Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor opposes the OHS and SRC Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. Like the government’s extreme industrial relations legislation more generally, this bill has at its heart the stripping away of the terms and conditions of our workforce. Labor is driven by a desire for genuine improvements in the area of occupational health and safety across Australian workplaces. Unfortunately, this legislation risks diminishing the occupational health and safety conditions in our national workplaces. The OHS and SRC Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 is the latest in a number of amendments made to OH&S legislation by this government. It follows on from previous OH&S legislation introduced by the government since the election in 2004, which includes the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (Repeal, Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2005 and the Australian Workplace Safety Standards Bill 2005, which were dealt with together; the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Amendment Bill 2005; and the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Amendment (Promoting Safer Workplaces) Bill 2005. Labor opposed each of these bills, and for good reason. Each of these occupational health and safety bills reduced, compromised or put at risk the occupational health and safety conditions of Australian workers in their workplaces.

The bill we are debating today is no different. The bill before us is the government’s response to recommendations by the Productivity Commission that changes in this area were needed. Historically, the overriding objective in the evolution of OH&S policy in this country has been the prevention of workplace injury and illness. This has been a principle that has historically underpinned state and federal legislation in this area. Of course, over time this has led to the evolution of different OH&S regulatory regimes and workers compensation schemes across Australia.

Given that the total economic cost of work related fatalities, injuries and illnesses to the Australian economy is in excess of $31 billion every year, this should perhaps be of little surprise. We expect that for those employers with operations around the country, complying with different state based legislative requirements can be a significant cost burden also. It is logical that national uniformity in OH&S regulation should be a priority objective. Looking at the existing system, it is understandable that changes in this area are warranted—which brings us to the detail of the bill itself.

It is worth mentioning the operation of the two acts which this amendment bill seeks to amend. Currently the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act allows for premium based workers compensation schemes for Commonwealth employees. Importantly, it enables former Commonwealth authorities and eligible private sector corporations to obtain a licence to self-insure under the scheme. Most Commonwealth authorities are covered by both the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act. Former Commonwealth authorities can remain covered by the provisions of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act by obtaining a self-insurance licence. Failing this, under the current system, they default to coverage under the relevant state or territory workers compensation legislation. In the event that the Commonwealth retains at least a substantial interest in a corporation, that corporation could remain covered by the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act by virtue of its meeting the definition of a Commonwealth authority under that act, whereas a former Commonwealth authority cannot be covered by the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act.

While it is the case that private corporations can currently be licensed under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act—and there are currently five, employing approximately 15,000 people, according to figures provided to Comcare—it is also the case that they are not subject to the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act. OH&S obligations for these corporations are provided by the different state and territory OH&S legislative frameworks. Similarly, in the case of privatised former Commonwealth authorities, while they retain Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act coverage there is no scope for coverage under the OHS(CE) Act, therefore preventing former Commonwealth authorities licensed under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act from having integrated occupational health and safety and workers compensation arrangements.

Under this situation, the OH&S arrangements directed to the prevention of workplace injury are also subject to state and territory OH&S legislation while rehabilitation and workers compensation arrangements are subject to Commonwealth legislation. In other words, while certain private sector corporations can retain or obtain workers compensation coverage under the Commonwealth scheme through a self-insurance licence, there is no corresponding mechanism for them to obtain coverage under the Commonwealth occupational health and safety scheme itself.

The OH&S (Commonwealth Employment) Act provides the legal basis for the protection of the health and safety of Commonwealth employees. It does not, however, apply to former Commonwealth authorities and private sector corporations that become licensed self-insurers on account of the fact that they are not Commonwealth employers. This has created the situation where former Commonwealth authorities and licensed private sector corporations currently operate under the Commonwealth workers compensation regime but are covered by relevant state and territory occupational health and safety legislation in the jurisdictions in which they operate. In the current circumstances, corporations which could consider applying for Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act coverage but are unable to be covered by the OH&S (Commonwealth Employment) Act are as follows: Commonwealth authorities in the process of privatisation which wish to continue their workers compensation coverage post privatisation through the SRC Act licensing arrangements, former Commonwealth authorities that have left the Commonwealth scheme and operate under state or territory schemes but are unable to return to the SRC Act coverage after ministerial declaration and SRC Commission approval of a licence application, and corporations which operate in competition with existing or former Commonwealth authorities.

Under the SRC Act, the minister currently has the ability to declare that corporations carrying on business in competition with an existing or former Commonwealth authority are eligible to apply for a self-insurance licence. In the event that such competitors were to be licensed under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act for workers compensation purposes they would still remain covered by state and territory OH&S safety legislation. The Productivity Commission argued in its inquiry report that this situation may place those businesses at a competitive disadvantage where they would be required to comply with up to eight separate sets of state and/or territory occupational health and safety legislation and associated compliance costs, compared to a Commonwealth authority which is subject to the Commonwealth regulatory framework. In other words, the Commonwealth legislation is seen as providing a barrier to competitive neutrality for those corporations. It is of little surprise, then, that in its report National workers’ compensation and occupational health and safety frameworks of 2004 the Productivity Commission recommended that the Australian government amend the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act to enable corporations that are licensed to self-insure under the Australian government’s workers compensation scheme to elect to be covered by the Australian government’s occupational health and safety legislation.

The Productivity Commission considered that this would increase the administrative savings for multistate corporations and allow for greater coordination and feedback between the workers compensation and OH&S regimes. Indeed, as the Productivity Commission itself observed in its report National workers’ compensation and occupational health and safety frameworks of 2004, this can make it difficult for business with national operations to develop a national approach to OH&S. The government’s response to this has been to support the Productivity Commission’s recommendation ‘to enable those employers who are licensed to self-insure under the Australian government’s workers compensation scheme to elect to be covered by the Australian government’s occupational health and safety legislation’ with the modification that there should be mandatory coverage under the OH&S(CE) Act for non-Commonwealth employers who gain a self-insurance licence under the SRC Act. As a consequence, the amendment bill before us seeks to extend coverage of the OH&S (Commonwealth Employment) Act to multistate employers while licensed under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1998 for self-insurance purposes.

The bill also seeks to ensure that Commonwealth authorities licensed under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act but not covered under the OH&S (Commonwealth Employment) Act are then covered by that act. The bill makes provision to allow Comcare to charge all Commonwealth authorities an occupational health and safety contribution for the administration of the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act and would also validate payments purported to have been made under the SRC Act by some licensees and Commonwealth authorities for OH&S contributions in the 2002-03 financial year. The OHS and SRC Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 seeks to allow corporations licensed as self-insured under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1998 to be covered under the OH&S Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991, administered by Comcare.

The government has also sought to make other amendments. Some amendments seek to correct a drafting oversight in amendments made in 2001 to both the SRC Act and the OH&S (Commonwealth Employment) Act. Those amendments placed the provisions for regulatory contributions for both acts in the SRC Act itself. However, because both those acts contain different definitions of ‘Commonwealth authority’, a regulatory contribution towards the costs of administering the OH&S (Commonwealth Employment) Act cannot currently be charged to some Commonwealth authorities covered by the OH&S (Commonwealth Employment) Act but not by the SRC Act itself. These amendments seek to correct this and certify payments already made for the year 2002-03. The 2001 amendments also reorganised the licensing arrangements under the SRC Act and introduced one generic licence. As a result, some licensees were charged and paid licence fees for the year 2002-03 under the wrong licence provisions. While the amounts were later recalculated under the correct provisions, the amendments will also certify those licence fees as originally paid.

