Mary Fisher (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in respect of the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 and the Safe Work Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2008. The coalition support, essentially, the spirit of these bills but we question whether the bills as currently drafted are able to deliver on that spirit. The spirit of the two bills is apparently to harmonise occupational health and safety and workers compensation laws across states and territories and nationally, with a view to achieving what we all want, which is safer and more productive workplaces. However, the coalition has grave concerns about whether the bills as currently drafted will in fact deliver harmonisation in terms of occupational health and safety and workers compensation laws and will in fact deliver safer and more productive workplaces.

In the provisions reflected in these bills the coalition sees yet again a failure of the Rudd government to deliver on its promise of the formulation of evidence based policy to the benefit of all Australians. How so with these bills? Business has long supported consistent national outcomes and regulation in respect of occupational health and safety and workers compensation. These bills beg, however, the questions as to the government’s true purpose in drafting the bills as it has and, secondly, as to how it proposes to deliver harmonised outcomes and safer and more productive workplaces.

Businesses largely support consistent and harmonised outcomes, particularly those businesses that operate across interstate borders. They will have concerns about how this unrolls in practical terms. They will have concerns, for example, about the potential substance of the regulation if, for example, the substance of the regulation results in the higher and highest of all standards across the states and nationally without there being evidence based assessment of why that should be so. Business will have concerns if the aim for nationally consistent and harmonised outcomes results in an equal or increased amount of red tape to what exists today.

So what is the government doing in terms of this legislation—the ‘how’? In terms of the how, they are proposing legislation that will give states the veto—the say-so—and make this new body subject to the whim of the ministerial advisory council. The government is setting up a new body that is designed to fail. The states thus far have not been able to come up with a harmonised occupational health and safety and workers compensation system yet the government is now supposedly designing a new system aimed at achieving that which still gives the states the power. And it gives the states the power in a number of ways, including a diminution in the current number of people able to represent not only the business sector but also the union sector on this new body. It essentially gives the balance of power to the states, added to which is the influence and overriding influence of the ministerial advisory council.

In so doing, the government stands to ignore the input of the very partners that the government needs to bring about safer and more productive workplaces—that is, the trade union movement and their members and employer organisations and their members. The government has not explained why it sees fit to diminish the number of representatives of each of those partners in the workplace. Nor has the government seen fit to explain the ‘why’, to justify the basis upon which it proposes to no longer nominate, for example, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry as the peak body of employers and the Australian Council of Trade Unions as the peak body of employees.

It should be incumbent on those two organisations to demonstrate why they should be the peak bodies in respect of their membership, but it raises an interesting question as to why a government does not contemplate having peak bodies to represent both of those sectors. I would put it to you that part of the thinking is to find an array of opinion so that the government can support a particular state by finding some stakeholder who comes up with the outcome that the government wants on any particular issue at any particular time. The legislation needs clearly nominated peak organisations for employers and employees for the workplace partnerships.

The government needs to explain why the states will be given veto powers, why the Workplace Relations Ministers Council needs to retain such influence, why an ACCI and an ACTU would no longer be nominated as peak bodies representative of their sectors, and why the numbers of employee representatives and the numbers of employer representatives should be reduced from what they are now. The government needs to show us that they are not intent on, instead, providing themselves with a payback mechanism for their state mates, as has been enjoyed, for example, in the COAG context in respect of water—and I need not name the states which have enjoyed unfair treatment in that forum. We look forward to the committee stage of the legislation and to the government demonstrating its evidence based policy approach to achieving safer and productive workplaces across Australia.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 and related bill. The purpose of the legislation is to establish Safe Work Australia as an independent Commonwealth statutory body to improve both occupational health and safety outcomes and workers compensation arrangements in Australia. The legislation establishes the operational arrangements to support Safe Work Australia, including those relating to the Workplace Relations Ministers Council. Safe Work Australia will be a reform focused body with the power to make recommendations directly to the Workplace Relations Ministers Council and will replace the Australian Safety and Compensation Council, which was established by the former Howard government as an advisory council, whose functions were limited and were confined to coordinating, monitoring and promoting national efforts on health and safety and on workers compensation.

A further difference from the former Howard government’s attempts towards safer workplaces is that the budget for Safe Work Australia will be funded 50 per cent from the Commonwealth and 50 per cent from the states and territories. Safe Work Australia will be an inclusive tripartite body of 15 members. The membership will comprise an independent chair, nine members representing the Commonwealth and each state and territory, two members representing the interests of workers, two members representing the interests of employers and a CEO. The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations will make all appointments to Safe Work Australia based on nominations from each body.

As a former long-distance line-haul truckie, I know nothing more important than the value of getting home safely at the end of a hard day’s yakka—and every worker should expect to have that right. Every Australian worker has a fundamental right not only to get home safely but to expect and receive the highest level of occupational health and safety standards not only from their employers but also from their fellow employees.

It is important for us to acknowledge that, whilst occupational health and safety is an important issue to us all, we in Australia still do not have a single system of reviewing and improving occupational health and safety standards. This legislation will address this. In Australia right now we have nine systems of assessing and monitoring occupational health and safety—one for each of the six states and two territories and one for the Commonwealth. Each of these systems performs an important role and protects workers’ interests. However the duplication of systems often becomes confusing and does not allow the system to fully address all occupational health and safety issues.

The Rudd Labor government’s Safe Work Australia will improve occupational health and safety outcomes and workers compensation arrangements in Australia by streamlining all systems and creating a greater, safer outcome for Australian workers and for all Australian workplaces. The former Howard government did little to address occupational health and safety. The Howard era did very little more than make occupational health and safety more complex and created a complicated framework of funding and responsibilities. There were differences in jurisdictions, and different employers, under differing state and Commonwealth rules, were subject to varying standards. By attempting to attract national employers to be part of the then Commonwealth system, the Howard government attempted to usurp the state and territory governments and consolidate power. The approach of the Rudd Labor government could not be more different.

