Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I am referring to sheet 4847, which was circulated by me on 20 June. I will group some of the amendments, by leave, and I will move those accordingly. But I want to commence with amendment (1) on sheet 4847 and move that on its own. In so doing, I will briefly motivate its importance. I move:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 8), after “employees,” insert “that is a democratic association free from control by, or improper influence from, an employer or by an association or organisation of employers,”.

What I am seeking to do here is not to alter the intention of the provision by the government but to ensure that the association that is determined under this legislation is an independent one—independent, that is, of the employer or any association or organisation of employers. The bill allows the employer to set up their own organisation to represent the views of employees in any matter that affects employment, including occupational health and safety, and to consult then with their own organisation on safety arrangements. The bill would therefore be satisfied with respect to those requirements.

There is an underlying assumption here that the interests of the employee and the employer will always be the same when it comes to safety. I am sure that sometimes that is the case. You would hope that employers and employees are of one mind in these matters. But there may be situations where these interests collide. The recent example of the Beaconsfield mine is exactly one of those circumstances where employers and employees very much differed as to what the safety measures affecting that mine should be.

You might think that is a bit far from Commonwealth public servants, who people would assume are pen-pushers and clip benders, but that is not so. This bill covers all Commonwealth employees, including workers at Lucas Heights, scientists in CSIRO, geologists from Geoscience Australia, Customs officers dealing with detaining illegal fishermen, Protective Service officers working in the Solomon Islands and Antarctic expeditioners—all sorts of Commonwealth employees who are not office workers but who are actively engaged in potentially dangerous and hazardous workplaces.

This bill would mean that the employer can establish alternative organisations that purport to be representative of employees without any obligation to initiate consultation with any union that might represent those employees. Without the amendment, it would be possible for the non-employee organisations or indeed the employer to establish associations by simply stating that their principal purpose is the protection and promotion of the employees’ interests. I am advised that this proposed scheme could expand into the private sector, beyond the existing coverage of Telstra workers, for instance, to include those who provide third-party services to such workers.

So we need to be wary of this model and to ensure it is genuinely one which represents employees’ interests. As I said during my speech in the second reading debate, independent international research does indicate that, when a union is involved, you get better safety outcomes. The minister has assured us that the government is not objecting to union involvement. However, the legislation needs to ensure that, whether it is a union or not, employee representative associations are just that—they represent employees, not employers. This amendment therefore seeks to ensure that control of these associations is transparently and self-evidently by employees, that the associations represent employees and that employees will have control of any association that purports to represent their interests, whether it be through their trade union or any other organisation.