Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the committee does not further insist on its amendments to which the House of Representatives has insisted on disagreeing.

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

I just want to give a very quick potted version of the history of the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 thus far. I think everybody in this chamber supports the concept of a national OH&S system. This legislation was put forward to the Senate, and the Senate made some amendments to that legislation. Those amendments have now been to the House, and the Labor government is arrogantly refusing to consider even one of the amendments that were carried by the Senate. The legislation is based on an intergovernmental agreement between the Commonwealth, the states and the territories. Therefore, I think the government can quite reasonably assert that amendments that may run counter to that intergovernmental agreement are causing them some difficulty. I think that is a reasonable proposition for them to put. However, there are a lot of other amendments that in no way, shape or form impact on the intergovernmental agreement, yet each one of those amendments has also been arrogantly rejected by the government.

I can indicate to the Senate that in a spirit of cooperation, and in acknowledgment that there is an intergovernmental agreement at stake here, my friend and colleague the Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Michael Keenan, the member for Stirling, wrote to Ms Gillard, the minister, on 12 November 2008. He said in his letter: ‘I am writing to inform you that I am very happy to sit down with you and discuss a way forward through this impasse.’ That letter was on 12 November—some three weeks ago. Mr Keenan’s office received a very arrogant phone call indicating that the minister was not interested in any discussions whatsoever.

It is interesting to note that the overwhelming majority, if not all, of the amendments that the Senate carried had the support of a majority of senators, including the coalition and also the Greens, Senator Xenophon and Senator Fielding. On top of that, they had the support of the ACTU and the ACCI. So we had a coalition—beyond the normal coalition that we refer to in this place—between the Liberal and National parties, the Greens, Senator Xenophon and Family First, and then we had a marriage, even, between the ACTU and ACCI. Yet Minister Gillard so very arrogantly says that they have got all of it wrong. ‘They have absolutely all of it wrong,’ she says, ‘and we will not consider even one of their amendments as being worthy.’ And, what is more, this came after we put out the palm branch to them and said, ‘Let’s have a discussion to see if we can compromise’—which we did three weeks ago. The minister has simply replied that the government is not interested in even having a sensible discussion to see if there is a way forward.

In these circumstances we, as an opposition, will be voting against the motion that is before the Senate. In circumstances where the minister is arrogantly unwilling to engage in any sensible discussion in relation to a way forward without those reasons, proposals, suggestions and rationale being put forward to us, there is no reason, I believe, why this Senate should back down on its proposals. Where some of the Senate’s amendments did, in fact, offend against the intergovernmental agreement, they might possibly be areas that could be revisited. But all those other amendments that did not so offend should continue to be pursued. That is a personal point of view. But the problem is that we cannot even have that discussion with Minister Gillard because she is so arrogant, so full of her own self-importance and so unwilling to discuss with anybody—

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not like you, Eric!

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

Senator Collins foolishly interjects. Might I remind her that this is not just the Liberal-National Party position we are talking about. This is the ACTU position. This is the ACCI position. This is the Greens position. This is Senator Xenophon’s position. This is Family First’s position. You have everybody, basically, in coalition against the Labor government, and Minister Gillard still arrogantly asserts: ‘I don’t have to talk to anybody. I just want to force it through the Senate.’ This is, of course, in complete contradistinction to the Labor Party’s assertions before the last federal election about the importance of listening to the Senate and compromising in the Senate, and about understanding that the Senate does have a contribution to make in relation to the formulation of legislation.

Here we have a situation where the Senate, with a huge amount of community and crossbench support, has put forward proposals. The ACTU and ACCI, who are the social partners—they are going to be the two groups at the coalface of this occupational health and safety scheme that would be run nationally—are also supporting these amendments. We write to the minister asking if we can sit down and discuss this, and we are just being ignored. In such circumstances, I am indicating that the coalition is minded to continue its support for all the amendments until such time as the minister is willing to come to the table and engage in some sensible discussions to see this matter move forward.

Occupational health and safety is a hugely important issue. The intergovernmental agreement that has now been reached is in fact building on that which was evolving under the previous coalition government. Everyone is in heated agreement about the need for a national system, so let us not have any blast from those opposite as to how we are not in favour of a good occupational health and safety system in this country—we are. We support it but we believe it could be enhanced by these amendments. That is why we support them. Given the time constraints we labour under, I will complete my remarks there.

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

I do understand that there are time constraints, but I will say this: Labor went to the last election with a workplace relations plan that got the balance right between prosperity and fairness.

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

Senator Abetz interjecting—

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

And I will get there clearly. Our policy agenda also provided certainty and simplicity to those businesses, large and small, that operate across state borders. Under Labor’s plan, whether an employer operates in Townsville, Tamworth or Torquay, the same workplace laws should apply.

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

What about Tasmania?

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

Including Tasmania. Uniform national workplace laws for the private sector will end the cost and confusion for businesses, particularly when they are dealing with separate and sometimes conflicting laws. Our plan is good for business, good for the economy and good for national productivity. Business understands that the harmonisation of Australia’s occupational health and safety system into one national system is a critical component of the seamless economy that the government is committed to.