Under the government’s proposal, the costs borne by Comcare to administer the OH&S (Commonwealth Employment) Act in relation to private sector corporations would be covered by an OH&S contribution included in the corporation’s self-insurance licence fee. OH&S contribution costs would not be borne by the Commonwealth from revenue. The government argues that it is preferable to have an integrated approach to workers compensation and occupational health and safety by providing for all organisations covered by the SRC Act through the licensing arrangements to be covered concurrently by the OH&S (Commonwealth Employment) Act.

The government argues that its own OH&S regime should open up access to give those businesses granted a self-insurance licence under the SRC Act scheme a single set of national occupational health and safety rules. Taken in isolation, the government’s amendments seeking to create a uniform national occupational health and safety regime appear to be a sensible housekeeping measure. However, as with all things to do with industrial relations, the effects of the government’s changes are a double-edged sword. There may be significant merit in introducing a simplified national system for occupational health and safety reasons but, as drafted, these changes unreasonably diminish occupational health and safety conditions.

To prove this point, any detailed consideration of this bill must be done in conjunction with earlier government amendments made to the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Amendment Bill 2005, which removed the need for employers—government agencies—to negotiate occupational health and safety agreements with unions and employees through the introduction of so-called management arrangements. Labor opposed those amendments because, firstly, through the introduction of the so-called management arrangements, they removed the need for government agencies to negotiate occupational health and safety agreements with unions and employees; secondly, they removed all references to unions and replaced them with ‘employee representatives’, defined as either a registered organisation or a workplace staff association, who must now be invited into the workplace by an employee; thirdly, they required that an employee invite an employee representative to initiate an occupational health and safety investigation of a workplace, where previously a union could make such a request directly to Comcare; fourthly, they required that employee representatives involved in developing OH&S management arrangements be issued with a certificate, valid only for a 12-month period, by the Chief Executive Officer of Comcare; and, finally, they empowered employers to conduct the election of employee health and safety representatives, a role that was previously conducted by a union or a person specified by the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, which the government has abolished.

On top of these concerns, we on this side are also concerned about a number of negative implications in the government’s actions through this proposed bill. These include the fact that entitlements under Comcare may vary compared to those of other states and territories; that the movement of large, multistate employers to the Comcare administered national system could mean that premium revenue would be lost by the states and territories, leaving employers who remain in state and territory systems facing higher premiums in the future; and that a reduction in premium pools in states and territories, in turn, would place increased pressure on entitlements for injured workers and employees. We are also concerned about the privacy considerations of individual employees. Human resources departments of employers who self-insure will have access to information on employees that, under state and territory schemes, only insurance companies would have access to.

In conclusion, Australian trade unions have a strong and long track record of protecting employees from unsafe work practices and places; in this country, there is a huge need for that to continue. Unfortunately, this legislation takes the same approach followed by the government’s broader approach to industrial relations changes, which is to delegitimise the role of unions in the workplace—the role of workers’ representatives. The combination of the OHS and SRC Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 with the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991, as amended in 2005, has very serious implications for the future involvement of organised labour in occupational health and safety issues at the workplace level.

Taken together with the amendments made to the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991, the OHS and SRC Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 will extend limitations on union participation in occupational health and safety issues to non-Commonwealth, multistate employers who successfully apply for a self-insurance licence under Comcare. This is bad news for Australian workers and, ultimately, it is potentially bad news for Australian workplaces as well. It is clear that health and safety outcomes are dependent on high levels of worker participation and union support; they are also highly dependent on cooperation in the workplace. Simply put, removing the role of unions and replacing it with a management driven process, which will lead to less safe and less healthy workplaces, is just not good.

As I have said in this place when debating the government’s amendments to occupational health and safety legislation, unions have a legitimate role to play in the monitoring and enforcement of occupational health and safety matters in the public sector. However, it is not just the public sector where the role of unions is important. Despite what this government may want to think, unions have a legitimate and very important role to play in occupational health and safety matters also in the private sector. While in many instances the involvement of the union will not be warranted, it is undeniable that they exist as a safeguard for the protection of occupational health and safety terms and conditions. By extending the coverage of the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act to multistate national employers, the government is effectively seeking to bar union involvement in those workplaces covered by this legislation. That is completely unacceptable and it is why we oppose this legislation.

Stuart Henry (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Productivity Commission’s report No. 27, National workers’ compensation and occupational health and safety frameworks, recommended that the Australian government amend the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act to enable those employers who are licensed to self-insure under the Comcare scheme to elect to be covered by the Australian government’s occupational health and safety legislation. The OHS and SRC Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 implements the government’s response to that Productivity Commission report. Corporations licensed under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 will also be covered under the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991.

This bill ensures that all Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act licensees, both corporations and Commonwealth authorities, are covered by the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act for occupational health and safety purposes. At present, Commonwealth authorities and licensed private sector corporations which operate under the Commonwealth workers compensation scheme are covered by state and territory occupational health and safety legislation within the jurisdictions in which they operate. This makes it unnecessarily difficult for many firms to develop a national approach to occupational health and safety and can result in the requirement that they comply with eight separate and quite distinct occupational health and safety jurisdictions.

The amendments in this bill will provide all licensees under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act with the benefits of operating under one occupational health and safety scheme, together with integrated prevention, compensation and rehabilitation arrangements. This will produce better health and safety outcomes all round for the employees of the affected bodies. These amendments will enable greater coordination and feedback between the workers compensation and the occupational health and safety arrangements. The time and resources currently expended in addressing jurisdictional boundary disputes caused by multiple compliance regimes can be better redirected to achieve greater overall efficiencies.

Importantly, savings can be devoted to further improving health and safety in the workplace. All Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act licensees will be covered by the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act. These will include Commonwealth authorities and non-Commonwealth licensees. The title of the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act will be amended to the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1991. This will take into account that non-Commonwealth entities will now be covered. It will ensure Comcare’s ability to levy from all Commonwealth authorities a contribution towards the administration of the occupational health and safety act. As it currently stands, the definition of a Commonwealth authority is different in the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. This prevents Comcare from levying a contribution from entities not covered by the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act but covered by the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act.

It is important that this bill be introduced in order to (a) provide certainty to Telstra in the event that they are fully privatised—the Telstra (Transition to Full Private Ownership) Bill 2003 removed Telstra from schedule 1 of the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act, so it is no longer deemed to be a government business enterprise for the purposes of the act; and (b) provide coverage for Optus, which, although self-insured under the Comcare scheme, does not have coverage under the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act because it does not fit the definition of a Commonwealth authority or government business enterprise.

Recent mischievous campaigns against the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 have incorrectly asserted that workplace safety will be compromised by promoting greater flexibility in the workplace. While Work Choices will result in more workers moving to the federal industrial relations system, the reforms will not impact on state and territory jurisdiction over workers compensation and occupational health and safety.

Legislation imposes a duty of care on employers to protect the health and safety of their employees. This duty of care includes providing a safe working environment and safe systems of work and encompasses risks associated with fatigue. As is currently the case, employers, employees and their representatives will need to be conscious of their responsibilities under the occupational health and safety legislation in negotiating any change to working hours arrangements, including overtime and rest breaks.