Through cooperative federalism, the Commonwealth government has sat down with the states and territories and worked out a solution which is in everyone’s interest, not in just the political interest of one conservative government. Cooperative federalism may be one of this government’s greatest achievements. Rather than blaming and bickering between governments, the Rudd Labor government has been able to bring together states and territories to make real progress towards reductions in duplication, as well as improving consistency. A more efficient Australia will be able to better perform and increase productivity.

I draw senators’ attention to the funding approach of this legislation, which is further evidence of the cooperation between state and territory governments in Australia. Safe Work Australia will, unlike its predecessors, be a body which is jointly funded by the Commonwealth and the states so that the states have a real sense of ownership in what Safe Work Australia ultimately does and in what occupational health and safety objectives they can achieve. Safe Work Australia’s goal is to develop national policy around occupational health and safety and workers compensation and, importantly, to guide us down the path of harmonising our nation’s differing occupational health and safety laws. Safe Work Australia will provide new benchmarks. It will be another example of why Labor is the party of reform. This is a very significant step towards ensuring higher standards of occupational health and safety in this country.

This bill will be good for business, good for government and good for workers. These reforms are part of the Rudd Labor government’s goal of creating a seamless national economy that is not being dragged down by duplications and border disputes between states and territories.

The average figures for workplace injuries in my home state of WA are terrible figures. Fifty-one Western Australians—I say again: 51 West Aussies—are injured at work every day. In an effort to reduce this number and improve education about occupational health and safety, the former WA Labor state government ran the ‘Come home safe’ campaign. This was a state-wide television and radio advertising and information program that supported the state government’s priority of safer communities and safer workplaces. It aimed to make workplaces safer by achieving a positive change in workplace safety culture and practices. The campaign focused on the importance of arriving home safely from work and featured children and family members waiting for their loved ones. This campaign was broadcast and communicated across WA, and from most accounts it was very effective in raising awareness of workplace safety—but it was unfortunately limited to WA.

Each of the separate state and territory occupational health and safety organisations attempts to communicate the message of workplace safety, but not all are able to do so effectively or have the resources to do so. Figures from the Western Australian Department of Consumer and Employment Protection estimate that on average a WA worker is killed every 19 days, while a worker is seriously injured every 30 minutes. If Safe Work Australia can reduce the chances of only one family losing a loved one through an accident at work then it will have been a success and a sound use of resources. More than 300 Australians, sadly, are killed each year at their workplace and many more die as a result of work related diseases that could have been avoided.

Each year over 140,000 Australians are seriously injured at work. The cost to our economy has been estimated at $34 billion per year. The cost to those injured and to their families, workmates and friends cannot be measured. Between 1997 and 2006 around 147,800 compensation claims were accepted. Across Australia during the same period, sadly, approximately 300 deaths occurred each year. That means that 2,700 people died from a workplace related accident. According to the peak workers body in my state of Western Australia, UnionsWA, 460 people died in the workplace between 1988 and 2008. That is just in Western Australia alone. UnionsWA’s figures also tell us that there has been a gradual decrease in fatalities, from a high point of 36 in 1988 to a low point of 12 in 2006. Unfortunately, that figure increased to 25 in 2006-07 and 27 in 2007-08. But 460 workplace fatalities in Western Australia over this period is clearly unacceptable. The fatalities were from across industries: 136 fatalities in the mining industry; 104 in the agriculture, forestry and fisheries industry; 70 in the construction industry; and 31 in the manufacturing industry.

A figure that I wish to go to now is that relating to deaths involving heavy vehicles, truckies and other users of the road networks, because these figures would not be captured in workplace fatality numbers; they would be recorded as road or traffic deaths. Once again I will refer to my time on the road. This really is dear to my heart. I can probably also speak for Senator Williams on the other side, another good-blooded ex-truckie in this chamber. I know that he would hold work safety close to his heart, especially for those men and women out there on the roads hauling all our produce and materials through the dark hours of the night—those unseen champions of industry who go about their job every day and every night without so much as a whimper. In 2007 there were over 200 road deaths in Australia involving heavy vehicles. One in five road deaths involve heavy vehicles. In other words, the heavy vehicle transport sector is a significant contributor to Australia’s road toll. In 2007 road fatalities involving an articulated truck increased by 5.4 per cent. Trucks as a whole account for approximately six per cent of total vehicle kilometres travelled but are involved in approximately 15 per cent of all road fatalities. Over the past five years over 1,000 Australians have died as a result of a road accident involving a heavy truck. Those are sobering figures. Three-quarters of these fatal accidents involved an articulated truck. These statistics place transport workers at high risk of death or serious injury in their workplace, an unacceptable situation. I cannot stress this enough. When we talk about road fatalities and truckies: their workplace is the cabin of that truck; their workplace is that bitumen road underneath them. That is why it is so frightening to hear these statistics. They would not be picked up in any workplace fatality statistics that we collect, but they are workers who are killed while doing their job.

A national body of coordination will improve occupational health and safety outcomes and workers compensation arrangements in Australia. Through Safe Work Australia we will have one body that is tasked to address the national problem of occupational health and safety standards in Australia. This new body is being tasked with some important jobs. Safe Work Australia will develop a national policy relating to occupational health and safety and workers compensation; develop, prepare, monitor and revise model occupational health and safety standards and model codes of practice; develop a compliance and enforcement policy to ensure nationally consistent regulatory approaches across all jurisdictions; develop proposals relating to the harmonisation of workers compensation arrangements; collect, analyse and publish occupational health and safety and workers compensation data and undertake and publish research; drive national communication strategies to raise awareness of health and safety in the workplace; further develop the National Occupational Health and Safety Strategy; and advise the Workplace Relations Ministers Council on occupational health and safety and workers compensation matters.

