House debates
Monday, 22 May 2006
Questions without Notice
Occupational Health and Safety
2:50 pm
Stuart Henry (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Would the minister outline to the House the government’s measures to uphold safety standards in industry? Is the minister aware of any alternative views?
Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I thank the member for Hasluck for his question. I was delighted to be with him and quite a number of business operators in his electorate in Perth last week. There has been quite a deal of misinformation in the media over recent days about occupational health and safety and the Work Choices legislation. Let me re-emphasise the basic point—that is, occupational health and safety is the responsibility of states and territories in Australia.
Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Ms Bird interjecting
David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! The member for Cunningham is reminded that it is highly disorderly to interject when she is out of her seat. If she continues to do so, I will deal with her.
Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
As I was saying, section 16(3)(c) of the Work Choices legislation specifically provides that the occupational health and safety regimes of the states and territories continue to operate. Under those state and territory laws, if an employer fails in their duty of care to provide a safe workplace, there are penalties. Where an employer fails to provide occupational health and safety training, there are also strong penalties under state and territory laws.
So it was somewhat bemusing to see Mr Bill Shorten on the television news last night declaring shamelessly that, because he had spoken about occupational health and safety at the Beaconsfield mine site, he was ‘an outlaw’. Can I say to Mr Shorten that he has not broken any law by speaking about occupational health and safety at the Beaconsfield mine site.
Peter Costello (Higgins, Liberal Party, Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Costello interjecting
Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Indeed, as the Treasurer points out, he is in no danger of being declared an outlaw and not being able to take his seat in parliament. It may worry the Leader of the Opposition a little, but he will be able to get here. But neither Mr Shorten nor anybody he spoke to at Beaconsfield—or, indeed, at any other workplace around Australia—has broken the law in this matter. Of course, some members of the opposition know this, because we had the exchange of emails with the member for Perth and the member for Lilley. We had the office of the member for Lilley saying in an email, which found its way to a constituent, ‘An employer can send employees to union training.’
Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Bowen interjecting
Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
These are words from the office of the member for Lilley. This was reinforced again this morning by the member for Perth, who spoke at a doorstop this morning. He was asked this question: ‘Why do you need those leave arrangements if employers are required to provide safety training and can do so?’ This was the reply from the member for Perth: ‘I would’ve thought that Beaconsfield shows that one of the things which are important is leave arrangements for training to take place at the Lithgow mining rescue centre, which is jointly run by the CFMEU and the Minerals Council of New South Wales, and more than one of the people involved in the Beaconsfield rescue had training there.’ Precisely the point, Mr Speaker, from the mouth of the member for Perth.
Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Stephen Smith interjecting
Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Stephen Smith interjecting
Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Do you remember changing the law?
David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
And the member for Prospect is warned, too!
Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The agreements which pertained to the workers at Beaconsfield did not provide specifically trade union training leave. Those agreements provided that the laws in Tasmania about occupational health and safety would be carried out—
Chris Bowen (Prospect, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Bowen interjecting
David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! The member for Prospect will remove himself under standing order 94(a).
The member for Prospect then left the chamber.
Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
What happened in Beaconsfield in the past is precisely what can happen in Beaconsfield in the future—namely, that under Tasmanian occupational health and safety legislation, those workers can go to training, conducted jointly by the Minerals Council and the CFMEU, the relevant union. They have been able to do that training in the past; they can continue to do that training in the future. What this shows once again, and what is borne out by the email from the member for Lilley’s office, which acted on the advice—
Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry, Infrastructure and Industrial Relations) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
More lies!
Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
‘More lies’, we hear from the member for Perth, whose advice you acted upon. What we see, is an email relying on the advice of the member for Perth and distributed by the member for Lilley. What it shows, once again, is that whilst the member for Lilley, the member for Perth and others will say one thing publicly, they can see that it is quite the opposite privately.
2:56 pm
Kim Beazley (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
My question is to the Minister for Workplace Relations and follows the answer he has just given. I refer the minister to the advice of the senior legal manager at the Office of the Employment Advocate to Xstrata-owned Newlands Coal on 19 April this year that said, of a proposed union collective agreement:
“Bona fide union business” can include leave to attend training.
As such, I have concluded it falls within the terms of Regulation 8.5(1)(c)—
that is, prohibition. Minister, doesn’t this mean that a clause for leave to attend union organised training courses for occupational health and safety matters is prohibited content in an agreement? Isn’t it the case that the OEA is right and the minister is wrong? Why did the minister mislead the Australian people on the fundamental matter of occupational health and safety in the workplace, both then and again in the answer he has just given?
Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
If the Leader of the Opposition cared to ask about agreements which have been approved by the Office of the Employment Advocate, he would find that, since 27 March, there have been a number of agreements which provide for occupational health and safety training as part of those agreements. The reality is—
Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Ms King interjecting
David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Order! The member for Ballarat is warned!
Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The reality is that the Leader of the Opposition, seeing his campaign and his scaremongering about Work Choices falling flat, is using more extreme examples all the time.
Kim Beazley (Brand, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. A very explicit question was asked of him, in relation to whether—
David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
The Leader of the Opposition will not debate the point of order. I will rule on the point of order. The leader asked a lengthy question. The minister is answering that question.
Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party, Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source
I conclude on this note: there have been a series of agreements approved by the Office of the Employment Advocate which provide in those agreements that occupational health and safety training be provided to employees. In addition to that, section 16(3)(c) of the Work Choices legislation specifically provides that state and territory occupational health and safety laws, including the right of union officials to enter a workplace, is preserved under that legislation. The Leader of the Opposition knows that. He made a foolish statement a couple of weeks ago, but he knows that the state and territory occupational health and safety laws continue to operate in Australia.