Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I stand to speak in favour of the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Amendment Bill 2005. I will be making some arguments in favour of the bill, I will respond to and rebut some of the allegations and concerns that Labor—and, indeed, the Democrats and the Greens—have expressed regarding the bill and I will share two significant examples from Tasmania which I think underline the need for this type of legislation.

The bill contains amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991, which provides the legal basis for the protection of the health and safety of Commonwealth employees specifically in departments, statutory authorities and government business enterprises. The Howard government believes strongly that safe and productive workplaces rely on a cooperative approach between employers and employees to identify and eliminate hazards that may cause injury or death.

In my view and in the government’s view, the bill not only improves protection for employees but actually improves workplace democracy, and I will speak more about that shortly. It removes the privileged role of unions in the workplace, specifically workplace health and safety arrangements. Labor has claimed during this debate and on the public record that if employers do not reach an agreement with a union this will weaken occupational health and safety protection for employees. This is totally and utterly false.

The amendments made by the bill do not affect existing occupational health and safety policies. These policies are preserved. Indeed, in no way do they diminish the Australian government’s duty of care to its employees. Under the bill, employers are required to develop health and safety management arrangements in consultation with their employees rather than and specifically with involved unions. The amendments do not remove unions from the consultation process; they just remove the privileged role that unions presently enjoy. They also reflect that employers owe a duty of care, as I have indicated, to their employees, not to their unions.

The requirement for employers to develop health and safety management arrangements in consultation with employees as part of their general duty of care means that if an employer did not develop adequate health and safety management arrangements or if they did not undertake suitable or reasonable consultation with employees then the employer may be in breach of its duty of care to the employees under the act. That is reasonably simple, but Labor refuses to acknowledge the arguments put and to accept them as true.

Labor has also claimed that the powers for the unions to request an investigation, make appeals and request the institution of proceedings for occupational health and safety breaches are being removed. I want to make it clear that under the bill the powers for unions to request an investigation, make appeals and request the institution of proceedings for OH&S breaches are not being removed. Only Comcare and investigators presently have the power to institute prosecutions for offences against the act. This will not change.

The most significant amendments to the act involve removing the mandated right of ‘involved unions’ to intervene in occupational health and safety matters to the exclusion of other employees and their representatives in workplaces covered by the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act. The bill also removes the requirement for employers to implement prescriptive and detailed OH&S policies.

So what are the main reasons for removing the mandated role for unions? You might think, as a prima facie case, that it is just a good idea, but let us look at the reasons behind this move by the government. Firstly, we believe strongly that safe and productive workplaces rely on a cooperative approach between employers and employees to identify and eliminate hazards that may cause injury or death. Secondly, it is an imperative that Australian government employers be required to consult with all employees, not just with the unions, specifically about the development and implementation of occupational health and safety arrangements.

Why should unions be given a mandated and privileged role as is currently the case? That is wrong, and we are going to remove that once this legislation is passed. And why should they have a mandated and privileged role specifically with respect to OH&S matters in those workplaces covered by this act? So, consistent with the government’s belief that there should be greater cooperation between employees and employers at the enterprise level, the bill aims to enhance consultation and cooperation between employers and employees by facilitating a more direct relationship between them to address OH&S issues at their individual workplaces.

The removal of a mandated role for unions will simplify the process for the establishment of designated work groups. It will also simplify the election of health and safety representatives. I want to stress that, currently, that is limited to those employees nominated by the involved union. Why would that be the case? Because there is a history of Labor legislation and Labor union control of the workplace. That will change, and is changing, and we are seeing the benefits flowing through to the Australian community in terms of an increase in the number of jobs—175,000 new jobs since Work Choices came into being—and an increase in real wages of 16.4 per cent over the last 10 years under the Howard government. I will mention more about that in due course. It will also simplify the prescriptive requirements for the operation of health and safety committees.

We are looking at the end result of occupational health and safety of the employees. We are not looking at entrenching union involvement; we are not looking at entrenching certain procedures. We are looking at outcomes: what is in the best interests of employees.

Employees still retain the right to nominate to be represented by an employee representative—read ‘the union’—or an association in respect of their dealings with employers on OH&S matters. Employee representatives will have to be certified by Comcare and satisfy Comcare that an employee has chosen to be represented by that representative or association. The identity of the employee will remain confidential.

In terms of some of the arrangements, I wish to make it clear that the bill will also remove the requirement for the implementation of detailed health and safety policies and the requirement that these be developed in consultation with an involved union. Why on earth would you prescribe such an arrangement where the involved union has to be part of the process? Why is that a requirement? I will tell you why. It is because of the Labor-union relationship, where the unions have donated over $46 million to the Labor Party since 1996—and no doubt that figure is rising fast. They have an intimate relationship, and that is the reason they have entrenched the role of the union in this arrangement.

I have a couple of other comments about Labor’s opposition to the bill. I believe it is doing the bidding of the Community and Public Sector Union. I know that Labor claims that the bill is evidence of the government’s wish to diminish the rights of workers and to reduce the influence and role of unions in the workplace. Labor also believes that the unions should have a mandated and preferential role. That is Labor’s position. That is the position on the other side of this chamber. But it is not in the best interests of the workers and the employees around this country. In fact, Labor supports that view regardless of the wishes, in many respects, of the employees, the workers and their families. That is a point that I will be coming to very shortly, because there is evidence of that in Tasmania.

The Australian government believes workers and businesses should have the freedom to choose working arrangements which best suit their needs—the freedom where workers choose whether to belong to a union or engage directly as an individual or workplace with their employer to set workplace agreements without third parties. Both the Labor Party and our government believe workers should have the right to be represented by unions. There is no argument about that. There is no debate about that. But the fundamental difference between the two parties is that Labor want union membership to the exclusion of all other options. In fact, they see that there is no alternative. I will give you a good example of that. Labor have opposed Australian workplace agreements as part of the framework for our industrial relations arrangements here in Australia. Why do they do it?