This bill will raise the bar on workplace safety rules and ensure consistency in workplace standards and in the education of those standards by employers and employees to ensure that workers can work in a safe environment knowing that, if an accident were to occur, their income and family would be protected while they recovered.

Workers compensation issues and standards of occupational health and safety have been the subject of fierce debate between governments, employers and unions for many years. Jurisdictions and schemes are complicated and often inconsistent. This bill will present a way forward. This is the path towards attaining a goal of national consistency and understanding and awareness of occupational health and safety issues.

This bill continues the already significant work of the Rudd Labor government in improving cooperation between the state and federal governments, and the establishment of Safe Work Australia is an essential part of the government’s strategy to facilitate improvements to safety outcomes and workers compensation arrangements across Australia. Since coming to office less than 12 months ago—I know it seems a lot longer, Madam Acting Deputy President, but it was less than 12 months ago—the Rudd government has undertaken a review of the Comcare system, set up an independent panel of experts to conduct a national occupational health and safety review and developed a landmark intergovernmental agreement with its state and territory counterparts to harmonise occupational health and safety legislation nationally.

This bill, along with the intergovernmental agreement, brings a new era of cooperation between the state, territory and federal governments on this matter. It addresses another key area of cooperative federalism that will save lives, simplify rules and reduce the cost of doing business. This will be one of the great reforms within Australian workplaces and Australian industry. As I have indicated, Safe Work Australia will be a great step forward for workers and employers and for occupational health and safety in this country. It will be the body which will take Australian workplace safety laws to the next level to simplify safety laws and make them more effective and efficient. The government has set itself the task of creating a seamless national economy unhampered by unnecessary state duplications, overlaps and differences. We do this because we care about building a better Australia now and into the future.

Occupational health and safety affects everybody. Every year, hundreds of thousands of Australians have their lives changed because of an injury at the workplace. This means that every year Australia’s poor occupational health and safety record has horrible consequences for Australian workers and Australian families. We can do something about this and we can improve Australia’s occupational health and safety standards. That is what Safe Work Australia will achieve. It is time to start the process of changing Australia’s occupational health and safety performance. That start begins with this bill, and I urge all senators to support it. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The introduction of the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 is timely and appropriate. I am particularly proud to be a member of a government that is meticulously focused on delivering its electoral promises, for which it received a mandate at last year’s federal elections. A constructive and workable federalism requires a national and cohesive approach in legislation and in practice with regard to key issues of our time. The myriad state based occupational health and safety schemes, plus the existence of differing state based and national workers compensation schemes, do not augur well for achieving economies of scale. The introduction of the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008, of which I am a proud supporter, is part of a comprehensive policy strategy to cement productivity gains and efficiencies through national standards that will take effect throughout Australia.

As is often noted by members and senators, 140,000 Australians are injured at work every year, at a cost to the nation of approximately $34 billion. The current approach to occupational health and safety and workers compensation needs to be improved. The standards of workplace safety and the level of compensation benefits should not be contingent upon where one resides in Australia. Geographical and state based anomalies are no longer acceptable in the 21st century in modern society. Australian employers do not require the regulatory duplication, the burden and the red tape of operating in at least half-a-dozen forms of state occupational health and safety and workers compensation jurisdictions. These include the national Comcare system, a scheme originally designed to administer workers compensation entitlements to federal public servants but which has now morphed into a de facto national scheme by stealth through the inclusion in Comcare of private enterprises that operate Australia wide.

Incremental anomalies and untenable outcomes will continue to prevail and grow if this Safe Work Australia Bill is not allowed to pass through the Senate. Long-term decisions need to be made within a national framework that allows clarity and certainty for employer decision making. A miner at Mt Isa should expect the same occupational health and safety and workers compensation entitlements as a miner working in the Pilbara region. Safe Work Australia, as the Deputy Prime Minister has pointed out, will not be a toothless, Howard-era advisory council but rather will be, as the minister describes it, ‘an independent, reform focused body, with the power to make recommendations directly to the Workplace Relations Ministers Council’.

For 24 years, Australian governments of all persuasions—and, by extension, Australian citizens—have satisfied themselves with the iniquities and inequities of varying occupational health and safety and workers compensation laws. We do not expect the Medicare system, for example, to provide different financial outcomes for our citizens depending on which part of Australia they reside in. Accordingly, we should expect no less from our occupational health and safety and workers compensation laws. This bill must be supported in the Senate so that the urgent and overlooked imperative to harmonise these laws is not delayed for a moment longer than it should be.

As the Prime Minister has noted on many occasions, this government is here to serve all Australians, not just sectional interests. It is for this reason that Safe Work Australia will be a tripartite body encompassing broad representation and allowing for the expression of the voices of employers, workers, state governments and territory governments.

Safe Work Australia will be enacted into law as a prescribed agency under the Financial Management and Accountability Act, while from an administrative perspective the 15 members who will comprise the tripartite body will ensure that its task is not hamstrung by the creation of a bloated bureaucracy—as witnessed in the failed Howard government’s entanglement of employers in Work Choices, endless red tape and bureaucratic overlap. Work Choices was, of course, a disaster—not just for workers’ rights and conditions but also for its undermining of occupational health and safety at the workplace through its unfair dismissal provisions. Under Work Choices, if a worker complained about an occupational health and safety issue they ran the risk of being sacked if the boss did not approve of what they had to say, so we should acknowledge the important occupational health and safety benefits that come from ripping up the Work Choices legislation and replacing it with fair and balanced industrial laws.

