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

The Senate is considering the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 [No. 2]

Ms Gillard has now realised that in that fit of pique, as she stormed out away from the parliament, she could no longer achieve those ends and she is now reintroducing the legislation. I would have thought that that lesson might have invited Ms Gillard to reconsider her position and at least accept one of the amendments moved by the crossbenches and the coalition, just as a sign of good faith that not all wisdom resides only with a government, with Labor.

As I said before, and I will say it again to make the point: when you have the ACTU, ACCI, the Greens, the coalition, Senator Fielding and Senator Xenophon all agreeing on a particular course of action, there is a fair bet there might be a kernel of substance in what is being put forward; there is just a very slight chance. But no; Ms Gillard ‘we know best’ is insisting that this legislation comes before us and will not accept any amendments. One wonders how this has in fact got through the government and Labor’s processes other than, I think, possibly as a need for Labor to give Ms Gillard a bit of confidence boost. She has been humiliated in recent times in relation to her quite outlandish claims on the school funding, Building the Education Revolution, a $1.7 billion shortfall, and she still has yet to explain whether that was a muck-up on her part or whether the program was oversubscribed. We do not know how that occurred. Then, in the other part of her portfolio, employment, we have her huge embarrassment where she continually told the Australian people that there would be no detriment to Australian workers with award modernisation. Just last week the Australian Industrial Relations Commission blew Ms Gillard out of the water on that and has exposed that as a complete misrepresentation—I was about to say a fraud—of what will actually occur to and for Australian workers. She also made that claim to employers, saying that they would not have any extra costs with award modernisation. When we asked that that be put in the legislation, Labor refused because they knew that it was another promise that they could not live up to.

What we have with Ms Gillard is somebody, who has had this fanfare of publicity, all concerned about her image but incapable of dealing with the substance matters of her portfolio. Having been, as I said, humiliated with the aspects of her education revolution—so-called—and award modernisation—so-called—I dare say that certain people in the Labor caucus said, ‘We’ve got to give her a bit of a confidence boost and bring back the safe work legislation.’ We as a coalition have thought long and hard about what we should do with this legislation. Are we still committed to the amendments that we supported last time around? Absolutely. But we are also absolutely committed to ensuring that we have a nationally consistent system in relation to occupational health and safety. What we now know from Ms Gillard is that if she does not get it all her own way, 100 per cent, we will not have a nationally consistent system, because she will simply not countenance any amendments. Sensible though they be, amendments that have the support across the parties, across the industrial divide of employers and unions—despite all that, she says she will not countenance any amendments. So the coalition has to decide whether or not we keep insisting on those amendments or whether we say a nationally consistent scheme should be paramount.

We have come to the reluctant conclusion that getting a national scheme underway should be the paramount consideration, but it reflects very poorly on Labor that they do business in such an arrogant way, willing to put the nationally consistent system on hold subject to them getting absolutely everything. Can I just remind the Senate of some of the amendments that we supported in relation to the number of people on the committee and who should be represented on the committee. I would have thought that there was not much opposition to the ACTU nominating somebody who would represent the workers’ interests. But the minister will not countenance even that because she and the government want to personally appoint their people. So if the ACTU or ACCI were to put forward people not to Ms Gillard’s liking, she can simply refuse them. This is the arrogance of Labor that is now no longer oozing but gushing out everywhere in relation to their entire decision making on the future of this country. It is not about good, sound policy. It is not about evidence based policy that we heard so much about during the election campaign. It is all about having the power to appoint your mates, the ones that might be compliant and the ones who will be told on the side, ‘You do the government’s bidding on this and there might be something further for you down the road.’ It is interesting that the minister in this place who has control of it is none other than Senator Arbib, who has just brought his caravan from New South Wales right-wing Labor up here to Canberra. All the hallmarks of New South Wales Labor have now been brought into this Senate chamber courtesy of Senator Arbib’s presence.

That is exactly how Labor does business in New South Wales, the discredited government that it is, and those same sorts of tactics and that same sort of inappropriate approach to public policy making have now been brought into Canberra into the Senate courtesy of the New South Wales Labor Party as represented by Senator Arbib. It is not good policy to ignore the wishes of such a broad cross-section of the community. I think that Senator Siewert and I both thought it quite spooky last time we were debating this legislation that we were on a unity ticket in relation to these matters. Senator Siewert and I both had to do a double-take and recheck our views on these matters. But what it shows to Senator Siewert’s supporters and to coalition supporters is that the Greens are not wrong all the time. Most of the time, yes, but not all of the time. For Greens supporters, it shows that sometimes the coalition might get something right as well.

