Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Hansard source

I commence my comments by thanking Senator Murray for the methodical way in which he is dealing with the amendments by taking them in groups. Of course, we would not expect anything less from Senator Murray just as much as—with great respect to Senator Murray—we never expect him to shy away from prescription and from focusing on processes as opposed to outcomes. In my 12 or so years in the Senate, it would be fair to say that the big divide between my—if I may be so game as to say it—and also the government’s approach to issues and the Australian Democrats’ approach is that we have been more outcomes focused. But if there is a problem, you can always bet on the Democrats to have some prescriptive process to try to overcome the issues.

In relation to these amendments, can I put to the Senate that by mandating an agreement-making process, as proposed by the amendment, the focus will invariably shift towards the content of the agreement and away from actual outcomes. This runs counter to the main thrust of the bill, which is to streamline processes and focus on improving outcomes. The proposed amendments would elevate agreements about consultation to a status over and above that which was intended or is provided for in the current legislation. The proposed amendments also envisage a ballot process without specifying how such a ballot should be conducted. In this respect the amendment would require additional prescription—and, one could ask rhetorically, to what end?—to compel an employer to enter into an agreement about the manner in which the employer consults with its employees about OH&S issues.

Formal agreement making may be a worthwhile exercise in larger workplaces, but in smaller units where consultation need only ever involve a dozen people—or, indeed, even fewer—simply talking to one another, requiring a formal consultative agreement simply makes the whole process looks silly and unnecessarily bureaucratic. In any case, the amendment is illogical as it would make employers’ duty of care subject to reaching an agreement, because if the third party were to fail to agree, the employer has then breached their duty. For those reasons we oppose the amendments proposed.

In response to Senator Wong, I have had confirmed that it is in the employer’s general duty of care that she will find the answer.