The Liberal Party have been keen to criticise the composition of the Safe Work Australia board of directors. After consultation with the workplace relations ministerial council, the minister must select an independent chair to preside over the meetings. The minister must select a representative of the Commonwealth government, one representative nominated by each state or territory and two representatives nominated by both worker and employment groups authorised by the minister. It is at the discretion of the minister to identify which bodies represent workers and employers and to seek nominations from them. In total, there will be nine board directors representing each of the state and territory governments and the Commonwealth, two board directors representing the interests of employers, two board directors representing the interests of workers, and one independent chair.

We have heard time and time again from those opposite about the supposed injustices in the composition of the board. Their argument is that the majority of directors should be representatives from employer groups and unions and that the Australian government has got the balance wrong. I fail to see how you can have a national organisation that aims to standardise occupational health and safety policy across federal, state and territory jurisdictions without a representative of each of those governments. I challenge the Liberal Party to identify which states or territories they feel should not be represented on the Safe Work Australia board. If they feel that they should all be represented, then presumably they reckon that the Australian government should increase the number of union and employer representatives on the board until they reach parity with the government representatives. However, to do that you would need to install an additional five directors onto the board on top of the four already there, to even things out with the government representatives. But then, of course, you could not just have five extra board directors from employer and union groups because that would mean that one grouping would get one more vote than the other. To achieve what the Liberal Party is calling for you would actually need six new board directors, bringing the total board to a gigantic and unworkable 21 directors. As the saying goes, too many cooks spoil the broth.

Unless the Liberal Party are calling for some states and territories to have no representation on the Safe Work Australia board, then they can only be hoping for a massive and unworkable increase in the size of the board itself. The reality is that all major stakeholders are represented on the board of directors and they will have a say in the formation of the new occupational health and safety policy. None of these stakeholders could be removed from the board without Safe Work Australia losing its ability to effectively coordinate occupational health and safety policy across all jurisdictions. The Australian government has got the balance right between all stakeholders, and I am confident that Safe Work Australia will improve the efficiency and safety of workers.

In my former role as secretary of the South Australian branch of the SDA, it was my job to help ensure that retail workers could perform their duties safely in the workplace. While the SDA has been successful in fighting for safer workplaces in the retail industry, it is an unfortunate fact that avoidable workplace injuries still occur in the retail industry across Australia. The phasing out of plastic bags at retail outlets has the potential to exacerbate that problem. While I applaud any moves to protect the environment, it should be noted that in our switching to reusable mesh or calico shopping bags it is retail workers who are likely to pay the price. These reusable shopping bags can hold more items than ordinary plastic shopping bags and can therefore become substantially heavier. Considering how often the checkout operator must lift shopping bags every day for extended periods of time, it becomes obvious that workplace injuries are far more likely to occur with reusable bags. Back, neck and arm strains will be more common amongst checkout operators, and there needs to be serious consideration given to limiting the amount of heavy lifting these workers should be expected to perform. Unfortunately many of these reusable bags are in an unsanitary condition when they are presented at the checkout. I have heard of retail workers having to handle dirty and smelly bags, some stained with old meat products that have not been cleaned out properly—or worse. Retail workers should be able to expect to work in sanitary conditions. I am worried that many young retail workers will not have the courage to refuse to load an unsanitary bag when a customer presents one at the checkout.

The ALP government of Gough Whitlam, way back in 1974, attempted to harmonise workers’ compensation laws. The Whitlam government bill failed at the altar of sectional interests. Let us hope that we do not repeat the same mistake here. As the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has pointed out, this bill reaches out to those who are inclined to engage in a new spirit of cooperation symbolic of new federalism, one that avoids name calling and state blaming. This is because Safe Work Australia will be jointly funded by the Commonwealth and the states and territories, working cooperatively to solve problems with occupational health and safety laws in Australia. While it may not be an original thought, Mr John Merritt, a director of WorkSafe Victoria, once said: ‘A civilised society is best judged by how it treats its most vulnerable citizens.’ Our most vulnerable citizens surely include those who have been maimed and injured in the workplace, along with the children and spouses dependent upon the 300 workers who are killed in the workplace throughout Australia each year. The passage of the Safe Work Australia Bill will take us into the 21st century. I commend support of the bill.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 and the Safe Work Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2008. These bills seek to establish Safe Work Australia as a Commonwealth statutory body. It will replace the Australian Safety and Compensation Council, which was set up by the previous government. As we all know, that council had limited functions, in that it coordinated, monitored and promoted national efforts on health and safety and workers compensation. Under the new government, Safe Work Australia will have a much more comprehensive role. It will develop, monitor and enforce national standards in health and safety. Its role will also include the harmonisation of workers compensation requirements and, as has been stated by previous speakers, it will be jointly funded by Commonwealth, state and territory governments. It needs to be said at the outset that this bill is a significant step towards uniform health and safety laws in this country.

Every year, more than 300 Australian workers are killed doing their jobs, while a further 140,000 are seriously injured. Many more die as a result of work related disease. It is estimated that the cost to our economy is something in the order of $34 billion per annum. To partners, children, friends, family and fellow workers the cost is immeasurable. This Labor government is committed to improving workplace safety and its foundation, the workers compensation system. Since coming to office, the new government has undertaken a review of Comcare, reached agreement with our state colleagues to harmonise occupational health and safety legislation and set up an independent panel to conduct a review of national occupational health and safety. Safe Work Australia will play a central role in OH&S and workers compensation reform as it will be the vehicle that will give effect to the recommendations of the review panel. More particularly, and equally importantly, it will develop a national policy for OH&S and workers compensation; prepare, monitor and revise OH&S legislation; develop a compliance and enforcement policy to ensure national consistency; develop proposals relating to the harmonisation of workers compensation arrangements; and drive national communications strategies to raise awareness of health and safety in the workplace.