But when Labor, Senator Arbib and the Labor caravan from Sydney—and let us not forget that it was the New South Wales Right that delivered the numbers to allow Mr Rudd to attain the leadership—bring these sorts of practices to Canberra it is a matter of great regret, and Safe Work Australia will be worse off for these amendments not being passed. But it is quite clear that, if these amendments are insisted upon yet again, Labor will withdraw the legislation yet again and we will not have that nationally consistent approach which we when in government were supporting. We were developing it and this is now, if you like, a further evolution of that, something which we support in principle. So our decision is to support the legislation as is, albeit reluctantly, because we believe that the amendments that were passed last time would have enhanced the legislation, but Labor simply cannot see their way clear for purely political reasons that have nothing to do with a benefit to worker safety in Australia. That is the issue I suppose that concerns us as a coalition the most. Worker safety, Safe Work Australia, can all fly out the window because of Ms Gillard’s arrogance and Labor’s determination to ensure that they can appoint whatever hack they want to these various positions without genuine input from the ACTU and the employer representative organisation, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

So whilst the opposition usually says at the end of the second reading speech that we either support the bill or oppose the bill, it is with great reluctance that we support the bill. But I still hope that during the committee stages the government might come to its senses and agree to some of the amendments. It is not over until the final vote but, given the arrogant approach of Ms Gillard, I doubt that there will be a change of heart. But I say to the government: it would be an indication of Labor’s genuineness in this if it were to actually embrace a few of those amendments, especially those amendments which would not impact in any way, shape or form on the COAG agreement in relation to this matter.

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

The Australian Greens strongly believed in the position that we took to this debate the last two times that we debated this bill, and we maintain our position. We support the government’s intention of working towards harmonising Australia’s occupational health and safety laws. We support the establishment of Safe Work Australia as a replacement to the Howard government’s Australian Safety and Compensation Council.

However, the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 [No. 2] has the same significant flaws as the first bill. We believe these must be remedied if Safe Work Australia is to work effectively in the best interests of the community in occupational health and safety matters. We strongly believe that we should be building on best practice in occupational health and safety in this country and around the world and ensuring that our occupational health and safety laws and regulations are developed and implemented by a body with genuine tripartism and independence.

On these criteria this legislation, we believe, is too skewed in favour of governments to the detriment of other key stakeholders in occupational health and safety regulation, that is, employees and employers. When the first Safe Work Australia bill was before the parliament the Senate passed amendments to address these deficiencies by restoring genuine tripartism in the membership in Safe Work Australia and ensuring an appropriate level of independence from government in its operation.

I want to briefly discuss these amendments and why we still consider them important and why we believe they should be adopted. Firstly, there is the issue of membership of Safe Work Australia. The bill inexplicably reduces the representatives of employers and employees to two. The previous national OH&S bodies had three representatives from employees and employers. There is no rationale behind dropping the members except that it is in the intergovernmental agreement, and decreased representation gives government more control of that body. The best occupational health and safety practice has been shown to be achieved through a genuine tripartite approach. We believe that this is best realised through keeping three representatives for employees and employers on a body such as Safe Work Australia. Stakeholders have also told us that there is significant work involved in adequately consulting employees and employers on the range of issues that come before such bodies, and a reduction in numbers will be to the detriment of managing the workload.

We are also concerned that the bill gives the minister particular powers in selecting the representatives from employees and employers. They can only come from organisations authorised by the minister, and the minister can veto a nomination from an authorised organisation. It would be possible under the formulation of this bill that Safe Work Australia could have no union representation at all depending on what the government decided. We have got to remember that while we are legislating for the bill, it is not just about this government but also governments into the future and the approach they may take. This level of interference is contrary to principles of a tripartite approach. We note the minister has no such veto powers over representatives nominated by the states. The Senate agreed to amendments to remove this power when we debated the previous bill.

Another set of amendments removed the provisions in the bill giving the Workplace Relations Ministerial Council the power to change the operational and strategic plans for Safe Work Australia. The provisions in the bill granting such a power to the ministerial council undermine the independence of Safe Work Australia and, in our belief, give governments an inappropriate level of direct influence over the body. As I mentioned previously, independence along with the tripartite approach are internationally acknowledged as being vital to ensuring effective occupational health and safety regulation. Similarly, the Senate supported amendments to remove the additional voting rights of governments—that is, Commonwealth, state and territory—in agreeing to model legislation, regulations and codes of practice. These provisions are another example of the bill’s provisions favouring governments over key stakeholders. While we appreciate the governments are funding Safe Work Australia and will ultimately be responsible for implementing the model laws, we see no rationale for those extra voting rights. The ministerial council still needs to sign off on any proposed model laws. Extra voting rights do take away from the tripartite nature of the body which we see as vital in working towards effective OH&S processes.

