Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Corporate Governance and Responsibility) Share this | Hansard source

You may chortle, Minister, but, as I recall it, you introduced 334 amendments, or thereabouts, 35 minutes before your Work Choices bill was put into place, and you have subsequently had to amend the legislation again. It is not a sensible way to approach law making and the detail of legislation. I want to make a couple of comments about the journey accidents issue. As we understand the effect of the amendments and what the government is suggesting in relation to them, the amendments to the journey accidents provisions, for want of a better term, are potentially beneficial. Whilst Labor will not be opposing the amendments, we do not believe they are sufficient to remedy the overall problems with the bill itself.

The minister has tried to utilise some of the examples in the state legislative schemes. He conveniently ignores New South Wales which, as I understand it, continues to cover journey accidents. Having practised in this jurisdiction in South Australia, I know that there are differences between the South Australian legislation and the legislation that is before us in the formulation of entitlement to compensation for journey accidents.

The minister has also tried to use the fact that the Productivity Commission recommended this change as a basis for articulating a justification for it. I want to make one point which is quite interesting. Referring to the Productivity Commission’s recommendations, the Bills Digest, which is produced for the parliament, makes the point that the commission’s recommendation that coverage for journeys to and from work should not be provided was made on a number of bases. These include lack of employer control, availability of alternative cover in most instances and, presumably, the ability for this issue to be dealt with under enterprise bargaining.

It is interesting, isn’t it? On the one hand we have the government’s industrial relations changes—unfair laws—which essentially put employees in the position of having to go on to AWAs if that is what the employer wants. On the other hand the government tries to use the Productivity Commission’s approach to journey claims, which assumes a right to enterprise bargaining, which is not going to be available as a matter of practicality for a worker on an AWA. So yet again the government are more about spin than substance. They are marshalling facts to suit their own argument and appropriating certain pieces of evidence while ignoring others. The Productivity Commission refers to enterprise bargaining. You are seeking to rely on that as a justification but at the same time you are putting in place laws that make it more difficult for people to enterprise bargain.

Question agreed to.