House debates

Wednesday, 29 March 2006

Ohs and SRC Legislation Amendment Bill 2005

Second Reading

10:37 am

Photo of Craig EmersonCraig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

That is right. Everywhere you look, you can see a very centralist government, and here is another example of that. I am not at all convinced that that philosophy is the right philosophy. What I do argue for is that, where state systems can be harmonised, they should be. That would achieve what the Productivity Commission has sought to achieve—to reduce the compliance and administration costs. Multistate employers, which have operations in different states, complain with some justification about very different arrangements for workers compensation. The answer to the problem should be sought through the harmonisation of the state arrangements rather than through the Howard government’s seizing control which, instead of providing a competitive federalism, will provide one level of government with monopoly control and will mean that there will be no competition. You will not get the best ideas or the best practice from each of the jurisdictions; instead, the Commonwealth will say, ‘We know best.’ As a consequence, it is quite possible that the premiums will rise, because you will not get the competition and therefore you will not get the efficiency. People will opt into Comcare and then premiums might rise. If the larger businesses in Australia want to do that, that is a decision they are taking with their eyes wide open, but the fundamental problem is that this will more likely cause premiums to rise in the state jurisdictions. This will be to the detriment of the state systems, to the detriment of small businesses and to the detriment of injured workers.

Finally, I am disappointed that the member for Hasluck has twice refused to answer that question. I would hope that he would return to this chamber and give an assurance that small businesses in his electorate of Hasluck will not be adversely affected. If he does not, I think there is only one conclusion that can be drawn—that he will not give that assurance because he cannot give the assurance. I see that the member for Canning is here. He speaks on behalf of small business on just about every occasion, so I will be very glad to hear him assure us that small businesses in Canning will not be adversely affected. The proof of that pudding will be in the eating. This legislation will pass the House of Representatives and the Senate. I do fear the consequences to small businesses in the electorate of Canning, in my own electorate and in Australia more generally. I fear for injured workers who remain in those state systems where, as a consequence of this legislation, premiums will rise.

Comments

No comments