Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am referring to sheet 4847, which was circulated by me on 20 June. I will group some of the amendments, by leave, and I will move those accordingly. But I want to commence with amendment (1) on sheet 4847 and move that on its own. In so doing, I will briefly motivate its importance. I move:

(1)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 8), after “employees,” insert “that is a democratic association free from control by, or improper influence from, an employer or by an association or organisation of employers,”.

What I am seeking to do here is not to alter the intention of the provision by the government but to ensure that the association that is determined under this legislation is an independent one—independent, that is, of the employer or any association or organisation of employers. The bill allows the employer to set up their own organisation to represent the views of employees in any matter that affects employment, including occupational health and safety, and to consult then with their own organisation on safety arrangements. The bill would therefore be satisfied with respect to those requirements.

There is an underlying assumption here that the interests of the employee and the employer will always be the same when it comes to safety. I am sure that sometimes that is the case. You would hope that employers and employees are of one mind in these matters. But there may be situations where these interests collide. The recent example of the Beaconsfield mine is exactly one of those circumstances where employers and employees very much differed as to what the safety measures affecting that mine should be.

You might think that is a bit far from Commonwealth public servants, who people would assume are pen-pushers and clip benders, but that is not so. This bill covers all Commonwealth employees, including workers at Lucas Heights, scientists in CSIRO, geologists from Geoscience Australia, Customs officers dealing with detaining illegal fishermen, Protective Service officers working in the Solomon Islands and Antarctic expeditioners—all sorts of Commonwealth employees who are not office workers but who are actively engaged in potentially dangerous and hazardous workplaces.

This bill would mean that the employer can establish alternative organisations that purport to be representative of employees without any obligation to initiate consultation with any union that might represent those employees. Without the amendment, it would be possible for the non-employee organisations or indeed the employer to establish associations by simply stating that their principal purpose is the protection and promotion of the employees’ interests. I am advised that this proposed scheme could expand into the private sector, beyond the existing coverage of Telstra workers, for instance, to include those who provide third-party services to such workers.

So we need to be wary of this model and to ensure it is genuinely one which represents employees’ interests. As I said during my speech in the second reading debate, independent international research does indicate that, when a union is involved, you get better safety outcomes. The minister has assured us that the government is not objecting to union involvement. However, the legislation needs to ensure that, whether it is a union or not, employee representative associations are just that—they represent employees, not employers. This amendment therefore seeks to ensure that control of these associations is transparently and self-evidently by employees, that the associations represent employees and that employees will have control of any association that purports to represent their interests, whether it be through their trade union or any other organisation.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that the Labor Party is supporting this and flag that in fact the Labor Party is supporting all amendments that Senator Murray is to move on sheet 4847. Very briefly, in relation to the proposed amendment here, which seeks, as Senator Murray indicates, to ensure that any association so referred to under the amended act is independent of control or improper influence by an employer or a union, if the government is opposing this amendment, perhaps the minister could clarify why it believes that an association set out in this legislation should be capable of being one that is under the control or improper influence of an employer.

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

At the outset can I say that the amendment is undoubtedly well meaning but in practical terms is only likely to add to the complexity and to increase the potential for unproductive litigation and associated costs. The amendment may be difficult to enforce in practice; that is, establishing that an association is free from employer control or improper influence is unlikely to be a straightforward matter. I am reminded that indeed in the trade union world there have been examples of certain trade union officials being provided with beach houses by certain elements of the employer sector. Given those circumstances, if that can befall a trade union one wonders how you would then control that in the trade union context let alone in the context of any other organisation. However, what I will say on behalf of the government is that if it does become evident that this is a genuine problem then we as a government would be willing to revisit the position. But, quite frankly, I think it is very much an academic issue, one that is unlikely to arise, and we as a government remain committed to allowing employees maximum flexibility in their choice of workplace representation.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just to put this on the record: Minister, other than your really saying it might be difficult to enforce—and not giving any detail as to why that is the case—I say that obviously there is a legislative intention which is set out in this amendment around independence and freedom from improper influence. So other than a gratuitous whack at some hypothetical trade union official, the minister has failed—

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

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It would be very interesting, Minister, I am sure, to have a look at what freebies you might be provided with as a member of parliament. But that is really not the issue here. The issue here is the policy that is set out in the legislation and whether the government thinks it is appropriate that there should be a legislative direction that an association of this kind that is given this particular role under the proposed amended act should be one which is independent.