The importance of best practice in occupational health and safety standards cannot be overstated. It is the right of every worker to return home at the end of the day as safe and injury free as they were when they embarked upon their journey to work. It is the responsibility and moral obligation of every employer to ensure that they provide a safe working environment, and it is the responsibility of government to develop, review and enforce health and safety standards. As we all know, accidents do happen, and when they do there should be adequate and accessible compensation that provides for the cost of rehabilitation or security for those who are left behind. It should not matter if you are injured in the far north of Western Australia or down in southern Tasmania.

These bills are part of the government’s commitment to create a seamless national economy by reducing duplications, overlaps and, where possible and feasible, inconsistencies and differences between the states. Currently in Australia there are no less than nine different laws governing occupational health and safety. Harmonisation of this plethora of laws will be welcomed by workers, unions and employers alike. But, more importantly, reform of occupational health and safety and workers compensation systems will not only increase profitability and productivity; it will also better protect the lives and health of Australian workers.

I now want to turn to some aspects of the government’s plans for the new body. I must say at the outset that we are entering new terrain which is potentially fraught with conflict. There is potential for conflict because the government seeks to create national standards across a national economy but we remain saddled with a Constitution moulded in the late 19th century. Australia in those days was of course a set of minimally connected states, a minimally aware bunch of coastal cities trying to shift from a city-state mentality to that of a sovereign nation. In that context, the Australian Constitution reflects the dominant paradigm of the time—that is, the emerging Commonwealth was granted limited, restricted and defined powers that were truly national in outlook. For example, defence, customs and post and telegraph were expressions of power. But, apart from the express powers enumerated in section 51(xxxv) of the Constitution, all other powers were left by express reservation to the states. In essence, there was a weak centre and a set of powerful flanks. Now of course we have, we are told, a virtually seamless national economy—indeed, the events of recent weeks in financial markets suggest a seamless international or totally globalised economy, particularly in the major advanced nations—and on that foundation the government seeks to establish Safe Work Australia. By definition, such a body, despite the latterly better intentions of the High Court, can only have the power that is expressly granted under the Constitution.

The second major concern is that, in terms of national policies, national legislation and national implementation and communication strategies, Safe Work Australia will need to overcome the rock of statehood—state government departments, state agencies and generally state interests. Indeed, I know from experience that the power of vested interest groups in this area is a sight to wonder at. Indeed, in the context of a range of industries that are increasingly indigenous to particular states, I see huge misunderstandings that will require careful consideration by the powers that be in Safe Work Australia. By that, I mean manufacturing interests in New South Wales and Victoria; mining interests in Queensland, Western Australia, the Northern Territory and, increasingly, in South Australia; grain-growing interests, which are fundamentally different on the west coast from those on the east coast; and a whole range of biotechnology and value-added service industries which develop and have developed in clusters in particular geographic locations. In each of these instances unsuitable policies, heavy-handed regulation, mindless copying from one industry to another and the desire to delegate responsibility up and away from a lower level in the name of harmony all suggest that caution needs to be the rule of thumb.

The next concern I have is about national coordination, or cross-state harmonisation, and relates to my experience in this field in a former life, between 1986 and 1996. Despite what some people say, they were not halcyon days for national coordination, national harmonisation or national responsibility. My vivid memory of those days, in this area of work, was one of endless meetings, seemingly without purpose, driven by state departments of labour, in coordination with national departments, which simply resulted in layer upon layer of bureaucracy that would have made the presidium of the former USSR react either in embarrassment or in awe—I do not know which.

I particularly remember one committee, charged with the design of chairs for checkout operators in supermarkets, having no less than seven appeal committees attached to the working party and nine—get that!—review committees, charged with doing the same job. The bottom line was and is that the majority of checkout operators prefer to stand, not to sit. The real occupational health and safety issue was the height of the workstation and the ability to manoeuvre hips as an aid to shifting parcels of goods. Nevertheless, we had dozens of committees which examined this issue for years on end and which eventually were unable to find a workable or a sensible solution.

Similarly, the design of a workstation for the loading of grocery items onto shelves above shoulder level was eventually the subject of similar committee investigation and review—alas, with an identical outcome. Eventually, my union simply retained an industrial health firm to interview a number of shelf stackers to find out the nature of their problem relating to lifting above their shoulders. A mechanical tool was designed to assist in loading shelves above chest level. The union sold the concept to national retailers and they purchased hundreds of the units and placed them in supermarkets around Australia. Independent retailers soon followed suit and, hey, injuries caused to shelf stackers from reaching above their shoulders to load high shelves were virtually eliminated.

I recite those two tales simply to highlight that sometimes nationally charged agencies can develop a life and a set of concerns remote from that which is needed at the shop floor level. None of this of course ever occurs deliberately or with mala fides; it simply occurs, a bit like the tides. Lessons of the 1980s and 1990s need to be learnt and not mindlessly replicated or repeated.

Similarly, in the field of workers compensation and the desire for uniform protection, the real issues that need to be addressed are, in no particular order: the relationship between workers compensation and common law; the cost to employers; the benefits to affected or harmed workers; incentive, as it relates to workplace health and safety reform; and the costs, as population bases become larger as national companies shift from localised state schemes to national schemes. Each of those matters goes to the grant of power reserved to the states and the legislative schemes and restrictions they have enacted and re-enacted over a period of 100 years.

In turn, as sure as workers compensation provides a real benefit to injured or hurt workers, its cost premium can be prohibitive. The proof of this lies in the huge liabilities carried by various state instrumentalities and the premiums charged by insurance companies in this field.