The opposition say they agree, but they are not agreeing. This is their final opportunity to make a difference. The opposition can join with the government and ensure that we have a national system. They can make a difference by supporting the government in this endeavour. The practical effect of this bill will be that states and territories will enter into an agreement and then finalise, through their various processes, uniform occupational health and safety laws across Australia. The practical effect of the position taken by those opposite is the continuation of the OH&S arrangements that have plagued business during the 11 years of the Howard government. They thought that yelling from the rooftop in Canberra was the way to get things done. After almost 12 years they achieved nothing in OH&S harmonisation.

What we have put forward is an end to the 11 years of confusion. More importantly, what we have put forward will ensure that we do have harmonised OH&S laws across the states and territories. The opposition constantly talk about the need to support Australian businesses during these difficult times. Well, here is their opportunity to support uniform occupational health and safety laws by agreeing to pass this bill, which will get those laws up and running. The IGA seems to be the sticking point for the opposition.

It has been left to the Rudd Labor government to deliver on these important reforms—and we are delivering. As I mentioned earlier in the debate, COAG has agreed to the intergovernmental agreement for regulatory and operational reform in occupational health and safety, and for the first time governments from each state and territory in the Commonwealth have formally committed to the harmonisation of OH&S laws. The amendments proposed by the opposition in the Senate to the Safe Work Australia Bill are an opportunistic effort to prevent the harmonisation of national OH&S legislation. To this end, the opposition should not continue to insist on their own occupational health and safety laws. The opposition should see the writing on the wall and agree that we should have, once and for all, uniform occupational health and safety laws. I will not continue to argue this. The opposition seem wedded to the position of undermining harmonisation across OH&S laws.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have a peculiar situation here where we are all in heated agreement about the need to reform OH&S laws and we all support the Safe Work Australia Bill. The Senate, with fairly historic cooperation between all the opposition parties—

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And Independents.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And Independents, Senator Xenophon.

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

Non-government.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I should say ‘non-government’. All the non-government senators agree with these amendments. We consider them to be very sensible amendments that enhance the legislation. Again I find myself in the peculiar situation where I am agreeing with Senator Abetz—

Stephen Conroy (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Then you know you must be wrong.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Aren’t you naturally suspicious?

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I was, and that is why I re-examined this issue—to make sure that I had it right. I have re-examined and re-examined again and I still believe that these amendments enhance the bill. I have not heard any arguments as to why these amendments do not enhance the bill. Like the opposition, we have not had any engagement with the minister’s office to talk about these amendments and to see if in fact we got it wrong. Maybe we did have it wrong.

As I said, we have given this matter very careful consideration. We have consulted people on a number of occasions about these amendments. Let me remind people what these amendments are about. They insert an objects clause, which seems to me pretty sensible. They increase the number of employer and employee representatives—again, sensible and in fact the way it used to be. They remove some ministerial discretion in appointing employer and employee representatives—that has probably got right up the government’s nose. They remove the ability of the ministerial council to amend Safe Work’s operational strategic plans. They remove additional voting rights for government representatives on Safe Work Australia—because, remember, they were double-dipping. They remove the power of the minister to direct a CEO contrary to strategic operational plans and the power of the minister to terminate the CEO for unsatisfactory performance. And they include an audit committee. These were all very sensible amendments that enhanced an independent, tripartite body.

So we believe these amendments should still proceed. Like the coalition, we are not of a mind to change our minds and we wish to stand by these amendments because, as I said, we believe they are sensible amendments. One would have thought the government would have taken the opportunity of the ministerial council to have a serious discussion about these amendments, instead of taking the approach of: ‘We entered into an agreement with the states and therefore you can’t change this.’ Again we are seeing an example of the government undermining and thumbing their noses at the democratic process and the Senate’s ability to properly review legislation and make amendments where, we believe, they enhance the legislation. The government have decided that they are not going to engage in any discussion with anybody about this.

I also remind the chamber that the ACTU today again came out publicly and said, ‘We think these amendments improve this piece of legislation,’ and that they want and support these amendments.

Where we have collectively consulted stakeholders, reviewed the legislation and tried to improve it, the government apparently are not of a mind to do that. They have not bothered to talk to us; they have not bothered to explain other than to say, ‘We’ve reached an agreement with the states and therefore you can’t do this; you’re slowing up the legislation and therefore we don’t want them.’ That is not meaningful engagement. That is not actually trying to find real outcomes. So the Greens are also of a mind not to change our minds and will continue to support these amendments, which we believe will enhance this bill and the subsequent act and provide a much better and stronger Safe Work Australia.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I say ‘ditto’ to the remarks of Senator Siewert. It is a rare and beautiful thing to see Senator Abetz arm in arm, shoulder to shoulder with the ACTU. I may be wrong, but there appears to have been unwillingness on the part of the government to sit down and negotiate with the non-government senators who have put up these amendments. I believe that there is room for some consensus and compromise in relation to this and I would urge the government actually to sit down and talk to us—I think they will find us quite reasonable to deal with—because these are important amendments that will, I believe, enhance the operation of this legislation.

Question put:

That the motion (Senator Conroy’s) be agreed to.