Question negatived.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move together Australian Democrat amendments (2), (5), (7), (9), (10), (12), (13) and (14):

(2)    Schedule 1, item 12, page 6 (after line 5), after subsection 16A(1), insert:

          (1A)   In developing or varying health and safety management arrangements, an employer must comply with any relevant provision in a paragraph 16(3)(c) agreement.

          (1B)   An employer must negotiate a paragraph 16(3)(c) agreement and implement the agreement into health and safety management arrangements if:

                     (a)   a majority of employees, determined by ballot and in writing, require an agreement; or

                     (b)   a certified agreement is in operation specifying provisions for developing a health and safety management arrangement.

(5)    Schedule 1, item 15, page 9 (line 2), at the end of subsection 24(3), add:

        ; and (c)     the employer must comply with the provisions of a paragraph 16(3)(c) agreement when varying designated work groups.

(7)    Schedule 1, item 18, page 10 (after line 11), after subsection 25A(1), insert:

          (1A)   An employer arranging the invitation of nominations or election in accordance with subsection (1) must comply with any relevant provisions of a paragraph 16(3)(c) agreement.

(9)    Schedule 1, item 18, page 10 (line 20), at the end of subsection 25A(4), add “and the employer arranging the election must comply with any relevant provisions in a paragraph 16(3)(c) agreement”.

(10)  Schedule 1, item 19, page 11 (line 26) to page 12 (line 4), omit the section, substitute:

A health and safety representative for a designated work group holds office for 2 years or in accordance with a paragraph 16(3)(c) agreement.

(12)

Schedule 1, page 12 (after line 30), after item 22, insert:

Add:

(5)

An employer that is notified under subsection (2) or (3) must comply with any relevant provisions of a paragraph 16(3)(c) agreement.

(13)

Schedule 1, item 24, page 13 (line 9), at the end of subclause 33(2A), add “and an employer arranging for the invitation of nominations as part of an election must comply with any relevant provisions in a paragraph 16(3)(c) agreement”.

(14)

Schedule 1, item 25, page 13 (after line 26), after subsection 34(1), insert:

(1A)

A health and safety committee must be established in accordance with any relevant provision of a paragraph 16(3)(c) agreement.

This group of amendments deals with the relationships between section 16(3)(c) agreements and other provisions in the act. We think that these need to be clearly spelt out to ensure that agreements between the employer and the employees as determined in paragraph (3)(c) have sufficient authority and cannot be unilaterally ignored by an employer. Our reading of the bill is that an employer could be able to walk away from a safety agreement. If our reading is accurate, we think that is wrong and that would seriously undermine safety standards.

Amendment (2) ensures that if a majority of employees choose to have a health and safety agreement then management has to sit down with them and negotiate one and that there should be an onus on the employer to implement the safety agreement and to fully comply with it, otherwise it can be rendered meaningless. This addresses a principle of collective bargaining. There are those who believe that collective bargaining should involve everyone. That is always, I think, impractical except in very small workplaces. Therefore I think a majority of workers are entitled to be able to determine matters such as a broad health and safety agreement so that it cannot be held up by one or two people who might disagree. It is hard to understand, if our reading of the bill is correct, why the government would want an employer to be able to walk away from a safety agreement and refuse to implement or comply with it.