The economic cost of workplace accidents to workers, employers and the community is currently estimated to be in excess of $30 billion annually or some five per cent of gross domestic product. The responsibility for this must be shared by all stakeholders. We must all act to make continual improvements. The answer is not to introduce laws that are punitive and which punish the employer above all else. The best way to address this issue is by promoting a culture where there is greater cooperation between employers and their employees. In this respect, it is the Commonwealth that is leading the way in promoting an environment in which employers and employees are encouraged to take a cooperative approach to identifying and eliminating hazards that may cause injury or death.

The Australian government is strongly committed to improving occupational health and safety outcomes in all Australian workplaces. Improvement in Australia’s occupational health and safety performance can be achieved through governments, employers and employees taking a cooperative and non-adversarial approach to workplace health and safety issues. The coalition—

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, in accordance with the standing orders, I would like to ask the member for Hasluck a question in relation to the legislation.

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the member for Hasluck accept a question?

Stuart Henry (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I will not. The coalition has a proud record regarding its commitment to improving occupational health and safety in every Australian workplace. The coalition further demonstrated its commitment in this area by initiating the development of the National Occupational Health and Safety Strategy in 2002. Signatories to the strategy, along with the Australian government, included all state and territory governments as well as the ACTU and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The strategy seeks to improve Australia’s occupational health and safety performance over the next decade. In addition, it will foster sustainable and safe enterprises that prevent work related death, injury and disease.

The strategy set down five important national priorities: reducing high incidence and severity risks, improving the capacity of business and workers to manage occupational health and safety, preventing occupational disease more effectively—

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, the point I wish to raise and on which I would like to ask a question is whether the member can assure small businesses of Hasluck that this legislation will not adversely affect them.

Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the member for Hasluck accept the question?

Stuart Henry (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I do not. The last two important national priorities are eliminating workplace hazards at the design stage and strengthening the capacity of governments to influence better occupational health and safety outcomes.

In a country with 10 million workers, many employers ask why there are eight different and quite separate occupational health and safety and workers compensation jurisdictions. This is exacerbated by the fact that there appears to be very little in the way of consistency and uniformity across the various schemes. A number of major national corporations have made their frustrations known. The National Australia Bank has previously complained about the fact that the current state based systems result in the bank dealing with eight different pieces of legislation which provide eight different levels of benefit and eight different definitions of injury.

In order to improve national frameworks for occupational health and safety and workers compensation consultation, the government undertook to establish the Australian Safety and Compensation Council—the ASCC. The ASCC includes representatives from Commonwealth, state and territory governments as well as employer and employee groups. It provides a new opportunity to coordinate workers compensation on a national level. Unlike the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, which it replaces, the ASCC will consider both occupational health and safety and workers compensation matters. Its main role will be to coordinate research and provide policy advice to the Workplace Relations Ministers Council. This is a national council comprised of the federal workplace relations minister and the state and territory counterparts. The ASCC met for the first time in October to discuss the council’s future priorities for moving Australia towards a more nationally consistent workers compensation framework.

Labor will oppose the bill for the sake of opposing it. They will do the bidding of the Labor states and territories, who are opposed to any corporations being able to self-insure under the Commonwealth’s Comcare scheme.

It is to be acknowledged that the unions have played an important role in the promotion of health and safety in the workplace. The ACTU played a central role in the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission and will continue to do so through the ASCC. However, I do not agree with comments made by the previous speaker, the member for Oxley, about the responsible involvement of unions in occupational health and safety. It has been very disappointing to see that the union movement has attempted to cynically exploit the grief and misfortune of people who are injured or killed in workplace accidents. I refer to the ABC’s Lateline, where the President of the ACTU, Sharan Burrow, was filmed at an ACTU campaign meeting saying:

I need a mum or a dad of someone who’s been seriously injured or killed. That would be fantastic.

Does that really demonstrate a responsible approach to occupational health and safety? I think not. Unfortunately, this demonstrates that the ACTU’s disregard for the wellbeing of workers even extends to taking advantage of family tragedies. What does it say about the union movement’s concern for workers and their families when its president states that a grieving family would be fantastic for her campaign?

The New South Wales government recently passed the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Workplace Deaths) Bill, where employers face up to five years jail and a $165,000 fine if they are convicted of causing the death of an employee through recklessness. It is of considerable concern that breaches of such serious and punitive laws, be they civil or criminal, are dealt with by the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission and not a court. This state of affairs will continue, given that the New South Wales Court of Appeal recently found that there was nothing to prevent the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission from hearing such matters.

It is even more disturbing that, under the New South Wales occupational health and safety laws, unions can prosecute employers for workplace occupational health and safety breaches and, if successful in their action, receive up to half of the fines awarded and have their legal bill paid by the employer—a great state of affairs! The New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission has fined the ANZ Bank over armed robberies at their branches, after action brought by the Financial Services Union. Patrick Stevedores were subject to an MUA prosecution for work practices that risked repetitive strain injury. New South Wales coalminers have been hit for using misleading maps prepared by the New South Wales government.

The New South Wales Labor Party is financially beholden to the union movement and relies on substantial donations from unions. When we look at this, we see that it is no coincidence that the Financial Services Union and the MUA have donated over $350,000 to the New South Wales Labor Party since 1995. This perverse situation exists only in New South Wales. In every other jurisdiction, only the relevant workers compensation authorities can prosecute for alleged breaches of work safety laws.

The Victorian government has also introduced the offence of reckless endangerment in its Occupational Health and Safety Act, carrying a potential prison sentence and large financial penalties. These states are essentially using occupational health and safety legislation to introduce industrial manslaughter laws by stealth. At least the ACT government has been more upfront in its intentions and has introduced the criminal offence of industrial manslaughter, which singles out employers for punishment despite the fact that some factors influencing occupational health and safety may be outside the employer’s control. This will serve only to discourage employers and employees from developing appropriate workplace relations and partnerships to address safety issues to ensure a benefit for all. Employers and employees will focus on defending themselves rather than progressively moving to cooperatively ensure safer workplaces.

Governments at all levels must be wary of seeking to amend or impose legislation which only serves to create uncertainties for employers. This government has introduced the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Amendment (Promoting Safer Workplaces) Bill 2005 to exclude Commonwealth employers and employees from the application of the ACT industrial manslaughter laws or similar laws enacted in the future by other states and territories.

The Commonwealth Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act allows eligible non-government corporations which meet stringent criteria to self-insure through the Commonwealth workers compensation scheme administered by Comcare. Self-insurance through Comcare enables businesses to be covered by one set of workers compensation regulations across all of Australia. For companies that employ staff across a number of jurisdictions, this is an understandably attractive prospect. The Australian government workers compensation scheme is the only scheme that provides single self-insurance arrangements, reducing costs and their compliance burden. This benefits employees by giving them access to a consistent benefit regime irrespective of their work location across Australia.

Optus were granted a self-insurance licence allowing them to self-insure through Comcare. This was in spite of considerable opposition and obstruction from the Victorian government, which tried on several occasions to stop Optus from self-insuring through Comcare and has most recently mounted a challenge on constitutional grounds which has now headed inextricably to the High Court. South Australia and Queensland will also join Victoria in this action.

