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

I move amendment (1):

(1)    Page 5 (after line 5), after clause 5, insert:

5A  Objects

                 The objects of the Act are to:

             (a)    achieve healthy and safe workplaces; and

             (b)    establish a new body, Safe Work Australia, as a genuine tripartite partnership between governments, unions and industry.

My first amendment relates to the objects of the act. It proposes a broader objective than what is currently the case. I know where I stand on this. I do not intend to divide, but this amendment and the subsequent amendment that I will move are both in relation to the membership of the body. I want to get on record what the government’s position is in relation to this. I believe the objects are broader. They are more comprehensive than what is currently in place.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In terms of the objects, the bill that we are currently debating is not the OH&S Act. This legislation is setting the administrative arrangements for the organisation. When the model laws come to this chamber they will have object clauses, and that is where we believe our clauses will be inserted.

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

Finally, in relation to the objects that have been set out to achieve healthy and safe workplaces through the tripartite partnership between governments, unions and industries, can the minister indicate that those principles are not matters that the government itself objects to in broad terms?

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is correct. In broad terms we do not disagree with those.

Question negatived.

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

My second amendment relates to clause 10, which is about the membership constituting three members nominated by the ACTU and three members nominated by the ACCI. I move amendment (2):

(2)    Clause 10, page 9 (lines 9 to 12), omit paragraphs (1)(d) and (e), substitute:

             (d)    3 members nominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions;

             (e)    3 members nominated by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry;

This amendment is to ensure that there is a genuine partnership between the peak body of employees and the peak body of employers in this country, given their previous involvement in the administration of occupational health and safety legislation in this country.

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Xenophon, can I just clarify that you will be moving all of your amendments separately.

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

I will move this amendment as a test clause. I will not proceed with the other amendments in the event that this amendment fails—and it seems that it will.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Most of this section of the debate is already on record. The government has, through COAG, negotiated with the states an intergovernmental agreement to ensure that we get the balance right of who is actually on the board of Safe Work Australia. At the same time, flexibility is required for the minister. There may be a number of candidates who would be unacceptable to the government, and I am sure the opposition would say the same about some from the union end. So in terms of the amendment, it is not acceptable to the government. Again, it would require the states to pass this legislation through their own houses of parliament, which may place in jeopardy the legislation.

Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is not often that the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Australian Council of Trade Unions come together to lobby senators. I think both bodies went around to all parties in this chamber in relation to this matter. That seemed to make a fair bit of sense to me. The last time that we had this debate we insisted on the change to have three members nominated by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and three members nominated by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. It does make a lot of sense. It is not about favouring one or the other. It ensures that the two groups, which have worked for years on this issue with various governments of the day, are around the table. It would seem strange not to have them both around the table especially on matters concerning safe work. I will be interested to hear what the minister has to say about why they should not be included. He mentioned before that there will be other groups at the table. The ACCI and the ACTU are peak bodies and are widely acknowledged, and so I will be interested to hear what the minister has to say on the matter.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

More than likely those two groups may be represented around the table, but there are other groups that would also believe that they have a place at the table—groups like the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group. This amendment would lock those groups out, which is a very good reason why we require flexibility in terms of who is on the Safe Work Australia board.

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

For the purposes of the International Labour Organisation, the ACTU is deemed to be a representative and the representative body of the business organisations, and I understand that the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry also has a permanent representative there representing the business sector. Could the minister confirm those two matters. The other aspect of what he said in response, I think, to Senator Xenophon was not exactly rigorous and robust because, whilst it may be that you should not have the ACTU or ACCI with a complete say as to who ought to be appointed, I would have thought a nomination by the ACTU and ACCI of a person acceptable to the minister would be an appropriate course of action. For example, if the ACTU were to throw up Kevin Reynolds or Joe McDonald or Craig Johnston or somebody like that, chances are you would get a unity ticket in this place and the minister should exercise her discretion against such an appointment. But to basically allow the minister the power to cherry-pick whom she likes for whatever purposes she may have we believe is unacceptable.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to Senator Abetz, there is nothing in this legislation that contravenes ILO Convention 155. The convention stipulates that consultation must occur with the most representative organisations of employers and workers, and that is exactly what the government has done.

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

Can the minister advise the Senate of an organisation that is more representative of the Australian workforce than the ACTU?

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I have said previously, I would expect that the ACTU would be on this body, but in relation to the trade union movement and business groups there may be other organisations that believe they are entitled to a position on this body, and that would be a matter for the minister.

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

Is it not more the case that the minister might seek to duchess a particular employer organisation and give that employer organisation more credence and credibility so that she can pick and choose the person or organisation that she perceives to be most compliant with the government’s overall agenda? Just for the record, I did not at any stage suggest that this legislation was in breach of ILO conventions. I, in fact, asked whether or not the ACTU and ACCI were recognised as the most representative bodies of employees and employers respectively for representation at the ILO. I think you will find the answer to that is yes. If the ILO can see it, and if Senator Xenophon, Senator Fielding, the Australian Greens, the ACTU, ACCI and the coalition can all see it, it just beggars belief why the Australian Labor Party cannot see it, other than for the one fact that they want to pick and choose, cherry-pick and duchess those that they want to do the government’s bidding.

Mark Arbib (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Government Service Delivery) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I totally reject Senator Abetz’s claim in terms of favouritism. The legislation makes it clear that the minister must appoint members to Safe Work Australia. The legislation also makes it clear that the appointment of members representing the interest of workers and employers can only be made following nominations by bodies that the minister considers represent the interests of workers and employers across Australia. There are other organisations, depending on the issues, that may be relevant to being on the body. I do not believe, and the government does not believe, that we should be outlawing those bodies or organisations. The flexibility that is required is in the bill.

Question negatived.

Annette Hurley (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Xenophon, you are not proceeding with the other two amendments?

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

As I indicated previously, I will not be proceeding. I thank Senator Fielding for his support, but I think we know where the parties are on this.

The Temporary Chairman:

The question is that the bill stand as printed.

Question agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.