Amendments (5), (7), (9), (10), (12), (13) and (14) ensure that the employer complies with section 16(3)(c) agreements with respect to varying the work group, electing health and safety representatives, the length of office of a health and safety representative, the resignation of a health and safety representative, and the establishment of the health and safety committee. In other words, they are tightening measures designed, in our view, to improve the operability of this legislation.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that the Labor Party is supporting Senator Murray’s amendments. As I understand it, from both having a look at them and listening to Senator Murray’s contribution, they essentially deal with ensuring that there is a legal requirement as to compliance on a range of fronts associated with health and safety management arrangements, in particular the arrangements pursuant to section 16(3)(c). I ask the government, through the minister, this: if the government is not supporting these amendments, would he indicate whereabouts in the proposed bill and/or principal legislation there are provisions which in fact ensure compliance with any arrangements entered into?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Link to 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.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I return to the issue of the 16(3)(c) agreements that are proposed in the bill. There was discussion of these agreements by the minister, from recollection, or his representative—I cannot recall if this minister gave the second reading speech or someone else. Leaving aside Senator Murray’s amendment (2), certainly a number of the amendments—amendments (5), (7), (9) and, I think, (12) and perhaps some others—in fact deal with the employer complying with an agreement into which it has entered. If, as I would have thought, the government is propounding these 16(3)(c) agreements as the ‘great leap forward’, can the government explain why it is that it does not believe that an employer should be bound to an agreement made under that subsection? The reference to the general duty of care, with respect, Minister, really is not to the point. I assume you are talking about an employer’s common-law duty of care not to injure employees and to have a safe workplace, or however it is so formulated. But that is not what we are talking about. You are talking about a new agreement-making regime that is given a certain statutory status under the bill that is proposed. On what basis does the government say that an employer who has entered into an agreement under 16(3)(c) ought not to be required to comply with that agreement?

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

What the Labor Party and the Democrats are seeking in this is a formal type of agreement, whereas what we are seeking is for workplaces to enter into arrangements where the discussion between a worker and the employer is very relevant and where the employer at the end of the day is still required to abide by their duty of care. With great respect, we can debate this, but I think that is very much to the point, albeit that that point is lost on Senator Wong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting, Minister, that you cannot have a debate about the detail of the legislation without the gratuitous insults. But we have come to expect that from you. Perhaps the minister can answer this: is it the government’s intention that arrangements under 16(3)(c) do not have to be complied with by employers?

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

The employer has to comply with the arrangements that are entered into.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is there any section of the act which requires the compliance that the minister has just alluded to?

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

I have been told that 16(1) would point the honourable senator to the fact that they would be in breach of their duty of care, which is the overarching principle in this.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it the government’s assertion that the general duty of care contained in 16(1) therefore requires compliance with the provisions of a 16(3)(c) agreement?

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

This relates to Commonwealth employees. Comonwealth employees—sorry, the Public Service in this country is governed by other legislation as well, and, in relation to this situation, if the Commonwealth has entered into an agreement with its employees, then it is bound by that agreement.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am still unclear, Minister. And, as I think you corrected yourself, it may apply to people who are not employed by the Commonwealth as the legal employer. Is that correct? Does the legislation extend beyond people who are technically employed by the Commonwealth, such as Commonwealth statutory authorities?

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

Yes.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So they are a separate legal entity to the Commonwealth—a statutory authority. So do I understand the government’s position to be that as part of the agreement the Commonwealth may, for other legal reasons, be bound, but any employer entering into a 16(3)(c) arrangement under this legislation is not bound to comply with that under the terms of this legislation? There have been two or three answers on this front. First it was: ‘Oh, it’s the general duty of care.’ Second it was: ‘It’s the Commonwealth.’ And third was your original thing, which was: ‘We seek arrangements not formal agreements.’

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

That is right.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My and the Labor Party’s question is very clearly: are you requiring any employer entering into a 16(3)(c) agreement to comply with the provisions of that agreement?