It is important to stress that all non-government senators voted in favour of these amendments, as Senator Abetz articulated earlier. I remember that we had a number of comments around feeling like we were in the Twilight Zone because we were agreeing on what we considered were very important amendments. It is disappointing that the government is bringing the Safe Work Australia Bill back to parliament with no consideration of the amendments moved in the Senate last time the bill was before this chamber. We are also disappointed that it appears, from what Senator Abetz articulated in his speech on the second reading debate, that the opposition, although still supportive—as I understand from the comments he made—of the idea of the amendments that we tabled in this chamber will be supporting this bill going through without those amendments. It was rather peculiar and scary to see me agreeing with Senator Abetz on industrial relations legislation. I am not sure that it is going to happen again in the future, but how strongly all this side of the chamber felt about these amendments was shown in the opposition, the Greens, Senator Fielding and Senator Xenophon supporting those amendments. When there is such fierce agreement you have to sit down and think that maybe they were reasonable and sensible amendments that addressed what we thought were deficiencies, and we still consider are deficiencies, in the bill. We believe they would have ensured that Safe Work Australia operates in a more effective way to create and maintain what we consider to be essential, which are robust occupational health and safety laws. However, we can read the numbers in the Senate and, if the opposition is going to support this legislation without the amendments, we know that we are going to go down in a screaming heap with any further amendments. Therefore, I do not intend to introduce the amendments and redebate those matters that we previously debated on two occasions. We believe that we had very sensible amendments and we are disappointed that the governments of Australia—both federal and state and territory—refused to engage in what we considered should have been a constructive debate on genuine improvements to this bill. We certainly came to the debate on this bill with a very genuine intention of improving the bill and we listened very closely to the stakeholders in the debate.

I want to take this opportunity to reiterate something that I said in my contribution to the second reading debate, and that is about the role of intergovernmental agreements. We acknowledge that many of the provisions of this bill that we took objection to came from the intergovernmental agreement, but we do not believe that that puts this piece of legislation beyond the normal and appropriate processes of this parliament. Intergovernmental agreements, such as the one dealing with achieving a national harmonised OH&S regulatory system, are important in our Federation, but these agreements can never take away the role of this parliament in making laws. We believe that laws can be improved, particularly when we have taken the trouble to extensively listen to key stakeholder comments that would contribute to achieving a better outcome. Because of that, we argued for these amendments long and hard. We do not believe that it is appropriate that the government hide behind these agreements in parliamentary debate and say, ‘That’s what was agreed with the states and territories and therefore you can’t amend this legislation.’

In this case, we believe the desired outcome is not merely harmonised laws that state and federal governments are happy with but harmonised laws that robustly protect the health and safety of workers. We believe that such laws are best arrived at through a genuine tripartite and independent process, which is why, as I said, we fought so hard for those amendments and got the support of this place twice for them. We welcome this government’s stated commitment to occupational health and safety outcomes and we look forward to this government as soon as possible introducing legislation to rectify the measures of the previous government which we believe lessened the rights of employees and the responsibilities of employers in occupational health and safety matters. The Australian Greens are keeping a close eye on the process towards the harmonisation of occupational health and safety laws across the country. I note that, when legislation developed through that process comes before the Senate, we will be taking our role in the legislative process very seriously and will subject that legislation also to the appropriate level of scrutiny.

I take this opportunity to indicate the support of the Australian Greens for workers who took to the streets last week to campaign for strong, effective occupational health and safety laws. The Greens, like those workers, do not want to see any deterioration in our occupational health and safety standards as a result of the harmonisation process. Let us not forget that the paramount reason for occupational health and safety legislation is to protect the health and safety of persons undertaking or affected by work. We have a duty in this place to make sure we get those laws right. Robust and effective occupational health and safety laws and practices are vital for the social and economic health of our workplaces and, more importantly, for Australians and their families.

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

I share Senator Siewert’s disappointment that the government is not prepared to consider the amendments which were passed by all non-government senators a few months ago. However, unlike Senator Siewert, I must be a bit of a masochist because I will again be putting up the amendments.

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

I am.

