Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to set the record straight on a number of ill-informed comments and misinterpretations made in this chamber on 11 October 2006 by Senator Barnett, from my home state of Tasmania. Most of Senator Barnett’s speech indulged in using the standard Liberal Party mantra—an illogical mantra that we have all heard before—but I particularly wish to comment on Senator Barnett’s remarks on 11 October in which he revealed a complete lack of understanding of a trial being conducted by the Tasmanian government to allow four union officials to enter workplaces and inspect workplace health and safety hazards. Senator Barnett accused the Tasmanian government of compromising Workplace Standards Tasmania, the government authority responsible for the maintenance of safety and health standards in the workplace.

Senator Barnett might be interested to know that in Tasmania for the 2004-05 financial year there were over 10,000 workers compensation claims lodged for injuries sustained through a person’s work. The figure for 2005-06 was 10,018. Although injury numbers have shown a slow, downward trend over recent years from a high of around 20,000 in the mid 1990s, there is clearly still a long way to go. The Mercury article of 23 October this year entitled ‘Work death rate soars: Tassie nine lost in year’ reported that on average 27 Tasmanians are injured at work each day. Since the 2000-01 financial year, there have been 51 workplace deaths in Tasmania. This calendar year, there have been four more deaths in Tasmanian workplaces, including the much publicised death of Larry Knight at Beaconsfield. That is an absolute tragedy. It is also absolutely unacceptable.

I know that every person in this chamber agrees with me that every Australian worker deserves to be able to go to work without putting at risk their health or, even worse, their life. The Tasmanian government would be derelict in its duty if it did not constantly investigate ways to reduce this terrible toll. Yet Senator Barnett and his colleagues oppose a trial to allow four sets of extra eyes into workplaces, for no reason other than that these eyes belong to unionists and the Howard government wants unions out of workplaces. Regardless of whether there is a job to be done, regardless of whether these individuals have the training, the experience and the motivation to do this important job of inspecting workplace safety, according to Senator Barnett they should be disqualified because of their affiliation with unions.

Senator Barnett and his Liberal Party associates in the Tasmanian state Liberal opposition have made a number of allegations about this trial. Perhaps they might be interested to learn the facts. First, the purpose of the trial is to improve workplace safety and to help prevent injury through a mechanism whereby potential hazards can be identified before they actually cause problems, and employers can be given the time to undertake change without penalty. Second, the powers and functions conferred on persons authorised under Tasmania’s Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 are extremely limited. They can only enter a workplace if they reasonably suspect that a contravention of the act has occurred, or is occurring, and they must confine their inspection to the part of the workplace concerned. They must tell the person in charge as soon as they enter and show their authorisation under the act. If they have any concerns they must notify employers in writing and allow reasonable opportunity for matters to be resolved. If this fails, they must notify Workplace Standards Tasmania of any breaches or suspected breaches. Enforcement or prosecution quite rightly remains the function of officers from Workplace Standards Tasmania. Also, they are prohibited from using this role to solicit union membership.

The trial commenced on 1 September 2006 and will conclude on 1 March 2007. At present, two members from each of the CFMEU and the AWU have been given authorisations, after satisfactory completion of induction training. Throughout the trial, they will meet regularly with inspectors from Workplace Standards Tasmania. Officials from the CFMEU are restricted to visiting workplaces involved in the building and construction industry; those from the AWU are restricted to workplaces involving mining. I cannot understand why Senator Barnett and the conservatives would be opposed to this preventive approach to improving Tasmania’s workplace safety record.

We have now seen the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry claim that the trial contravenes ILO convention 81, which essentially requires governments to ensure that their inspectors do not have conflicts of interest that would interfere with their impartiality. This would have to be a very long bow indeed. Union officials have always enjoyed a right of entry to workplaces where health and safety issues were at stake. Moreover, the work of respected experts such as Professor Michael Quinlan of the University of New South Wales indicates that union officials are amongst the most effective health and safety inspectors. In any case, the union officials involved in this trial have no powers of enforcement or prosecution, as I have said.

The ILO conference of 2006 reports arrangements similar to those now being trialled in Tasmania that are deemed consistent with article 6 of ILO convention No. 81. We all share an interest in creating an environment in which the health, safety and welfare of employees in their workplaces are a priority and our goal is to see employees return safely home to their families. The aim of this trial is to make a contribution to that goal. Senator Barnett wrongly claimed that no such model of this trial exists in other states. Entry to workplaces by authorised representatives—that is, union officials—is permitted in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and the ACT. In all these jurisdictions, entry is permitted under relevant workplace health and safety legislation or occupational health and safety legislation. In many instances, authorised representatives have greater powers than have been granted under the Tasmanian trial. For example, in New South Wales, Queensland, WA and the ACT, authorised representatives have the power to inspect and copy documents.

On this side of the chamber, we support initiatives to improve workplace health and safety. We support initiatives that could help reduce the toll of workplace injuries and deaths. We see the need for workplace law that protects employees whilst protecting the interests of responsible employers. It appears that ideology prevents those on the other side from taking a balanced approach to workplace issues. Senator Barnett opposes this trial. It seems that a blind hatred of unions and an unwillingness to recognise the rights of workers can get in the way of supporting a reasonable measure to improve the safety of workers. Senator Barnett should be congratulating the Tasmanian government and Minister Kons for this initiative. However, Senator Barnett has already demonstrated through his support for the Work Choices legislation that he shares the desire of the Prime Minister to give ever more power in the workplace to employers at the expense of workers and their families.

Several union organisations have brought to the attention of the ILO a number of concerns about the Work Choices legislation—in particular, conflicts with Australia’s obligations under ILO convention No. 87, freedom of association, and ILO convention No. 98, the right to organise and to collectively bargain. The ILO’s Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions responded to these concerns. On my reading of the response, the committee found that the complaints were either clearly or potentially justified—but it seems that the government remains relaxed and comfortable in the face of criticism. It seems that it has little time for international labour obligations.

The history of workplace conditions in Australia and elsewhere would not lead anyone to the conclusion that all employers can be trusted to behave reasonably, responsibly and fairly. Just about anyone who has been an employee knows that. The purpose of international conventions and domestic law and regulation in the workplace is to ensure that responsible behaviour on the part of employers and employees alike is not purely voluntary. Mr Howard and his supporters here and elsewhere appear to be committed to dismantling protections for workers and removing constraints on employers. The result is that employers are free to behave responsibly, if they choose, and employees are free to fend for themselves, if they can.

Although some employers will be responsible, and some employees will have the confidence and market clout to fend for themselves, it would be disingenuous in the extreme to claim that all will be well for the majority of workers. For many it will be a case of ‘take it or leave’. Surely no-one would claim that those who are in most need of protection will be afforded it in this brave new industrial world. This government has been found wanting. It is unable to work in the interests of the community as a whole and to operate on any basis other than of short-term expediency and blind ideology. To abandon worker protections is a disgraceful position to take and it is a sell-out of Australian workers and their families.