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

I hate to disappoint the honourable senator in this, but there has been nothing inconsistent—and, yes, that is the expectation.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have listened to this exchange with some interest. Before I make points which I hope are pertinent to the exchange, I would say to the minister through the chair that I think you should be careful about pointing fingers at the Democrats and a prescriptive approach, because out there in what is known as voter land, when I get people reacting to the approximately 1,800 bills that have been passed under your government and complaining about the Financial Services Reform Act, the tax act, the GST, BAS, superannuation returns or anything else—in which, at times, I have had a part to play because I have voted with the government on them—the finger tends to be pointed at the government, not at the Democrats, for making regulations, laws and so on—

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

Senator Abetz interjecting—

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

highly prescriptive and very annoying. So whilst I certainly would not claim clean hands on this matter, I do suggest you avoid pointing fingers at me or the Democrats for being of a prescriptive frame of mind.

Returning to the discussion, it seems to me that the government may have built an unnecessary cross for it to carry, because if you look at section 16(3)(c) the substantive clause has got the subordinate clauses attached to it, and it refers to safety management arrangements. That sounds like a slippery way of trying to infer informality. But that can never get you away from the duties which have well-established jurisprudence with respect to employer-employee obligations. However, if you look at subordinate clauses (a), (b), (c), (c)(i), (c)(ii) and (d), you will see that a number of words appear there for which the arrangements may provide—in (a), for a policy; in (b), for arrangements; in (c), for agreements; in (d), for training; and in (c)(i) and (c)(ii), for consultation and such other matters. It seems to me that in any situation where these matters are taken to a court—and the Lord forbid that occurs, but these things do occur—a judge would look at this in totality and would aggregate those and say they have a commonality or congruence.

As you know, I am not a lawyer, but through my various business arrangements over the years I have probably spent millions on those, so I have learnt some of their tricks, much to the collective cost of the businesses I have been involved with. It seems to me that you cannot escape the inference that an arrangement is a formal obligation in law. Therefore, I am surprised you have used different language throughout and that a definition was not simply established up-front that an agreement can be an arrangement, policy, this, that or the other. However, I am surprised at the range of legislative language used. Perhaps there is a good reason for it which I have not had my attention drawn to.

Returning to the object of the amendments, they are to provide some clarity with respect to these issues—to make the obligations and responsibilities clear. That is all. The government and its officers might well have been able to design them better, but in my view they improve what you have before us.

Question negatived.

I move Democrat amendment (3) on sheet 4847:

(3)    Schedule 1, item 12, page 7 (line 9), omit “12 month”, substitute “5 year”.

The government’s bill seeks to introduce certificates so that employers can be satisfied that a union has membership in their organisation. The Bills Digest notes that the certification process is more stringent in this current bill than in previous versions of the bill, and these certificates are planned to run for only 12 months. It is highly unlikely where there is a representative union that union membership would cease to exist within a 12-month period. I am far from an expert in union matters—and perhaps the shadow minister could tell us—but I believe that normal union membership is the period of the membership itself and then you get a leeway of several months in case you have not renewed your financial membership in time. So, typically, I would not expect union membership to be a precise 12-month period.

There are already checks and balances in the bill which would allow a certificate to be cancelled by Comcare if the union had no members in the workplace. Given the administrative impact on unions and employees—the onerous and stringent nature of the certification process—wouldn’t it be more practical and reasonable for the certificate to be valid for a longer period of time? Accordingly, the amendment proposes to increase the life of the certificate from 12 months to five years—bearing in mind that we would expect that the persons to whom the certificates relate would be related to arrangements or agreements which would have a tenure much longer than just 12 months. You need to try and coincide these things. I cannot imagine any employers or even unions in their right minds wanting to keep changing these agreements throughout a short period of 12 months.

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

In opposing Senator Murray’s amendments, the government is of the view that the certificates issued in relation to the particular consultation are issued in relation to a particular consultation. It is highly unlikely that those consultations would take place over a five-year period. That is why we think that is excessive. It is reasonable that a certificate be renewed if necessary after 12 months, and that would keep it fresh. The certificate is spent once consultations on health and safety management arrangements, or variations of them, are finished. It is reasonable that for new consultations, employees should seek a new certificate. Certificates are only required when an employee wishes to be represented by an organisation but does not wish to be identified, so we believe the 12-month period is sufficient.