All of the matters that I have identified are merely problematic. They are issues that require hard thinking and serious policy responses. If this is not done, the net result will simply be the transfer of a bankrupt or near bankrupt state agency to a national body. This is a real danger, because one of the prime objectives of Safe Work Australia is ‘developing a national policy for occupational health and safety, and workers compensation’. I do not say it should not be done; I simply say there are consequences to decisions, as there always are. And some of those consequences fall under the category of ‘known knowns’, to paraphrase former United States Defense Secretary Rumsfeld.

A lot of work is being done to centralise and coordinate through the COAG process. A lot of the proposed legislation, regulations and bodies that are being created in a host of areas are beneficial in intent. That cannot be denied. No sensible person could quarrel with breaking up dysfunctional bureaucracies, getting rid of defunct state agencies or voiding past legislation when its use-by date is up. The only caveat I offer is to learn from some of the errors and some of the mistakes from previous attempts in this area of reform. In that way we will truly attain a Safe Work Australia that looks forward and assists those who will be most in need. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I indicate that I will support the second reading of this bill. The Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 establishes Safe Work Australia as an independent statutory body to replace the previous Australian Safety and Compensation Council, which was an advisory body to the minister. I endorse the remarks of other senators, Senator Bishop included, about the importance of having an effective occupational health and safety body in this country. I should also indicate that in my time as a member of the South Australian parliament I was a member of the Parliamentary Committee on Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and moved for an inquiry into workplace injuries and deaths in South Australia. The report of that inquiry was delivered on 12 October last year. The committee heard extensive evidence about the very human impact when a person is seriously injured or killed in the workplace. That is why it is important that we get it right. It is important that we have a comprehensive framework in place that actually makes a difference in reducing the unacceptably high level of death and injury in the workplace.

In relation to that I want to acknowledge and pay tribute to the work of Andrea Madeley, whose 18-year-old son Danny died several years ago in a horrific industrial accident. She has been a champion for those who have experienced the loss of a loved one as a result of death in the workplace. Andrea established VOID, Voice of Industrial Death. She has been a very strong campaigner, as has her group. She has provided support for families who have lost a loved one and for community groups who want to agitate for reform in relation to occupational health and safety. It is important that we understand that that is what we are here for—to ensure that this legislation maximises the benefit of reducing the impact of the unacceptably high levels of death and injury in the workplace.

It is because of my experiences as a state member of parliament that I welcome this move to, in the government’s words, ‘harmonise’ occupational health and safety practices across states, which will no doubt be welcomed by businesses that operate nationwide. I accept the argument made to my office during a ministerial briefing that, because national standards have been advisory and each state has had its own legislation, consistent and effective outcomes have been hard to achieve. However, I do wish to focus some attention on another of the government’s claims, which is that this new body will be truly independent, and I note the comments made by Senator Siewert in her contribution on this bill. As an Independent senator in this place, I do not take descriptions of independence lightly. As I look at this new body, Safe Work Australia, I raise a number of concerns in relation to its independent representation of the broad range of interests associated with occupational health and safety. I accept the argument that, because the states make the occupational health and safety laws, it is vital that any national body is founded through their cooperation and support. However, it is important that any independent national statutory advisory body is truly representative of all key bodies and is not top-heavy with departmental heads, members hand-picked by ministers or business representatives from the big end of town.

This balance is all the more significant when one recognises that many of the past problems with OH&S legislation have been in red tape, compliance costs and complexity, which have rendered it unworkable in the small-business context. In my own state of South Australia, the peak employer body is Business SA, but it would be fair to say its membership does not represent the diverse views of all businesses. Indeed, its role in the recent workers compensation changes in South Australia, which were pushed through by a Labor government, indicates that its views are by no means universally endorsed.

I note the concerns of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the ACTU in relation to the reduced numbers of non-government representatives and I indicate that I will be moving amendments to deal with what I consider to be an anomaly. I note the comments of Senator Abetz in relation to this and also those of Senator Siewert. I also note the comments of bodies such as the Law Council of Australia, who point to the lack of representation from legal and insurance bodies on a body that is about occupational health and safety outcomes. These are matters that are of significant concern to me and significant in the ultimate outcome of ensuring that we have an effective occupational health and safety framework in this country.

I would like to refer to some work that is about to be published in the Journal of Occupational Health and Safety—Australia and New Zealand. It will be published in volume 24, No. 5 at the end of this month. It is by Dr Kevin Purse of the Hawke Research Institute at the University of South Australia. Dr Purse is someone whom I have known for a number of years through his work in occupational health and safety. He is a person for whom I have high regard. I have high regard for his ability to look at the big picture and to analyse the defects in occupational health and safety structures in Australia and the states.

In the article headed ‘Safe Work Australia: a new one-stop regulatory shop?’ there are a number of important points that have been made by Dr Purse in relation to this legislation. I propose to address some of the issues raised by Dr Purse and to refer to the matters that he has raised in his article that is soon to be published. I would recommend that article to all honourable senators, if they have an interest in this particular field. Dr Purse’s analysis is, I believe, robust, fair and very comprehensive.

Dr Purse makes the point in terms of the history of this that the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission was established in 1985 by the Hawke government as part of the Hawke government’s implementation of the prices and incomes accord. He states:

The National Commission played an important role in providing, for the first time, a forum that enabled the federal, state and territory governments, in conjunction with the trade union movement and employer interests, to address OHS issues on a national basis.

Dr Purse goes on to say:

Arguably, its major achievement was the development of national standards in seven key hazard areas: manual handling, hazardous substances, noise, plant, major hazardous facilities, dangerous goods, and the certification requirements for industrial equipment operators.

