Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

But they do canvass the same grounds, Mr Temporary Chairman, and so I suppose what I am flagging is that if we do stray off opposition amendments into the Green amendments then points of order will not necessarily be helpful for the smooth flowing of the debate.

The issue in relation to these amendments relates to the ministerial direction that is able to be given, especially to the CEO. What we are suggesting relates to clause 43, line 13, which says that the CEO, according to the legislation, must also comply with any direction given by the minister, as per clause 46, or Safe Work Australia, as per clause 48. We believe that the CEO of Safe Work Australia should only be submitted to certain directions and those certain directions are those that would be outlined in clause 46 of the bill, which says the minister may give directions to the CEO but then limits them into certain categories, whereas the carte blanche that is given in clause 43 is, we believe, somewhat too extensive, especially in circumstances such as clause 57(3), which is the topic of an Australian Greens amendment, which is about the termination of the appointment of the CEO. I think these things need to be seen in context because the CEO can be terminated for misbehaviour or incapacity. That is clause 57(1). That seems to me to be fair and reasonable. Then, in clause 57(2), the CEO can be dismissed for bankruptcy and a number of other stipulated reasons, which seems fair enough.

But then we have subclause (3), which says that the minister may terminate the appointment of the CEO if the minister is of the opinion that the performance of the CEO has been—wait for it!—‘unsatisfactory’. So the minister would be able to have carte blanche in relation to the CEO and basically sway him or her and determine and direct, in a completely inappropriate way, the CEO, because what Labor is saying is that on the one hand the minister can direct the CEO in any possible way the minister wants and on the other hand the minister has the power to dismiss the CEO if they have been ‘unsatisfactory’. So with that double whammy I must say the position of the CEO really does become the plaything of the minister.

We amended this legislation during our discussions last night to ensure that the CEO and Safe Work Australia did not become the plaything of the minister where the minister could pick and choose favourites in relation to social partners. What we are also trying to do here, as an opposition, is to ensure that the CEO of Safe Work Australia does in fact have some degree of security. Indeed, given the sort of campaigns that the Australian Labor Party ran against us at the last election in relation to unfair dismissal laws, to be able to get rid of somebody just because they are ‘unsatisfactory’—not even a verbal warning is required, which I understand is now part and parcel of Forward with Fairness under Labor—is interesting, isn’t it? When the Labor Party gets the opportunity to employ somebody, the person has to abide by every direction of the minister and then, if there is anything they do that might fall into the category of being unsatisfactory, the minister can just dismiss them.

Undoubtedly those listening in would be horrified to think that one of the first pieces of legislation that the Labor Party is introducing is to employ somebody on such a tenuous contractual basis. But that, of course, is the Labor Party—they say one thing and they cross their fingers behind their back and in fact do something completely different.

Safe Work Australia is a very serious body. It really has to be given the degree of independence and confidence that allows it to act within the national interest and not be manipulated by the sort of political machinations that we know especially take place between federal and state Labor ministers. We as an opposition are very concerned to ensure that the CEO does have the capacity to act independently and therefore we are moving this amendment, which says that the CEO will be subject to certain directions by the minister under clause 46 but that the CEO should not have to comply with any direction given by the minister. We believe that is an important principle, especially given the other clauses within the legislation which undermine that position even further. We hope that the other amendments that are being foreshadowed will be carried and that that will provide a solid and secure foundation for the CEO of Safe Work Australia to operate on, ensuring harmonisation of occupational health and safety laws around the country.