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

There are a couple of wild assertions contained in there, some of which I think would be helpful if made to the AIRC, should the AIRC decide—and, of course, it is the AIRC that make the decision—whether it is extended to any other state. That is certainly not the amendment that is currently before us. One thing we do need to be clear about, though, is the terms about right of entry, which are at 152, if I can take you to that provision—and I am sure Senator Abetz may be able to assist in showing you that provision as well. It says:

A modern award must not include terms that require or authorise an official of an organisation to enter premises:

(a) to hold discussions with, or interview, an employee; or

(b) to inspect any work, process or object.

So the assertions that you make in relation to that provision would not and could not derogate from 152. So, although you might find it interesting to make them in this chamber, they are wild assertions. Clause 152, ‘Terms about right of entry’, clearly says a modern award must not include terms that require or authorise an official of an organisation to enter premises to hold discussions with or interview an employee or to inspect any work, process or object.

I have indicated what the position is. It is about ensuring that, when making the Fair Work Bill and pursuing the framework we have been talking about, we do not simply sweep aside the current protections in the state of New South Wales for drivers’ safety. Those protections are not insignificant. As I have indicated, they are about having safe driving plans and ensuring that occupational health and safety issues and drug and alcohol policy are being dealt with. If it is to extend further than New South Wales, then that is a matter for the Industrial Relations Commission—and not only if it is, but in what form it would do so: in which way it would extend and how it would extend. They are all matters for the Industrial Relations Commission to determine. It is not the case that through the Fair Work Bill it would simply be a matter of—as you indicated—spreading this around to all other states. That is plainly wrong. The Industrial Relations Commission would have to determine whether or not it would consider any other state, and it would go through such things as you have talked about, quite frankly—and I would encourage you to make those submissions to it if it was minded to look at that more broadly. Those are matters for the Industrial Relations Commission to decide, not the Fair Work Bill. What the bill seeks to do is ensure that those issues I have talked about are maintained in New South Wales—not to sweep away what currently exists for occupational health and safety, drug and alcohol policy and safe work plans. The alternative would be that by introducing the Fair Work Bill without this amendment we would be sweeping those away. That is not the intent nor the desire of this government. Those matters which you seem most concerned about, as to whether they are reflected in other states, I think are misplaced.