Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

I am advised in respect of the consultation by the Deputy Prime Minister that the amendments were discussed with various states and territories on 20 October and that the IGA and concerns about the Senate amendments were discussed. In response to the second question—yes, the communique does say that the ministers were, as I have indicated, updated on the progress of legislation to establish Safe Work Australia. In addition, the WA minister noted—and I did volunteer to provide a copy to you—that the WA government supported a number of the amendments passed by the Senate. The communique goes on to say:

However, Ministers noted with much concern that the amendments threatened the harmonisation of national OHS legislation, thereby delaying a significant and long overdue economic reform which would enhance OHS outcomes, reduce red tape for business and strengthen Australia’s productive capacity.

Ministers endorsed the proposed response to COAG on recommendations from the Productivity Commission …

This is a matter that we dealt with at length during the committee stage of the bill. It is not, of course, inconsistent with the IGA but the position we put at the time was that it was not required because these matters are dealt with in the FMA Act. Quite frankly it is unnecessary to go over those arguments again. I know that the opposition argued that it is a belt and braces approach. The reason to have FMA legislation in place, which deals comprehensively with how you deal with audit and a whole range of other matters, is to put it in legislation where it will apply to all of these types of organisations. Therefore when you happen to reproduce it in various other statutes over time, you do not depart or change the wording. Also the wording does not get amended with the effluxion of time or with change of governments when sometimes the wording alters, not through any general desire of people but it just occurs that way. You then expose yourself to the possibility that people will read it differently.

It is always much better to have it in a framework piece of legislation where it can be amended once, if there is a requirement to change it with emerging circumstances, and then be reflected across. It is more logical to keep it in the FMA Act and it is not logical to reflect it in this legislation, for those reasons that I have outlined. It ensures that there is an audit committee which operates effectively and provides the necessary assurances that, I think, you raised in terms of how it would work on the ground. It is an audit committee designed to undertake the work to ensure that Safe Work Australia works effectively for all states and territories.