If the states have an objection to companies seeking to leave their schemes and self-insure through Comcare then the onus is clearly upon the states to work together with the Australian government through the ASCC to put in place consistent and uniform self-insurance arrangements. The states and territories have to face up to the fact that, while there are eight separate workers compensation jurisdictions that provide little if anything in the way of consistency and uniformity, more and more multistate employers will seek to move to the Commonwealth scheme. I therefore support the amendment bill.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The OHS and SRC Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 allows corporations licensed to self-insure under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to be covered under the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act, which is administered by Comcare. The legislation was discussed in the last term of the parliament. I well recall the Productivity Commission making recommendations along these lines, but the small business community had severe reservations about this. It is to that matter that I will confine my remarks today.

Obviously, on the face of it, you can certainly mount an argument about this legislation moving towards a uniform national occupational health and safety regime. But really it specifically provides for businesses, multistate employers, to opt out of the state regimes and move into the federal regime that is administered by Comcare. When this Productivity Commission report was brought down, I well recall the small business community being very concerned about this, and I share those concerns. It is interesting that the legislation has now come forward in this parliament, and I do wonder about the extent of consultation with the small business community that was done by the relevant minister.

I would be surprised if the small business community at large thought this was a good idea, because, by large multistate employers opting out of state workers compensation regimes, the likelihood is that premiums will need to rise for those businesses that remain in the schemes. That would have two consequences: firstly, an obvious consequence for smaller businesses that premiums will go up, and, secondly, it would put pressure on those state schemes to reduce the compensation paid to those unfortunate enough to suffer injury or illness in their occupations.

At the time the government baulked at the Productivity Commission’s recommendations on the basis of representations from small business. Now the government is proceeding with the legislation. That is why I sought to intervene and ask the member for Hasluck whether he could assure the chamber that small businesses in his community are relaxed about this piece of legislation and feel confident that their compensation premiums will not rise. Unfortunately, on two occasions, the member for Hasluck refused to answer that question. So it is now a matter of testing with the small business community in Western Australia whether they are relaxed and comfortable, as the Prime Minister would have them, about the prospect of increased premiums associated with this measure.

I have never been one to seek to set small business against large business. I think the right philosophic approach to these matters is that we are all Australians and that we should all seek to contribute to and benefit from the prosperity of our great country. So I am not trying to set up a divide between big business and small business and say that this legislation is designed for big business at the expense of small business. But I am concerned about the impact of this legislation on the small business community. I would certainly welcome any comments from the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations in his summing up along the lines of any assurances that he has given to the small business community that they will not be adversely affected by this legislation. Similarly, although far less likely, I would like to know whether the minister is confident that injured workers will not be adversely affected by this legislation. I see it as being very much in prospect that injured workers will be adversely affected because the premium pools in the various states will be smaller as a result of this measure. If the premium pools are smaller, that puts more pressure on those funds and, as a result, state governments will come under greater pressure to reduce compensation to those workers who are injured or who suffer illness in the workplace. That really is the core of my argument in relation to small business and injured workers.

Moving to a more philosophic statement, in all these matters where we have a federal system, it seems to be the disposition of this government to argue for a centralised system—a system that is centralised in Canberra. There is such a concept as competitive federalism. With respect to the decisions of business as to where to locate their business, the different fees and charges, as well as other matters, are relevant to those decisions. It can be good for the country that there is competition. We do not necessarily want a lowest common denominator. We do not want high fees and charges. So when you have competitive federalism you can actually get benefits out of that.

The Howard government seems to say that anything that is administered by the states must be bad and anything that is administered by Canberra must be good; therefore everything must be administered by Canberra. This Prime Minister would make Gough Whitlam blush. In the Whitlam era, the great allegation against Gough Whitlam was that he was a centralist. The Prime Minister was probably in on that criticism as a relatively young politician, but he has practised it. Everywhere you look, the Prime Minister has sought to override the states, to take control of the states. The government cannot get on with the states, so it wants to control them.

We have seen this most spectacularly with the industrial relations legislation. State systems have operated in the national interest; however, this government says that it is going to take over the state systems by using its corporations power. It is seizing control from the states through the use of the corporations power. That is this government’s philosophy. You can see it in schools funding and also in the creation of these technical colleges, whereby the government wants to bypass the states and create a dozen technical colleges that will not produce one graduate for at least another six years.

Michael Danby (Melbourne Ports, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They could fund existing technical education, couldn’t they!

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is right. Everywhere you look, you can see a very centralist government, and here is another example of that. I am not at all convinced that that philosophy is the right philosophy. What I do argue for is that, where state systems can be harmonised, they should be. That would achieve what the Productivity Commission has sought to achieve—to reduce the compliance and administration costs. Multistate employers, which have operations in different states, complain with some justification about very different arrangements for workers compensation. The answer to the problem should be sought through the harmonisation of the state arrangements rather than through the Howard government’s seizing control which, instead of providing a competitive federalism, will provide one level of government with monopoly control and will mean that there will be no competition. You will not get the best ideas or the best practice from each of the jurisdictions; instead, the Commonwealth will say, ‘We know best.’ As a consequence, it is quite possible that the premiums will rise, because you will not get the competition and therefore you will not get the efficiency. People will opt into Comcare and then premiums might rise. If the larger businesses in Australia want to do that, that is a decision they are taking with their eyes wide open, but the fundamental problem is that this will more likely cause premiums to rise in the state jurisdictions. This will be to the detriment of the state systems, to the detriment of small businesses and to the detriment of injured workers.

Finally, I am disappointed that the member for Hasluck has twice refused to answer that question. I would hope that he would return to this chamber and give an assurance that small businesses in his electorate of Hasluck will not be adversely affected. If he does not, I think there is only one conclusion that can be drawn—that he will not give that assurance because he cannot give the assurance. I see that the member for Canning is here. He speaks on behalf of small business on just about every occasion, so I will be very glad to hear him assure us that small businesses in Canning will not be adversely affected. The proof of that pudding will be in the eating. This legislation will pass the House of Representatives and the Senate. I do fear the consequences to small businesses in the electorate of Canning, in my own electorate and in Australia more generally. I fear for injured workers who remain in those state systems where, as a consequence of this legislation, premiums will rise.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I suppose to some extent I should start with, ‘Here we go again.’ Once again, we have a bill before us, the OHS and SRC Legislation Amendment Bill 2005, which purports to solve all problems that businesses are facing. However, if we simply scratch the surface a little, we find a different agenda revealed. Once again, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has introduced a bill into this place that is cloaked in a desire to protect workers, but I have to say that, on my reading of this legislation, that is not the direct implication of the legislation.

We saw it last year through a series of amendments to the Workplace Relations Act, culminating in the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005, being rammed through this parliament with virtually none of the scrutiny necessary for such a change. We also saw it with the Orwellian titled Building and Construction Industry Improvement Bill and we saw it with the similarly euphemistically titled Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Amendment (Promoting Safer Workplaces) Bill.