Question negatived.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendment (4) on sheet 4847:

(4)    Schedule 1, item 12, page 7 (after line 22), at the end of section 16B, add:

Note:      A person who breaches this section may be subject to civil action (see Schedule 2).

I have always rather liked the idea of notes in legislation. I think it was former minister Peter Reith who introduced me to them, and I have a legislative soft spot for them. Can you have a legislative soft spot? Who knows? It is a weakness of mine, so indulge me for a moment.

Section 16 requires that the employer consult with the certified employee representative. However, there is no consequence if the employer refuses to consult and, by doing so, potentially undermines the safety process. The amendment at item (4) notes that a person who breaches section 16 may be subject to civil action as outlined in schedule 2 of the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991. Without this amendment, we think employers and employees would not be alert to the potential consequences leading to poor OH&S outcomes. It is designed as a signpost or a flag as to that matter.

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

Briefly, we believe that the amendment is unnecessary. There are two people or organisations that could breach that which Senator Murray refers to. The first would be the CEO of Comcare, and that person is bound by the Privacy Act 1988. In relation to the other organisation, that would be the employees’ representative organisation. Not to divulge information that organisation has obtained is implicit in the relationship that the employee would have with his or her representative organisation. Therefore, with respect, we do not believe this amendment is necessary.

Question negatived.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (6), (8) and (15) on sheet 4847:

(6)    Schedule 1, item 16, page 9 (after line 21), after subsection 24A(2), insert:

          (2A)   An employer must provide a copy of the list of all the designated work groups to an employee or an employee representative on receipt of a written request.

(8)    Schedule 1, item 18, page 10 (after line 11), after subsection 25A(1), insert:

          (1B)   An employer must provide a copy of the list of all health and safety representatives and deputies to an employee or an employee representative on receipt of written request.

(15)  Schedule 1, item 45, page 18 (line 24), at the end of paragraph 74(1)(c), add “and the number of designated work groups, the number of health and safety representatives and the number of health and safety representatives completing training in accordance with section 27”.

These amendments are straightforward. They serve to introduce greater transparency into the new safety process. They improve communications by requiring the employer to provide a copy of the list of designated work groups and health and safety representatives to employee representatives and in annual reporting. One would hope this would be an automatic function of the administrative processes in any organisation, but, in the interests of making sure it happens, this is designed for that effect.

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

The government opposes these amendments as well. To put it another way, it is another example of boiling the frog. The proposed amendments of themselves do not appear exceptionally onerous. However, in the wider scheme of things, they are out of step with the government’s intention to redirect effort from rule making and record shuffling towards practical arrangements that improve workplace safety. The bill does require that the employer has available for inspection an up-to-date list of designated work groups and health and safety representatives, and the lists must be available for inspection by employees and investigators at all reasonable times.

The proposal that an employee representative have an enforceable right to demand a copy is a potentially backward step as it seeks to give union officials a special role. Because the lists must be available for inspection by employees at all reasonable times, it is therefore not necessary. One of the primary purposes of the bill is to encourage direct negotiation between employees and employers without the intervening presence of unions.

Ruth Webber (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Webber interjecting—

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

Jeez, the unions didn’t look after her! In relation to item 15, the bill seeks to shift resources and effort from rule making and record keeping to practical activities, and the training statistics of themselves are of marginal relevance in assessing outcomes. Organisations may keep them if they see a benefit, and many already do. However, mandating the provision of training statistics would be yet another bureaucratic add-on requiring more information gathering and further complicating existing record keeping. In brief, we oppose the amendment.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to place on record a couple of points: the first is that Labor supports these amendments. The second point is to indicate to the chamber that the anti-union contribution that the minister falls back on as his kind of reflexive contribution in so many of these debates in relation to occupational health and safety and in relation to industrial relations more generally has just been demonstrated again. The provision that he is so worried about or so opposed to includes something as simple as providing a list of health and safety representatives to an employee or an employee representative, whether that is a union or some other representative.

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

No.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is what item 8 inserts, which is one of the amendments that the minister addressed. You can say ‘no’ but that is actually what you said.

