House debates

Wednesday, 12 October 2011

Bills

Work Health and Safety Bill 2011, Work Health and Safety (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011; Second Reading

5:56 pm

Photo of Jill HallJill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Work Health and Safety Bill 2011 and in doing so I have to say that I think the member for Wannon was supporting the legislation. I am not too sure—there was a lot of ambivalence about what he was saying. It was very difficult to follow the train of his contribution to this debate. It is not hard to see that he is a member of the party that supports Work Choices and would have it back in force in Australia at the drop of a hanky. It was also interesting to hear him misrepresenting the Prime Minister's statements made at a time when there was an agreement with all the state governments through COAG to introduce model legislation. The Prime Minister was not saying that this legislation had passed through parliament. The fact that the member for Wannon comes down here to this place and misrepresents the Prime Minister's statements simply shows how genuine he is in supporting this legislation.

This is very important legislation that will make a difference to employers, to workers and to those bodies that represent both employers and workers. The bill will implement the model Work, Health and Safety Bill, the model bill, within the Commonwealth jurisdiction, forming part of a system of nationally harmonised work, health and safety laws as agreed to by COAG in 2008 and the Workplace Relations Ministers Council in 2009 when, I might add, the Prime Minister was the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. This bill will apply to businesses and undertakings conducted by the Commonwealth, a public authority or, for a transitional period, a non-Commonwealth licensee. Once again, I have to refer to comments made by the member for Wannon. When he says he supports the Master Builders, I do not think anyone in this parliament would be surprised that the member for Wannon supports the Master Builders Association. When I listened to this contribution to this debate, all I heard was a person arguing for businesses, not a person who was trying to give a rounded view of what this legislation is about. Even when he was talking about training and the reduction in the number of accredited training courses, he did not say why those courses had lost their accreditation. This government is committed to quality training that actually delivers to workers and workplaces. What the member for Wannon did not say is that there are a lot of providers of training courses that are of a lesser standard than is needed. The government is making sure that the training courses that are delivered are accredited courses.

Access Economics estimated that harmonising work health and safety laws will save 40,000 businesses that operate across the country around $179 million per annum. It said the model law will also enhance safety protection for workers and do it in a way that is simple and easily understood, and the same rights and protections will be afforded to workers regardless of where they work or where their work is carried out. Labour mobility will also be increased by providing recognition of licences and training across jurisdictions. That is really important because, as we all know, the way the labour market works is that a person can be employed in one state, work in another state this week and in a different state again in the following week. The duties contained in the model legislation will also ensure that all workers are provided with protection while at work, whether they are employees, contractors or labour hire workers—and we know there is an increase in contractors and labour hire workers in the workforce—outworkers, apprentices, trainees, work experience students or volunteers, through the expanded definition of workers supported by a new compliance regime. So there are three really important facts: first, it is better for business; second, it provides more protection for workers across jurisdictions; and, third, it extends the definition so that people who previously missed out on being covered by occupational health and safety legislation will be covered.

I will share with the House experiences I had in my previous working life when I worked with people who were injured in the workplace. Often they would be people injured in a different jurisdiction to where I worked. In one case that particularly stands out in my mind, I was working in New South Wales and an injured worker came to see me who had been injured in Western Australia and had come back to New South Wales. So I had to follow it through a system that existed in Western Australia as opposed to the system in New South Wales, looking at occupational health and safety issues and workers compensation issues and how they varied in the New South Wales and Western Australian systems, and then there was a different system operating at that time for the Commonwealth.

This legislation will bring all the different systems together. The occupational health and safety system will cover the Commonwealth, and the model legislation will then be introduced in all the states. I think this is not only good for business and workers but good for the whole of our country. The model legislation was agreed to by the WRMC and, as I said, will be implemented in the Commonwealth jurisdiction and mirror laws will be introduced in the states. This has only happened after widespread and lengthy consultation. The member for Wannon was very critical of the fact that this had taken so long. Sometimes it is better to spend a little bit more time getting things right, consulting widely, rather than pushing legislation through the parliament.

Comments

No comments