Don Randall (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Can the minister advise the House about the ongoing role of state occupational health and safety systems under Work Choices?

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

I thank the member for Canning for his question, because there has been a lot of talk over the last week or so about the role of state occupational health and safety systems under Work Choices. As I made it clear last week, and I make it clear again today, occupational health and safety falls clearly under the jurisdiction of the states and territories. Indeed, this was conceded in the High Court by the Solicitor-General for the state of Western Australia in the current case.

The reality is that the new workplace laws, Work Choices, do not override the jurisdictional responsibility of the states and territories. Employers must continue to meet their obligations under state and territory occupational health and safety laws. In the legislation in every state and territory in Australia there are significant penalties for those who do not meet their obligations. So, contrary to the misleading and hysterical claims that are being made by the Leader of the Opposition, workers can continue to receive training under Work Choices.

Today we had the Leader of the Opposition—as we have had him over the last few days—on the Today show on Channel 9 suggesting that it was an ‘absurd and, indeed, evil thing in the industrial relations laws that workers would be forbidden’—his word—‘from receiving safety training and union training’. That is the claim made, once again this morning, by the Leader of the Opposition, which has also been made over the last week or so.

It is interesting that, while this is what the Leader of the Opposition is saying, there are at least some members of his frontbench who know that that is not the case. My office was contacted by a concerned member of the public who had emailed a question to the member for Lilley. The question stated:

So the impression being given that employers are subject to $30,000 fines if they send employees to Union run safety training courses is misleading?

That was the question emailed to the member for Lilley. After consulting—according to the email—with the member for Perth, this was the answer that was given. Remember the question: ‘the impression given that employers are subject to a $30,000 fine if they send employees to union run safety training courses is misleading’. The email back from the office of the member for Lilley says:

Yes, that is correct.

It goes on:

Employees attending union run training cannot be included in an agreement as a condition of employment, but an employer can send employees to union training.

Whilst we have the Leader of the Opposition making claims, as he was again this morning on Australian television and as he has been doing for the last week in this country, at least the member for Lilley and presumably the member for Perth were prepared to tell the truth when asked a question directly by a constituent about this. This gives the lie to what the Leader of the Opposition was saying. The whistle has been blown once again on the Leader of the Opposition, and I table the emails.