Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

It might come as a surprise to the parliamentary secretary—it does not worry me who I might be disagreeing with or not—but sometimes panels come up with bad laws and bad considerations. There is still no overwhelming rationale as to why 40 years of jurisprudence, accepted internationally, accepted by the International Labor Organisation, should be set on its head by this bill. For the review panel to somehow think that they have got it better than the international experience and the ILO is interesting. I might remind the parliamentary secretary that on matters of climate change and a few other things we are very able now to just reject the view of international bodies when they make certain determinations—but we will not go there for the purposes of this debate.

A concurrent responsibility clearly indicates that two or more people might have a responsibility in a particular circumstance. So there is duplication, and one imagines there could potentially be triplication or quadruplication of these responsibilities in circumstances, which happen from time to time, where you have, say, a project manager who then subcontracts certain work out and then that subcontractor subcontracts out to a number of other subcontractors, and you can go right down the chain. This happens on major building sites on a very regular basis. So you could have three or four different people or organisations concurrently responsible for the control of a situation. To suggest that that will not lead to uncertainty is to fly in the face, I would suggest, of common sense and personal experience that I think we must all acknowledge will be a problem for the future of this law.

Question put:

That the amendments (Senator Abetz's) be agreed to.

The committee divided. [16:59]

(The Chairman—Senator Parry)

Question negatived.

by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 7156 together:

(1)   Clause 19, page 23 (lines 3 to 8), omit subclause (1), substitute:

  (1)   A person conducting a business or undertaking with control over the matter at work must ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers engaged, or caused to be engaged by the person, while the workers are at work in the business or undertaking.

[primary duty of care]

(2)   Clause 19, page 23 (line 9), after “undertaking”, insert “with control over the matter at work”.

[primary duty of care]

(3)   Clause 19, page 23 (line 14), after “undertaking”, insert “with control over the matter at work”.

[primary duty of care]

(4)   Clause 19, page 24 (line 7), after “undertaking”, insert “with control over the matter at work”.

[primary duty of care]

This harmonisation has been sold to the community as being of overall benefit, and one hopes that it will ultimately remain so, but does the government accept that there will be some winners and some losers? Is the government able to advise the Senate who it would anticipate that the losers will be as a result of the harmonisation?