Craig Kelly (Hughes, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Firstly, I'd like to thank the member for Kennedy, who originally seconded this bill but who, unfortunately, cannot be here today. I'd also like to thank the Manager of Opposition Business for organising an alternative seconder, and I'd especially like to thank the member for Oxley, who has indicated to me that he will second this bill. We may disagree on many things, but when it comes to workers' safety I believe that we are on the same page.

Several months ago the coalition moved a bill and passed it through this House and also the Senate which made major changes to the superannuation industry, its structure and the regulations regarding it. What they did was, I thought, contrary to the principles of the Liberal Party, because the policies that went through this House, endorsed by a coalition government, will only lead to further concentration in the superannuation industry. It will lead to more power—a concentration of power, both economic and political—in the hands of a smaller number of players controlling a smaller number of very large superannuation funds. It also reduced the freedom of choice for Australians as to where they could invest their superannuation money. However, the worst of the changes that that legislation brought in was what is known as the 'stapling provision', which is where, when you change from one job to the next job, your original superannuation fund stays with you. Previously, when you changed work, you would often go into the default fund of your new employer. Under the changes that have been passed through the two houses of parliament, you are 'stapled' to the original fund that you were in. You no longer go into the new fund by default. That may be fine, perfectly fine, when it comes to investments, but a very important part of anyone's superannuation fund is their insurance policy, and insurance policies between different areas of work need to be completely different to recognise and acknowledge the different risks of work from workplace injuries.

When it comes to workplace fatalities in this country, between 2015 and 2019, 916 Australians lost their lives at work, and 62 per cent of those deaths were in just three industries: transport; agriculture, forestry and fishing; and construction. A worker from a retail sector or an office job who goes to work in those dangerous occupations needs a different type of insurance policy, yet what this parliament has done is stapled their old insurance policy to them. We have created the real risk in this parliament that a young Australian will go from their normal job as a retail worker into one of these dangerous industries, and on their first week, before they've had a chance to think about changing their superannuation policy, they may suffer a catastrophic injury. But they will find themselves not being adequately insured. They will find themselves being unable, often, to claim—or their families to claim—on that insurance policy, because of the changes that this parliament made. I hope everyone can see the danger and the risks that we have put everyone into.

During that previous debate and when that legislation passed, I proposed that we should have a threshold where the stapling provisions do not apply to industries where there is one death per 100,000 workers. With this amendment I have raised that threshold to 2.5 deaths, hoping that we can get support across both houses and across both sides of this parliament so we can make sure that Australian workers—young Australian workers especially—who are going into dangerous occupations are adequately covered.

That threshold of 2.5 per 100,000 will cover forestry, agriculture and fishing workers, who currently have a three-year average of 13.9. It will cover workers in the mining industry. It will cover workers in electricity, gas and waste services and workers in the construction industry. All of those industries have a death rate higher than 2.5. And it is wrong—it is completely wrong—to staple someone's insurance policy and staple their life insurance policy from an office job when they go into these industries.

That is the intention of this bill, and there is also great, great urgency for this bill. We face an unprecedented situation in our nation regarding the right to work. The opportunity to work, the opportunity to earn a living, is probably the most fundamental right that anyone has in this country: the right to go to work, earn a living, come home and put food on your family's table, to be able to pay your mortgage. That is the most fundamental right in this nation, yet that right is being stripped away from hundreds of thousands of workers today. The occupation in which many have worked for decades—people find, especially in Victoria, where medical fascism has been employed by that state government, that, if you have not submitted yourself to taking an experimental injection, to engaging in what is still a medical experiment, you are denied your human rights to work in your industry of choice. You are being denied employment. This is more than coercion. This is blackmail and this is extortion. And that is what hundreds of thousands of workers are facing in the nation today. They are being blackmailed and they are being extorted under a policy of medical fascism at the risk that they can no longer work in their industry of choice.

This should outrage every single member of this House—

See this speech in context