What is driving all this? I do not know the answer, but it is clearly about vested interests. There are training organisations. They are important and workplace safety is important, but this is getting to a point where small businesses are suffering. I think of the electrician who is doing work done at the Port Arthur historic site. They are licensed contractors. They do everything by the book. The electrician down there, though, cannot afford to put on a man to hold the ladder when he goes up one. He just cannot afford it. This is the sort of thing that is happening all around our country every day. We need to work together in this space to get the balance right between productivity and red tape in what has become an insidious industry around occupational health and safety.

I think I have made my points. In essence, as I have said, the details of the bill our wide-ranging, but effectively it is providing a framework under Comcare with those safety provisions that I mentioned at the start of my contribution. It is about getting some coordination for businesses that are operating across multiple state jurisdictions around Australia with different workers compensation schemes and different work health and safety regulations. I think we all appreciate where we can save that regulatory compliance cost. That money can be used more effectively by those employers to create new jobs and, indeed, improve overall the safety standards within their enterprise. I think these are absolutely achievable objectives.

This red tape is a disincentive to employ Australians. I think that the bill strikes the right balance between reducing red tape and giving employers the opportunity to compete and be productive. Also, I emphasise this: everyone in this place acknowledges that occupational health and safety and workplace safety is critical, but the balance is wrong. I hope some of the examples I have given tonight are food for thought.

See this speech in context