Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is my great pleasure to rise to speak in the debate on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment Bill 2014. Before we got to the details of the bill, we had the unfortunate circumstance of sitting through the contributions from the member for Griffith and the member for Corio last night. I would like to make some comments on the contributions from that side of the chamber.

Certainly, the proposition put forward that Comcare simply do not have enough inspectors to enforce this legislation is plain wrong. My understanding is that, effectively, every state has some accreditors and inspectors from the state population who can enforce not only this legislation, but the state legislation and a whole pile of other things—including electrical safety acts and a wide range of legislation, including Comcare legislation. I wonder how those opposite think that this has been done for the last 15 years or more. Quite simply, we have public servants; we have federal activities; we have federal ownership of assets all over this country. Comcare has been providing those services for well over a decade, to the best of my knowledge. So it is quite simply outrageous that opposition members make these claims.

I will now turn to the bill itself. This is a bill which effectively allows employers who operate over multiple jurisdictions to insure through one agency, which is Comcare. It is about reducing red tape. As someone who has worked in the industry for many, many years, I know that it is exceptionally difficult for companies to cross state borders and operate across a range of legislation. I will give you some very simple examples. Currently—and these are some changes that we have just made—if you wish to construct a building which has a contribution from the Commonwealth valued at over $5 million you need to be a construction firm which is accredited with the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner. Unfortunately, to gain an accreditation with the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner it takes a substantial amount of people and money, and you then need to maintain that accreditation. When you cross the border to Queensland, for example, you need to be accredited under what is called the PQC system for construction in Queensland. Not only do you need federal safety accreditation but you also need to be a prequalified contractor between levels 1 and 4.

The other issue that we have is that in regional areas projects like this simply cannot be built by a local builder—someone who could easily do the work and someone who is accredited inside one of the state systems. Unfortunately, they do not have the capacity to pay to be accredited at the federal level.

This is a good piece of legislation. It provides an opportunity for a large organisation to simply have one system for insurance which looks after their employees. If staff such as electricians in these organisations—and this is a different set of legislation—are moved around different states, they need to be relicensed in other areas. Quite simply, you could be working at the southern end of the country. If you gain employment at a large construction project in the northern end of the country, you would then need to pay for a whole lot of licensing to be accredited in that state as well.

So it is not just around this legislation that this is an issue. It costs an enormous amount of money and it adds onto something that is commonly known as pass-through. Unfortunately, pass-through is costing the Australian taxpayer an enormous amount of money. It means that every organisation that gets involved in a project from top to bottom takes their little piece—their little cut—as they are entitled to. Pass-through could add up to 30 or 40 per cent. Unfortunately, that means that you get less value on the ground. An absolutely outrageous example of this was the BER projects put forward by the opposition when they were in government. BER projects were some of the most expensive projects I have ever seen. Pass-through on those projects was enormous. The actual square-metre rate was outrageous. There were lots of builders who made an enormous amount of money on things which were unnecessary.

See this speech in context