Brendan O'Connor (Gorton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to raise some specific matters, particularly in relation to the summing up by the minister at the table in response to genuine concerns by a number of stakeholders, not least of all state and territory governments that have raised questions around the impact of this legislation. Let's be very clear here: this legislation, in terms of its impact, is broad and deep if enacted and, therefore, it is absolutely critical that the government fully understand the implications of this legislation upon those jurisdictions.

Whilst I accept that the minister, on behalf of the minister acting on behalf of the Employment Minister, in summing up, responded in the most oblique and brief way to the questions about the impact on other jurisdictions, there needs to be a better understanding, and indeed a better inquiry, as to the impact. I, therefore, rise to make reference to a submission made by the Queensland Newman government in relation to this bill.

There was a Senate inquiry in relation to this bill, and the Queensland government stands opposed to this bill for a variety of reasons. In that inquiry they submitted that, if enacted, the bill has:

… the potential to lead to increased red tape, increased costs and reduced productivity resulting from duplication and overlap in the regulation of work health and safety arrangements.

So the Queensland government has said: rather than reducing red tape, this legislation will increase red tape and will increase costs for employers in the state jurisdiction and reduce productivity. The Queensland government's submission also went on to say:

… small businesses may not be in a position to absorb premium fluctuations from a reduced premium pool.

The minister at the table referred to a Productivity Commission report conducted about 10 years ago, but these are submissions that were made this year in response to this bill because of the adverse impacts they anticipate in the state compensation schemes if this bill is enacted.

I appreciate the fact that the minister may have been sincere in connecting, for example, the home insulation program issues and reviews and the terrible consequences, the deaths of those four young men, to this bill. I would contend that this bill is in direct contradiction to the submissions made by the minister in summing up, because this would take away the oversight of inspectors of workplaces. There are only 44 inspectors in Comcare and hundreds of inspectors in the state compensation scheme. I ask the minister, on behalf of the government, to answer the question as to why he believes there is greater oversight, greater protection for workers and greater likelihood of prevention of an accident or of injury—or, even worse, of death—as a result of the enactment of this bill. I think that is absolutely vital. If one were to support this bill, one would have to believe the minister's assertions that, indeed, Australian workers would be better off. Yet, of course, that is not borne out by the lack of inspectors currently employed under the Commonwealth scheme.

I also ask the minister, on behalf of the government, to answer the questions put by the Queensland government—namely, that this is indeed an increase in red tape, an increase in costs, a reduction in productivity and an increase in duplication between the jurisdictions. It is the case that the Prime Minister likes to refer to Federation, the federal structure, the regard for state powers and the responsibility of state governments to conduct their own affairs. It would seem that, if enacted, this bill would fly in the face of the Prime Minister's own views about ensuring that state governments are responsible for their own jurisdiction and therefore the responsibilities they have held since Federation.

These are some of the questions I would ask the minister at the table, on behalf of the government, to answer. These are serious questions, and they have been raised by the Queensland government. I think they deserve an answer.

See this speech in context