That in itself was a significant achievement. He goes on to say:

In practice, however, the goal of national uniformity was never achieved because the National Commission’s model national standards were frequently adopted by the various jurisdictions on a modified basis only or, on more than one occasion, not at all. This in turn contributed to growing criticism of its performance, which subsequently found more general expression in a 1995 Industry Commission report.

…            …            …

The National Commission’s standing declined further following the election of the Howard Government in 1996. Funding cuts and a substantially reduced role … were the most obvious hallmarks of this decline. 

Dr Purse goes on to say:

One other particularly important contribution during the Howard years was the 10-year national OHS strategy announced in 2002, which called for reductions of at least 20% in work-related fatalities and 40% in work-related injuries by 2012.

I note the comment of senators such as Senator Feeney about the enormous cost—the many thousands of Australians who are injured each year in workplace accidents and the many who are killed in the workplace. Those figures do not include those who have died from asbestos related diseases. I disclose that I am a patron of the Asbestos Victims Association of South Australia and am very proud of my involvement with that organisation.

The history of this particular legislation is that the Deputy Prime Minister in the lead-up to the 2007 election announced that there would be an intention to abolish the council—a ‘toothless tiger’ I think the Deputy Prime Minister, then Deputy Leader of the Opposition, called it—if it won office. I understand the policy intent. There was good reason to abolish what was in place, but I have real concerns about the governance arrangements. The points made by Dr Purse are ones that I endorse. He states in his soon-to-be published article:

There are at least three obvious points that can be raised concerning these governance arrangements. The first is that representation would be highly skewed towards government nominees. The second concerns the cumbersome decision-making criteria. While this is no doubt intended to secure decisions which have a high degree of consensus and therefore a greater level of commitment from state and territory governments, the downside risk is that this could result in lowest common denominator outcomes. The third point, which follows on from the other two, is that the parties most directly concerned—employers and unions—would have a lesser role than the jurisdictional members, both in terms of representation and voting strength.

Those final matters are some of the matters that I believe would be dealt with by the amendments that I propose to move.

This legislation, as Senator Siewert has pointed out, is defective on the issue of the independence of this body and the way it interacts with the ministerial council. I look forward to the amendments that will be moved by Senator Siewert—and by Senator Abetz, for that matter—in relation to the issue of the governance structures. As Dr Purse states:

From the government’s perspective, the most pressing issue will undoubtedly be the development of model national OHS legislation to be adopted by the states and territories.

That is clearly the case. Dr Purse makes the following point:

With a national workforce of only 10.7 million workers, it is increasingly difficult to justify the continuing plethora of state and territory laws on OHS in Australia. Perhaps even more importantly, if followed through, the July 2008 commitment by COAG to the principle that a national approach must not compromise or reduce OHS standards provides a firm basis for reform.

That to me is another key criterion: let us not have a race to the bottom here when it comes to OH&S legislation. It is also important that there be an effective national compliance and enforcement policy. I see this legislation is providing a framework and a foundation for that. These are matters that must be dealt with.

In relation to the challenges ahead, I note that Dr Purse makes the point that the final shape of the government’s Safe Work Australia legislation will be determined in this place, subject to the concurrence by the House of Representatives. He says:

… it is clear that the government has laid out an ambitious plan for a nationwide restructuring of OHS regulation and, to a lesser extent, workers compensation arrangements.

Dr Purse is optimistic. He believes that, even though we no longer have wall-to-wall state Labor governments:

… the prospects for a national model OH&S legislation have never been better.

That is something that clearly I believe is encouraging, because we need to act on the unacceptably high level of people who are injured and killed in the workplace in this country.

I note that there is a role, as Senator Bishop alluded to, for looking at workers compensation issues. I am very concerned at what the South Australian Labor government has done in workers compensation. I believe that Safe Work Australia will play an important governance and structural role with respect to workers compensation in the various states and that it can only be beneficial in being able to make recommendations that cut red tape and go to the core of workers compensation matters that need to be dealt with—after all, if we can effectively tackle issues of occupational health and safety, that will inevitably lead to a reduction in deaths and injuries in the workplace and will of course mean that workers compensation schemes will not have the same cost pressures on them. A concomitant effect will be maintaining and, particularly in South Australia’s case, increasing the levels of benefits to injured workers, given the draconian changes that were introduced only recently by the South Australian government.

With those remarks, I look forward to the committee stage. This is an important piece of legislation. I think it is important that we get it right and I look forward to the amendments that will be moved by my colleagues Senators Siewert and Abetz so that we can ensure that this is truly an effective and independent body that will make a very real difference in occupational health and safety in this country and, by extension, reduce the level of death and injury in the workplaces of Australia.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President Hurley, I congratulate you on your appointment to the big chair—another member of the class of 2004 has made it there. I am very pleased to be able to speak this evening on these two bills before the Senate. The Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 and the Safe Work Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2008 establish a new Commonwealth statutory authority that is another practical example of the government’s determination to undo the wrongs of the past and to establish a modern, national and balanced approach to workplace issues that will stand the nation in good stead for the future.

As is well known, the Australian Labor Party was established by working people and their unions as a party for the workers. We take the protection of workers and their rights very seriously and we have done so throughout the long history of our party. It was the Labor Party, for example, that initiated the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission that was established in 1985 as part of the Hawke Labor government’s 1983 prices and income accord with Australia’s trade unions. The commission was very important in establishing for the first time a national focus on occupational health and safety. In particular, it developed national standards in addressing hazardous areas for workers such as manual handling, noise, plant, hazardous substances and dangerous goods. The work that the commission did has certainly provided the foundation for ongoing work in that area at both the state and federal level.