We see it again as the government tries to use its response to the Productivity Commission’s report National workers’ compensation and occupational health and safety frameworksof June 2004. I oppose this legislation because it is aimed at anything but improving the occupational health and safety of working Australians. I am sure that we will hear speakers opposite—if they have already spoken, I am sorry I have missed their speeches—leaping to the defence of this piece of legislation with vigour. No doubt members opposite have said that this bill is a win for business, particularly small business, as the member for Rankin has just been remonstrating about with the member for Hasluck. I am sure that members opposite will have been convinced simply by receiving their slick brief from the minister’s office that there is nothing in this bill that will harm or detract or be deleterious to the working conditions of Australian workers and that the simple production of this bill is the government’s response to the report of the Productivity Commission.

We will hear how tough it is for businesses to comply with the eight different jurisdictions and how life would be so much easier if they could deal with a single set of rules and a single set of regulations. There is a downside to all of this. When taken in isolation, the government’s amendments seeking to create a uniform national occupational health and safety regime, as one who was a practitioner in this area, appear to have a certain sensibility—on face value I would have to admit that they make sense. However, if you drill down into the bill, as you have to with most pieces of legislation introduced in this place, you come to realise that the devil is in the detail. Just as people are able to scratch the surface of the government’s industrial relations reform and see that the reforms proposed in the name of small business actually had nothing to do with small business and had everything to do with advancing the agenda of big business, similarly, a level of consideration to this bill will reveal that it will not improve occupational health and safety for working Australians. I do not think it will meet the government’s intended position in relation to small business compliance either.

Occupational health and safety and the risks to people as they work are very real and serious issues and should be treated as such. To put the issue of occupational health and safety into context, one only needs to look at the numbers of people who are either injured or killed—unfortunately it does happen. When we look at what happens in this country, there is a serious cause for concern. This is why we should take this not as a budgetary response, not as a cost-saving response, but as a serious view directed towards the betterment of occupational health and safety conditions throughout this country.

The ILO reported that over 6,700 workers die of occupational injuries or diseases in this country each year. The ABS found that nearly 500,000 workers suffer some form of injury at the workplace each year. For me these figures strike a note of concern, as they should for any legislator who purports to be acting for the betterment of occupational health and safety in this country.

These figures, firstly, give some idea of the number of people who are impacted by injury at work, not to mention the impacts that are inflicted on the families of those who suffer those injuries. Secondly, they make it clear that there is a need to dramatically reduce the number of occupational deaths and injuries in this country. So at this point one has to consider that this bill is aimed, first and foremost, at reducing the compliance cost on business. It is not aimed—and this is where I take objection—at reducing the injuries to working Australians. The government, through this bill and other legislation that should be considered in conjunction with it, is willing to ignore history and the needs of workers and those businesses that do not operate in more than one state—they seem to fall outside this agenda. In fact, there are real concerns that abolishing occupational health and safety regulations and reducing compliance obligations of businesses will run contrary to the aim of reducing the number of workers who are injured each year. I have yet to see a legitimate argument that the number of injuries and deaths will be reduced as a result of changing to a national regime, particularly a non-compulsory, opt-in national regime. I have yet to see any real argument that safety conditions on the job will be improved by bringing the various state regimes into a single national arrangement, particularly when those arrangements are of a voluntary, opt-in nature.

Workers compensation schemes and occupational health and safety regulations have been developed over many years by various state and territory governments in a manner that reflects the industry mix, the economic activity, the population and the various legal structures that operate in a particular jurisdiction. Naturally under that arrangement there will always be differences, but the differences between jurisdictions do not necessarily occur without a reason. To view these differences in isolation is a spurious exercise that ignores other aspects of the various schemes that have been central to their evolution. Once again, however, we see that this government is all about being willing to ignore history, to ignore the evolution of the various regimes, with the sweeping statement that things will be ‘easier under a uniform system’.

The minister makes the claim in his second reading speech that the proposals in this bill will produce better health and safety outcomes all round, including for employees affected by these changes. I am particularly sceptical that this will be the case under the arrangement that is being proposed. We have all heard the government making similar claims about the industrial relations proposals. We have heard through the government’s $55 million propaganda campaign that having a single industrial relations system would be better for all involved. For some time now as a member of Labor’s industrial relations task force I have been visiting people in Launceston, Townsville, outer metropolitan Brisbane and suburbs of Perth and Darwin, and I can tell you that the overwhelming response has been that people do not trust what is being put to them. People are concerned not simply for their own industrial welfare but for the plight of their children and families as their rights are driven into the ground by this government’s move to have a form of industrial legislation which it says will be ‘easier’ for everybody. It will be easier—easier for employers to use the situation to drive down, as the Chief Judge of the Industrial Relations Commission has recently said, the wages and conditions of those most vulnerable in society. True it is that people are very concerned out there.

People in my electorate have signed petitions and spoken to me about their opposition. They do not believe that benefits will flow to them after the unification of various state systems, as has been proposed by this government. I certainly find it difficult to believe that working Australians will see any benefit when it comes to the unification of occupational health and safety regulations for large businesses operating in multiple states. This is the point: we are talking about large businesses. We are not to be taken in by what is being said in relation to small business compliance. We are—make no mistake—talking about large businesses that operate in more than one state or territory jurisdiction.

The real risk is that the impacts will be felt by every single employee and employer throughout this country. There are serious consequences for employers who will remain in a state system after the multistate businesses—the corporations that are sizeable enough to work in the various state and territory jurisdictions—leave. There is going to be a financial void in the state system as a consequence of their removal. The employers who will feel the effect will generally be small businesses. As a direct result of this wonderful new approach, they are likely to find that the largest contributors to the pool of insurance at a state level leave and someone will have to make up the shortfall in those insurance premiums. And guess what: that someone will be the small businesses that remain in each of the state and territory jurisdictions. Changing the mix of insurance premium revenues will have adverse consequences for those remaining in the state and territory systems—those employers that only operate in each of those state and territory systems. As I say, in the main those employers will be the small businesses of this country.

One way or another, the shortfall in revenue will have to be dealt with. There are only two options. First, the premiums of businesses that remain will have to go up. I would have thought that the potential for this sort of impact on small business alone would have resulted in the Minister for Small Business and Tourism opposing these changes. I have to say that the minister is constantly criticising state governments, particularly the New South Wales government, on reducing compliance costs for small business. Will she support legislation that is likely to have a real and direct impact on the state and territory workers compensation scheme insurance premium costs faced by the very same small businesses? I do not know about you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but if I were a small business operator I expect that I would want the minister who represents me to have spoken out on these changes and acted to ensure that the level of workers compensation premiums that I would pay would be protected. There are no guarantees in this legislation. There is no compensation for those who are going to be hit by increased charges as a result of the departure of those larger organisations that operate in more than one state.

Once again, the minister for small business is keen to criticise other governments for not doing enough to help the small business community, while supporting her colleagues in their efforts to actively undermine small business in favour of large, multistate corporations, as we are seeing in this piece of legislation before us today. This government talks a lot about supporting the small business community but, when it comes to the crunch, it really fails to deliver. Increasing premiums of small business operators is only one possible outcome to accommodate the premium revenue shortfall. The other one is probably more serious because it is a reduction of entitlements of injured workers. Sadly, history informs us that this will probably be the option that is adopted.