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

She says, ‘I am.’ It is important that the government give constructive reasons as to why these amendments ought not be passed. Just a few hours ago, I went to the launch for Matt Peacock’s book Killer Company: James Hardie Exposed, which is about the disgraceful way that company conducted itself, particularly in relation to a product that has killed thousands of Australians and will kill thousands more, the way there was a cover-up and the way the union movement played an important role. Greg Combet, now a member of the other place, played a key role in holding James Hardie to account. What he did and what people such as Bernie Banton did must not be forgotten. It puts into perspective the importance of effective occupational health and safety laws in this country. Some countries are getting away with their workers and consumers of their products literally being killed because their product is inherently unsafe or they have unsafe work practices. That is why it is important that we have the best possible occupational health and safety laws.

While the intent of the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 [No. 2] is about establishing an independent statutory body to handle occupational health and safety outcomes and workers compensation arrangements, it does not embrace greater openness and accountability for this body. It is disappointing that the government is not prepared to ensure that both the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the ACTU, the two peak bodies, have a guaranteed say at the table to ensure we get the best possible outcome in relation to this matter. I will be supporting this bill but I support it with a considerable degree of disappointment.

The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Deputy Prime Minister said that she opposed these changes because they would undermine the agreement between the Commonwealth and the states—that is, according to a report in the Australian Financial Review on 21 October 2008. The question has to be asked: what sort of agreement is undermined by more accountability, more effectiveness and more independence? It just does not make sense that the government is taking this approach. It does not make sense given the way the Deputy Prime Minister conducted herself during the Work Choices debate. As I said before, I think she did a magnificent job of shepherding a complex piece of legislation through the House. She listened, she consulted, and amendments were made which, I think, made the legislation much better. Even in the award modernisation process, where there have been some problems with respect to some awards, the minister has shown a willingness to intervene and to ensure that there are no adverse outcomes. That is to be commended. So I am disappointed that the minister has not gone down that path in relation to this piece of legislation.

I look forward to the Rudd government bringing forward other legislation on occupational health and safety. I am still a patron of the Asbestos Victims Association of South Australia. I know first-hand from talking to its members and from going to the funerals of people who have died of mesothelioma how important are effective occupational health and safety laws. In my time in state parliament, I moved legislation for industrial manslaughter laws. I believe that is one reform which the Commonwealth ought to undertake. To have industrial manslaughter laws in this country—and the Commonwealth has the constitutional power to do that—would be a great leap forward. I am convinced, when it comes to the disgusting behaviour of James Hardie and its executives, that had we had industrial manslaughter laws where those executives knew they would face a jail term—not just a fine, not just a bean-counting exercise where they would have to pay more compensation for the workers they killed—their conduct would have been very different. I think they would have taken that deadly product off the market much earlier, given that we knew 100 years ago how dangerous asbestos is. It beggars belief, given the mounting evidence, that asbestos was marketed by James Hardie up until 1987.

I welcome these changes—they could have been better—but until the Rudd government bites the bullet and implements industrial manslaughter laws in this country, we will not get the reforms in occupational health and safety that Australian workers deserve to protect them from rogue employers who do not give a damn about the health and safety and the lives of their workers.

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

I take on board the comments from Senator Abetz, Senator Siewert and Senator Xenophon. I could not agree more with Senator Xenophon in talking about mesothelioma and asbestos and the need for workplace safety. My father was a builder in the 1970s and 1980s and he contracted mesothelioma. I remember as a young boy visiting him many times in hospital. It is a terrible illness. That is why the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 [No. 2] is so important in harmonising OH&S laws across the country to ensure that employees in the workplace have the safety they need. Today is the first step, putting in place the body to oversee the national harmonisation, to supervise, monitor and implement the policies. It is a big step in the right direction.

A number of issues have been raised. This has been a difficult and painstaking process. It requires the agreement of every state parliament. I commend Minister Gillard for the work that she has personally been doing in negotiating this legislation with the states to ensure that the body being introduced will have the powers and the regulations it needs to undertake the job. I understand there are some disagreements about which organisations should constitute Safe Work Australia. Obviously, that will be debated and has been debated ad nauseam, as Senator Siewert pointed out. The government understands the concerns. But I again remind the Senate that negotiations have taken place with the states. An intergovernmental agreement has been reached through COAG. These laws will have to go back through the state parliaments, and so to backtrack by making amendments now will, I think, affect future legislation in every state and will place at risk the legislation we are debating today. The government remains firm and will be opposing the amendments. I thank the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.