Given what we know about the importance of tripartite arrangements, given what we know about how effective those have been in improving health and safety in the workplace and given what we know about the unacceptably high incidence of workplace injury in this country, it is extraordinary that the minister’s best response to a suggestion from the Democrats, supported by the opposition, about giving people a list of who is a representative in their workplace is the kind of response that says, ‘We do not want unions to have a privileged role.’

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

That is just wrong.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister summed it up in his remarks or perhaps earlier in the committee debate—I think this is right—when he used the phrase ‘that we are about removing unions’ privileged involvement’. That is the agenda here.

The agenda is not how we set up an arrangement which is most likely to minimise workplace injury. The agenda is not one of sound public policy. The agenda is not what is effective. At its heart, this legislation is about the government’s difficulty with anything that has collective employee representation involvement. It is about your dislike of the trade union movement. You cannot help yourself when you are confronted by reasonable amendments put in this place. You have to go yet again to that same old reflexive union-bashing agenda that we have heard so many times in this place from this minister.

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

Unfortunately, I do need to respond to that contribution. As I indicated earlier, the bill already requires that the employer has available for inspection an up-to-date list of—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why did you say what you said?

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

Exactly what I am reading out is what I said in my previous contribution. You are so anti anything that I personally say or that the government might contribute that you do not listen to the actual provisions of this bill. Let me repeat for the benefit of Senator Wong: the bill already requires that the employer has available for inspection an up-to-date list of designated work groups’ health and safety representatives. The lists must be available for inspection by employees and investigators at all reasonable times. What was being suggested by Senator Murray’s amendment was a special role for the trade unions. We do not believe that that is warranted, given the open-ended nature of these provisions.

The honourable senator opposite, Senator Wong, has continually referred to us as somehow being anti union. The simple fact is that the majority of workers in Commonwealth employ have decided for themselves not to be members of a trade union. It therefore stands to reason to those of us that want to look after the workers, both union and non-union, that there be some capacity for the non-union members to be represented as well. That is why we have a provision in the terms I have just read out that is available to all employees.

Question negatived.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Chairman, the only amendment left on sheet 4847 is item 11, and I do not propose moving that item. We will accept defeat with respect to the amendments that we put.

In closing my own contribution to this debate, I find there is a disconnection sometimes between what the minister and members of the government say that they are on about and the way in which they embellish what they say they are on about. For instance, the minister in his speech on the second reading made a remark which I applaud—that the government is not anti union, that this bill is not designed to be anti union and that you are not framing it with that perspective in mind. But then as soon as you, Minister, get into debate and interchange—this is essentially the point that Senator Wong has made—the ‘lie’, if I can express it that way and without meaning an untruth from you, is given to that statement because your very demeanour and your examples indicate an anti-union bias.

I believe that attitude in the Liberal Party, and probably in the National Party too, is derived from the fact that the unions and Labor are joined together as the political wing, industrial wing and so on. But I have always tried to separate that. As members of the chamber know, I am of the view that union members should not be automatically assumed to be counted as members towards the delegates who go to union conferences, for instance. On many occasions I have expressed a dislike for some of the arrangements which tie the political and industrial wings of the Labor Party and the unions. But that does not turn me into an anti-union person.

I would say, through the chair, Minister, that it is unfortunate that quite often a very strong anti-union bias comes through. I imagine that if I or anybody else stood here and, instead of the word ‘union’ in a sentence, put the word ‘corporate’ or ‘company’ in the sentence and constantly diminished or demeaned the corporate world, it would be entirely wrong. There are many fine men and women who run the companies of this country as well as many fine men and women who are in employee organisations, both union and non-union. Without seeking to sound like a preacher, Minister—

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

You are.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am. That is why I have said that.

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

It doesn’t overcome it.

Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it does not overcome it. I agree. But I would say to you that saying you are not anti union and then in debate sounding as if you are creates a problem of perception. That is what you are getting a reaction to. With those remarks, I will close.

Grant Chapman (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.