One should not consider this bill in isolation. Despite it being introduced as a stand-alone piece of legislation and despite it seeming to be, as I said from the outset, a sensible resolution or proposition, this bill must be seen in the context of changes that have been recently introduced in the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991. When a light is shone on this bill, its contents and its interaction with the changes that have been previously debated in this place, you can see that, in addition to its agenda of lowering worker entitlements, the agenda of this bill is once again to drive a stake through the heart of the union movement. That is clearly revealed in the bill that is before us.

Amendments have already been made to the Commonwealth occupational health and safety laws that remove all reference to unions, replacing them with employee representatives which can be either a registered organisation, as in a union, or an unregistered staff organisation—some form of loose congregation of people in the workplace et cetera. These changes to the Commonwealth occupational health and safety laws also require the employee to invite employee representatives into the workplace. While unions were previously allowed to request, for instance, a visit from Comcare to investigate a matter, now it falls to an individual employee to initiate such requests.

These changes are aimed at creating an environment in which it is particularly difficult to get people who have a degree of expertise in considering occupational health and safety issues into the workplace. They are aimed at making it as difficult as possible for union representatives to bring occupational health and safety breaches and concerns to the attention of the relevant authorities. And they are aimed at making sure that individual employees have to take sole responsibility for initiating everything—a change probably developed with the secret hope that no individual employee would run the risk of jeopardising their future employment by raising occupational health and safety concerns.

I find it difficult to believe that a multistate firm faces significantly higher compliance costs as a result of having to deal with multiple occupational health and safety regimes. On the contrary, it seems to me that the real agenda here is a reduction in the level of protection of entitlements for employees. A reduction in compliance costs should not come at the expense of entitlements for working Australians. I oppose this bill and I give notice that I will continue to oppose each and every bill that this government presents between now and the next election that is designed to do nothing more than continue down the ideological path of an anti-worker agenda.

Roger Price (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak against the OHS and SRC Legislation Amendment Bill 2005. It is a privilege to follow the member for Werriwa, a staunch advocate for workers through his industrial career and also as a parliamentarian. I commend him and the task force on the good work they are doing to access the views of the people of Australia about this government’s extreme industrial relations reforms.

I said I opposed this bill. I am driven to it—although I would ordinarily be inclined to oppose it—by the sad death of a 16-year-old lad from Doonside, Joel Exner, who, tragically, on his first or second day of employment, fell to his death. It caused a tremendous reaction from the students at Doonside Technology High School and the Doonside community, and of course it has had a statewide impact. Joel, I am up here again saying we need to do more about occupational health and safety. Wouldn’t you think, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this was one area where both sides of politics could agree?

It is estimated by the International Labour Organisation that there are 6,700 work related deaths per year in Australia. I find that figure astounding. Someone may say that is wrong. Even if it was one death, it is one death too many. Surely members of parliament, whether they are Labor, Liberal, Nationals or Independent, could join together and seek to have better and safer workplaces. I have to say, whatever you say about the trade union movement—and this government has an ideological hatred of them—they have done good work in the area of occupational health and safety. Over the last couple of decades, there have been significant improvements in occupational health and safety, but an estimated 6,700 deaths is just too many.

If that figure does not move you, the Australian Bureau of Statistics suggests that there are nearly half a million workers who suffer injury or illness each and every year. Again, that is far too many. Couldn’t we have a debate about how we could reduce these figures, how we could make workplaces safer and how we can ensure that, when mum, dad or the young people of Australia set off to work of a morning, they can be confident that they will return safe from death and safe from injury? This bill is not about any of this. It continues this government’s extreme ideological obsession with and legislation about industrial relations and perpetuates its hatred of trade unions. It seeks to reduce their role in the area of occupational health and safety. It is an area in which trade unions—not so much the secretaries of trade unions or the organisers but the occupational health and safety work delegates—have done such a good job in trying to improve our Australian record.

I am a bit surprised at some of the impacts that this bill will have. It means that a number of corporations are now going to self-insure. We know what this government’s record is when it comes to regulatory authorities. We only have to look at the sad fiasco of HIH and how citizens’ money was squandered. We have even had a royal commission into it. As a result of the royal commission, criminal charges were laid against the directors, but the regulatory authorities were not up to the mark. Who believes under self-insurance that workers are going to be better off or that there will be money available in the event of one of the 6,700 deaths or some half a million workers who incur injury or illness? I certainly do not believe that.

The interesting thing is that the Commonwealth does not have its own force of safety inspectors. I am not particularly critical of that but, if you are using the state government safety inspectors, aren’t those people who actually have a look and see what the problem has been at the work site the best people to determine whether or not charges should be proceeded with? Shouldn’t those state organisations have the ultimate responsibility to say, ‘Yes, we’re prosecuting’? If you do not own the inspectors, why do you want this prosecution role? I do not understand that at all.

The truth about the results of this legislation, this extreme industrial relations agenda that the government has, is that more workers will now be exposed to Comcare’s low cap on pain and suffering damages. There will be low lump sum payments for permanent impairment. How are workers better off under this regime? I understand only too well the on-costs associated with workers’ compensation that are faced by business, and in particular by small business. But I do not believe that this is the best solution that we can find.

I repeat that the death of Joel Exner in my electorate has had a profound impact on the whole community—in particular, the Doonside community. I would like to have a debate about how we can tighten rules for occupational health and safety. I think it is legitimate to have a debate about whether criminal negligence provisions should be applied to people who knowingly have unsafe workplaces that cause these deaths and which have resulted in half a million injuries. Why can’t we have a debate about what is a reasonable target to aim for in reducing industrial deaths? Why can’t we have a debate about what is a reasonable target to aim for in terms of workers suffering injury or illness as a result of going to work?

Some fundamental things about Australia are changing. The old idea that you went to work and, for a fair day’s work, you copped a fair day’s pay, is going. People think that when they go to work, they will come home to their wife or husband and to their children. Even grandparents are now worrying about their grandchildren in their work opportunities. And in this era of industrial law, they are worried about their safety. This does nothing to allay anyone’s fears. If this is the balance that the Prime Minister talks about when he talks about his extreme industrial relations agenda, it is all one way. As the honourable member for Werriwa said, it is all one way against the worker.

I am in favour of balance. I do not think that everything should be in favour of the worker, but there is no balance here. It behoves us all—you, Mr Deputy Speaker Wilkie, the members on this side, the member for Shortland and the member for Melbourne Ports, as well as the member for Canning—to work in the national interest and to find those balances. That is what the people of Australia expect. When elections are held, they expect that all parliamentarians will act in the national interest for the benefit of all the citizens of Australia—not for sectional minorities, and not in order to bring up historical gripes that a Prime Minister may have suffered over more than 30 years in public life. Unfortunately, this is what we are getting.

I will finish on this point: I have always said that I think, by and large, the people of Australia, when they go to the polls, get it right. And I will say about this government that the people of Australia will take a dim view of extreme agendas. They will take a dim view when they see that there is a lack of fairness and balance in what is being done. They will take a very dim view of the arrogant use of power, the drunkenness of power, that has come to the coalition with the control of the Senate and the House. You can gloat here, you can score your points here, but beware of the people of Australia when they next go to the ballot box.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to concur with the words of the member for Chifley and congratulate him on making such a well-argued contribution to this debate. His contribution highlighted many of the concerns that we on this side of the parliament have about the direction this government is going in with not only occupational health and safety but also workplace relations and any issue or law that relates to the workplace.

