Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

There does appear to be a break-out, of sorts, of the coalition. What I am concerned about, though, is that the main point is really getting missed here. The main point is that, if you look at what has occurred to date, we have a significant advancement from where we have been in the last decade. We have an intergovernmental agreement to move forward on model OH&S laws.

What I am concerned about now, quite frankly, is that these amendments may put in jeopardy the agreement that has been reached. They may also assist in defeating future policy proposals by state or federal Labor to develop legislation right across the board, even legislation which is not directly related to OH&S and workers compensation. They mean that when you get an historic agreement, such as the one the Rudd government has, it will then be subject to an examination not in principle, which I think is fair to argue, but in process. We are now talking about unravelling some of the detail, which it has taken a significant amount of time for the parties to get to. Of course, you would expect that to be the argument from the government. It is important to recognise that this is a historic agreement, and we ask the chamber to respect that and to pass it. We think it is fair and it strikes the right balance.

The Intergovernmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Occupational Health and Safety provides for there to be two representatives from employer bodies and two from employee bodies. We think that strikes the right balance. One of the most important functions of Safe Work Australia will be the development of model OH&S legislation and codes of practice for approval by the WRMC and subsequent adoption by the Commonwealth and each of the states and territories.

If Safe Work Australia does not represent the collective views of states and territories there is, quite frankly, little prospect of model legislation being adopted by the states and territories. The intergovernmental agreement seeks of course to balance the interests of the jurisdictions which will be adopting the model OH&S legislation and the employers and workers who will be affected by the model legislation when adopted. Of course, I acknowledge that the membership levels agreed in the intergovernmental agreement involve a reduction of employers and workers members, when compared with the various bodies that preceded SWA. Both the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission and the Australian Safety and Compensation Council had three representatives from employers and workers. Having said that, it is difficult to see what benefits would accrue from increasing the worker and employer membership of SWA. I have not seen the argument articulated that raising the membership from two to three representatives would provide a benefit in bringing together model OH&S laws, supported by both the Commonwealth and the states and brought into reality—in other words, the outcome. The outcome of this legislation is that we end up with model OH&S laws. What you may be doing, in seeking to amend the bill, is to put in jeopardy that very position.

This government is focused on the outcomes of developing that—through the intergovernmental agreement, through this bill—into practice; that is, model OH&S laws. Any suggestion that increasing worker and employer representation on SWA will increase the expertise available to SWA or improve the quality of decision making by SWA might be one argument but, as I have said in my summation, it simply does not stack up. SWA can have and will have advice, but it is about the outcomes of providing OH&S model laws. SWA can also engage in the harmonisation process through participation advisory committees and through any consultation process undertaken by SWA, so there is a means available for the parties to move in the direction that the legislation wishes them to go.

The Prime Minister signed the intergovernmental agreement in good faith and, in so doing, committed the Commonwealth to establish SWA in the form outlined in the agreement, which means having two representatives each from employee and employer groups. In the light of that commitment the government is simply not in a position to accept the proposed amendment. Even if you can find merit in it—and I suggest there is none—we are now arguing about the process rather than the outcome, and that is what concerns me most of all in respect of this. The proposed amendment invites the government to renege on its commitment to the states and territories. The government cannot vote in favour of this amendment, without first consulting the state and territory governments. If the amendment is made, the government will need to discuss the revised composition of SWA with the states and territories. The only thing this amendment will achieve is to delay the harmonisation process.

On that basis alone, notwithstanding the argument I have already put, the government, quite frankly, does not think this process should be delayed one jot. It is important to move this legislation forward. When the Rudd government was in opposition, when for years we argued for better protection for workers, we did not accept delay then and say, ‘No, we’ll argue it again tomorrow; tomorrow might be a better day.’ We argued for better protection for workers as to occupational health and safety for today. This starts the process. I would ask you to reconsider the position that you are now putting.

In respect of picking the Australian Council of Trade Unions or, alternatively, the ACCI, the difficulty is always that, when you pick favourites, difficulties always present themselves. I was surprised that the opposition would pick the ACCI. There are a number of other substantive employer organisations which might have claim to represent the interests of employers on occupational health and safety. In so doing, the opposition have shown their hand to be, perhaps, in favour of the ACCI over others such as AiG and the like. But that is their position, not mine.

By not naming the bodies in the legislation, the minister is able to seek nominations from bodies which are the most representative organisations of employers and workers at the time nominations are sought. In this way, the minister is able to ensure that a balance of worker and employer interests are represented on SWA. Naming the representative bodies in the bill will not provide any flexibility for the future. Bodies may evolve, amalgamate, change their name or provide new identities and over time some organisations wax and others wane. When you pick the actual legislative name or the business name of an organisation, it might state that you can only have a person who is from that organisation or who is picked by that organisation. Then you get into difficulties of that organisation either delaying or frustrating the outcomes.

I am sure everyone will come with good intentions, but the point in this instance is that it is much easier and more convenient and, most importantly, it provides the best position for ensuring that you have the most representative organisation of employers and workers at the time nominations are sought. Allowing the minister the flexibility to seek nominations from a range of representative bodies gives them the opportunity to have representatives from different sections of the workforce sit on Safe Work Australia. Of course, depending on the projects Safe Work Australia is engaged on at the time, the minister might wish to have representation from particular areas of employment. Naming bodies in the legislation would again take away that flexibility. It in fact locks you into only two representative bodies irrespective of the issue that is alive at the time. With that, I would ask you to reconsider the position that you are putting.