This government has a very poor record in the area of OH&S. I have made contributions to many of the debates that have looked at the changes that the government has forced upon workers who are covered by Comcare and those who are covered by the Commonwealth employment act. I have to say that, under this government, the laws have been weakened and changed to such an extent that I have real concerns. As somebody who has actually worked in the area of rehabilitation, with workers who have been injured and were covered by Comcare, I find it very disturbing that what was once I think possibly the best scheme available in Australia for workers injured at work has now been changed to such an extent that it does not provide the protection that workers need and deserve. It actually works against the rehabilitation process.

This piece of legislation that we are debating today—the OHS and SRC Legislation Amendment Bill 2005allows corporations licensed as self-insurers under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1998 to be covered under the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act. It will be administered by Comcare. This is hardly legislation about occupational health and safety and ensuring proper coverage for workers who are working in those precincts that are going to be covered by this legislation.

While I am making this short contribution to the debate, I would just like to mention a number of negative implications of the government’s changes to occupational health and safety. In doing so, I would have to say that a number of these implications have also been identified by the ACTU. Entitlements under Comcare vary to those of other states and territories. As I mentioned at the start of my contribution to this debate, Comcare, I thought, was once the best coverage that was available to injured workers in Australia—I was comparing that to WorkCover and other workers compensation legislation. Unfortunately, that has changed drastically and dramatically under this government.

As to consequences for employers remaining in state OH&S systems, the movement of large multistate employers to Comcare administered national state schemes could mean that premium revenue lost by states and territories would leave remaining employers to face higher premiums in the future. Given the government’s workplace relations legislation, I think that is a real concern. Reduced premium pools in states and territories will in turn place increased pressure on entitlements for injured workers. There are privacy considerations for individuals. Human resource departments of employers who self-insure will have to have access to information on employees which, under state and territory schemes, only insurance companies could have access to. They are real concerns.

Along with those concerns I have concerns that the amendments already made to the act—amendments I have mentioned previously—remove the need for employers and government agencies to negotiate OH&S agreements with unions and employees through the introduction of so-called management arrangements. I made a contribution when that was debated in the House, and I stand by what I said at the time. I think that members on this side of the House have serious concerns about that change. Also, all reference to unions has been removed and replaced by ‘an employee representative’, which once again shows that this government is not driven by what is best for the workers and for Australia as a whole; rather, it is driven by its ideological hatred of unions. Everything this government does is driven by this. It is not looking at what is going to deliver the best outcomes as far as workplace safety is concerned.

Employee representatives must be invited into the workplace by an employee, which this government makes as difficult as possible. Where previously a union could make a request to Comcare to investigate a workplace, an employee must now invite an employee representative to initiate that investigation. I have to say that the role played by the unions was very valuable in ensuring that a workplace was safe. It was a proactive move and something that in the past prevented many workplace injuries. Employee representatives involved in developing OH&S management arrangements must be issued with a certificate by the CEO of Comcare which is valid for only 12 months. Finally, employers are allowed to conduct the election of employee health and safety representatives, a role previously conducted by a union or a person specified by the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission.

My contribution to this debate is intended only to be short. I believe this legislation is not what occupational health and safety should be about. This legislation is not about improving safety in the workplace; rather, it is just more of the same for a government that is driven by an ideological hatred of unions.

Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the OHS and SRC Legislation Amendment Bill 2005 and associate my comments with the member for Shortland, who quite rightly has said that the motives behind this and associated legislation are as much about removing the status of unions in workplaces in occupational health and safety matters as about anything else.

On the terms of the bill there are some provisions that I think are quite sensible. I accept that the bill allows corporations licences—self-insured—to be covered. Those currently self-insured under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act are to be covered under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1991. I also know that the bill seeks to ensure that relevant Commonwealth authorities that may be licensed are also covered. There is an issue as to whether or not that is a good thing. There are merits in the arguments there. However, as I stated earlier, the concern I have with much of the occupational health and safety legislation being put forward by the Commonwealth in this term, at least, is that there is also a very pernicious motive or intent—that is, to diminish the standing of unions that are registered under the Workplace Relations Act or the Work Choices act.

That to me is a dreadful consequence. The member for Shortland was correct when she said that there was a real problem in seeking to weaken employee representatives. I also note that there has been an expunging of the word ‘union’, as if by taking ‘union’ out of every piece of legislation you can actually remove them from the face of the planet. I know that that would be one of the wet dreams of the Prime Minister, but the reality is that the unions have been in this country since prior to Federation and will be here well after the Prime Minister is gone and buried—indeed, well after all of us are gone.

Whilst I can quite understand a tory government, a conservative government, an anti-union government, not wanting to do any favours to organisations that try to represent working people, particularly those that are affiliated to a political party that sees itself as the government’s opponent, I cannot understand the extent and nature of the assault upon these organisations. Show me a country with an absence of unions and you will usually find either a fascist dictatorship or a Soviet style communist regime which seeks to smash any organised workforce. The greatest assaults upon organised labour have occurred in extreme countries of either the supposed Left or Right. That is the reality.

Whilst those comments seem a long way away from this legislation, the ideology behind the government in expunging the word ‘union’, in trying to write unions out of legislation and in attempting to diminish the role that unions play in—of all things—occupational health and safety smacks to me of ideology being put ahead of commonsense and human decency. Whilst we may argue, and we will forever argue, about whether in fact unions play a constructive or not a constructive role in society, and whilst there will also be arguments about their role in the workplace, I find it very difficult to believe that members on the other side do not accept that unions have played a constructive role in preventing injury or death in workplaces.

Senator Murray is obviously quite a well-known, high-profile senator who has spent a lot of his energies in the areas of industrial relations and, incidental to that, OH&S matters. He has said time and time again and in many a report—and in a recent report on the OH&S proposed changes—that unions at the workplace provide a net benefit. I am paraphrasing, but effectively Senator Murray said that unions at the workplace play a constructive role and indeed are a net benefit to workers in this area.

And the converse is true: the absence of unions in many a workplace increases the likelihood of an injury. I am not suggesting that there are not non-unionised workplaces that have good health and safety records, because of course there is a multitude of factors that determine whether a place is safe or not. A good employer who focuses on health and safety will help ensure that the workplace is safe—or will at least assist in that process. I think that is clear.

It is also clear that the involvement of employees and the level of training and education given to employee representatives—including OH&S delegates—and employees at large about the potential dangers of the workplace and the need to alert the employer or others to dangers that may arise leads to a safer workplace. A culture that focuses upon OH&S matters is more likely to lead to a safer workplace. There is no doubt in my mind that a multitude of factors determines whether one workplace is safer than another down the road. It is axiomatic that—all other factors being equal—a union role in OH&S matters at a workplace will lead to a net benefit not only for the employees but also for the employer. No employer would wilfully place their employees at risk, one would hope. Certainly the majority of employers would not do that. Employers whom I know have relied upon unions to play their role in contributing to a safe workplace.

Senator Murray was correct when he said that unions taking a role in OH&S matters leads to a safer workplace. To expunge the term ‘union’ from the legislation and to diminish their role in this area—in other words, to place a greater onus on employees to alert an OH&S problem to their employer—will only lead to greater danger. Unfortunately, many people do not always feel comfortable in alerting their employer to potential problems associated with safety in the workplace because, not always at the higher level but often at the middle level, there is resistance. There are countless examples of employees knowing that there is a particular danger to someone’s health or safety in the workplace but not alerting their employer to that danger in fear of retribution. They fear being told, ‘Get on with your job; that’s not your role. Your role is to stand on that assembly line’—or to work in that shop or to attend that phone or whatever other functions they may have. In other words, their role is not to attend to potential danger to themselves or to their fellow employees. In some workplaces, if it had not been for the courage of an employee in raising a concern, an injury or even a death would have occurred.

To remove structures that have proved to be beneficial to workers’ safety and health while they work is a travesty. Whilst some provisions in this legislation are sensible on the face of them, the whole combination of government legislation in the area of OH&S seems more about diminishing the role of, and reducing the status of, registered organisations of employees than anything else. You would think that the Work Choices act was sufficient for the minister and for the Prime Minister in trying to destroy the rights of workers in this country, but to then move on to reducing the role of unions in the area of OH&S shows how belligerent, arrogant and extreme this government is.

I put up Senator Murray because he has made comments on industrial relations that I have not agreed with and that the Labor Party has not agreed with. In fact, Senator Murray was involved quite heavily in the negotiations for, and ultimately the enactment of, the Workplaces Relations Act 1996. Senator Murray made the point that OH&S will suffer if you try to take unions out of the equation unnecessarily or, indeed, wilfully. I think the government have chosen to do that in this instance. Removing references to unions is trying to suggest that they do not exist by not placing them in the legislation. For example, where previously a union could make a request to Comcare to investigate a workplace, an employer must now invite an employee representative to initiate this investigation. Changing that onus may seem okay on paper, but that is to pretend that the actual employee representative has enormous authority to start with. They do not. When people alert an employer to a potential problem, they might be wrong. They may well be wrong. They may make a mistake. They may think something is unsafe when it is not. But let us err on the side of that mistake. Let us err on the side of being too cautious in the workplace, not on the side of being too fearful to raise the matter because it may attribute to anything these days—it could indeed lead to a dismissal.

The point is that we do not want our workforce cowed by legislation and fearful of the consequences of them raising a particular matter, especially a matter related to OH&S. I am afraid that the bill before us is seeking to weaken—maybe it is not the intent, but this is the consequence—the resolve of employees at the workplace to raise matters of concern. Any person who has worked at the workplace level, who has actually been in the real world and not just in the bubble of IR, knows that that is the fact, knows that you do need employees courageously willing to say, ‘I think we’ve got a problem here,’ and to say that to a superintendent who may be more concerned about the amount of work that is going to be completed that afternoon or that week. But they must be willing to say it. If you remove the protections afforded to them, if you create a culture where it is better to say nothing than to say something about OH&S, then I am afraid we are going to have more injuries and more deaths.

I know that is not entirely the substance of the provisions of this bill, but there are parts of this bill to be enacted that do move the OH&S environment, if you like, at the workplace level in that direction—and it is the wrong direction. Whilst I will always expect us to disagree with the government on so many things in the industrial relations area and whilst I accept that we are never going to reach agreement on all sorts of areas—and that is quite evident from the debate on the Work Choices act that we will have until election day—I would have thought that in relation to occupational health and safety the government would have shown maturity, would have been less blinkered by ideology and more concerned about the workforce, would have listened to the independent advice on the constructive role unions play in health and safety matters and would not have sought to diminish them and traduce them in the way in which they have decided to in this bill.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—I thank members for their contributions to this debate. The OHS and SRC Legislation Amendment Bill 2005, to recap, will ensure that all licensees under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act—that is, Commonwealth authorities and eligible corporations—will have the benefits of operating under one occupational health and safety scheme, together with integrated prevention, compensation and rehabilitation arrangements. Integration of workers compensation and occupational health and safety schemes will promote greater coordination and feedback between schemes and will produce better health and safety outcomes all round. In addition, the proposed amendment to section 4 will clarify the legislative requirements for employers and employees covered by the Commonwealth act. Without this amendment, those employers and employees can be subject to both Commonwealth and state and territory laws on the very same subject matter.

These amendments are supported by licensees as they will remove a significant impediment to business profitability and efficiency—namely, the costs of administering and complying with as many as eight separate and different state and territory occupational health and safety requirements. As a result of these amendments employees will no longer be treated differently and discriminated against merely on the basis of their geographical location. Employees will have the opportunity to acquire a better understanding of their occupational health and safety rights and obligations because these will remain the same regardless of where they work. The government considers that until the states can achieve national consistency in occupational health and safety regulation, SRC Act licensees operating in more than one jurisdiction should not be subject to the complexities and costs involved in complying with a myriad of different requirements.

The amendments will not diminish occupational health and safety protection for employees covered by the Commonwealth act. The government has a proud record on its commitment to improving occupational health and safety in every Australian workplace. The government further demonstrated its commitment to occupational health and safety by initiating the development of the National Occupational Health and Safety Strategy in 2002. Under the Commonwealth act, all occupational health and safety incidents can be enforced by Comcare through the general duties of care in the act. These are supported by the existing regulations, codes of practice and guidance material to assist employers to discharge their duty of care. The Australian government believes that the bill will lead to improved workers compensation and occupational health and safety outcomes for employers and employees.

I note the comments from the member for Rankin, who is simply doing the bidding of state Labor governments in running their misleading lines. The argument that state workers compensation premium pools would be adversely affected because employers seek to enter the Commonwealth scheme is spurious. In the case of Optus, which currently self-insures under the Comcare scheme, its premiums make up only one-10th of one per cent of the Victorian WorkCover premium pool. The federal government does not need to provide any encouragement for businesses to seek entry into the Comcare scheme. The advantages of the Comcare scheme are obvious—namely, it provides one set of consistent, uniform regulations and benefits for both employers and employees. Private sector employers who operate across a number of different states and territories do not want the regulatory burden and inefficiencies that accompany having to deal with up to eight different workers compensation and occupational health and safety jurisdictions. Indeed, if anybody talks to business owners and operators in any part of this country who operate across state boundaries you will find that this is a concern which they raise over and over again.

Victoria and its state and territory counterparts could fix this problem quite easily by working with the federal government to introduce greater uniformity and consistency across all jurisdictions. I say to the states and territories, through this debate, that rather than complain about the Commonwealth trying to achieve some degree of consistency in what we are doing, they should see that the ball is essentially in their court. If they want to retain their schemes and the coverage under those schemes then they ought to look at issues like reciprocity, uniformity and consistency across the nation. The real motivation behind the actions of the states is that they make a profit out of running workers compensation schemes. In the case of the Victorian Labor government, the Victorian WorkCover Authority recently announced a profit of $669 million. This demonstrates that the Victorian government is more interested in how much money it can make from workers compensation rather than in giving employers and employees the access that they deserve to the best possible scheme.

In conclusion, the emphasis of the Commonwealth scheme is on prevention of workplace injury rather than on punishment after the event. However, where sanctions are necessary, the Commonwealth scheme includes a strong, comprehensive and effective enforcement regime based on a wide range of civil and criminal sanctions, including tough penalties for breaches of the act. I commend the bill to the committee.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.