During the period of the Howard government, the commission unfortunately suffered funding cuts and a reduced role. It was eventually replaced by the Australian Safety and Compensation Council. That was a council and not an independent statutory authority and, unfortunately, in its guise as a council, the organisation did not have the clout that it had previously had. So, in the 2007 election campaign, Labor, true to its long history of supporting workers and ensuring the best possible outcomes in the area of workers’ safety, promised to replace the council with an organisation with more teeth. That is what we are doing here with these bills tonight, and it is a great thing to see Labor’s workplace relations legislation gradually implemented in the chamber.

That attitude from the Labor government is in stark contrast to the approach of the opposition. When most recently in government, the coalition was determined to make the lives of workers as difficult as possible through draconian industrial relations laws, and, unfortunately, the former government paid scant attention to health and safety at work. In contrast, as I said, protection of workers’ rights was at the forefront of Labor’s election campaign last year. We vowed to roll back Work Choices, which stripped many workers’ rights. That is a process we began earlier in the year, and we look forward to seeing more legislation along those lines as the year progresses.

Labor has always recognised that workplace safety is an incredibly important issue for workers and their families and of course for the economy. There is not much point arguing at the workplace for better wages, flexible hours, longer leave or better working conditions if you are in a workplace where you could get severely injured, contract some workplace related disease or even be killed. We know that more than 300 Australians are killed at work each year and many more die as a result of work related disease. Each year over 140,000 Australians are seriously injured at work, and that means that 17 in every 1,000 employees will be off work for at least a week due to work related injury and disease. Two of those 17 workers will need at least six months off work to recover from the injury or illness they sustained during their working life. It is estimated that there are some 689,000 work related injuries in Australia each year. The struggle that can follow a serious injury has far-reaching effects on both the injured worker and their family, on their relationships, on their job prospects and on their future income. Many of us on this side of the chamber have previously worked in trade unions or related areas and have worked closely with people who have suffered work related injuries and seen the long-term detrimental effect that can have on them and their future prospects.

What makes it all much worse is that so many of those workplace injuries and deaths can be prevented through safer practices in workplaces. Unfortunately, it is often difficult to focus on workplace safety issues. There seems to be an assumption in Australia that workplace safety is not a problem because we are a developed nation and we have reasonably good laws comparable to some other nations. There is also unfortunately often the attitude of little sympathy for injured workers and ignorance about what is at stake. In this legislation we are attempting to put workplace safety at the forefront of people’s minds. If people need to be focused on that, perhaps one of the things they could pay more attention to is the impact of workplace injuries on the economy, which has been estimated in Australia to be a cost of some $34 billion a year. In these current economic times we well know that that vast sum of money could be better spent than on supporting workers who unfortunately have been injured when they need not have been injured.

In addition to establishing Safe Work Australia, the Rudd Labor government has already started work to make Australian workplaces safer and healthier. For example, we have undertaken a review of the Comcare scheme, a scheme which the former government neglected for a decade. Under the previous government, Comcare was underresourced and unable to cope with the investigations workload that it had. Our review will outline ways in which to fix the problems in that system that is so important to us.

The government has also set up an independent panel of experts to conduct a national occupational health and safety review and has also developed an agreement with state and territory governments for nationally consistent occupational health and safety legislation. We want that review to recommend the optimal structure and content of a model occupational health and safety act that is capable of being adopted in all states and territories and federally.

The debate about these bills before us today could not be more timely as next week is Safe Work Australia Week. That is a week that brings the nation’s focus to workplace safety issues and encourages people to really prioritise safety in their workplaces. I would like to congratulate everyone getting involved in Safe Work Australia Week activities which are being held across the nation. In my home state of South Australia, our four major occupational health and safety stakeholders—SafeWork SA, WorkCover SA, Business SA and SA Unions—have truly outdone themselves this year, extending Safe Work Australia Week into a whole month.

Starting today and running until 7 November these organisations are ensuring that everyone across the state, from Port Lincoln to Roxby Downs to Mount Gambier, has the opportunity to participate in an event related to workplace safety. Those events include community breakfasts, a celebrity doctor with simple tips on how to put life back into your business and working life, and an executive management forum facilitated by Mr Tom Phillips, the former CEO of Mitsubishi Motors Australia. There is also a special South Australian health expo showcasing excellence and innovation in injury prevention.

Safe Work Australia Week is coordinated by the Australian Safety and Compensation Council, the ASCC, and is a good example of what can be done with national input and support. But the government wants to do more. The Safe Work Australia Bill and its transitional bill will establish Safe Work Australia, a replacement for the ASCC. Unfortunately, because of funding and because its powers were limited to coordinating, monitoring and promoting, the ASCC was unable to have a substantive role in promoting and ensuring occupational health and safety across the workforce. Safe Work Australia will be an independent Commonwealth statutory authority designed to improve OH&S outcomes and workers compensation arrangements in Australia.

We know that OH&S systems are aimed at preventing workplace accidents, while the workers compensation systems are designed to deliver support needed to workers and their families when such accidents occur. Historically, both occupational health and safety and workers compensation arrangements have been fragmented across the Commonwealth and states and territories. As we know, each state and territory has its own health and safety laws. While there is some consistency across those laws, there are still, unsurprisingly, some fundamental differences between them. That inconsistency between the jurisdictions can create a lot of confusion and makes it very difficult for workers who may move from one state and territory to another, as we know increasingly workers in Australia do, and also difficult for employers who operate across more than one jurisdiction. I understand there are some 36,000 employers in Australia who operate in more than one jurisdiction. As workers move into a new jurisdiction they want to know what their rights and entitlements are, particularly in relation to compensation, because it may be different from what they had before. If a worker has an ongoing workers compensation claim, then it needs to be made easier for both the employer and the worker to ensure that that claim can be dealt with consistently.

The legislation before us today seeks to set in place the structure to facilitate more consistency across the nation, putting in place a set of high-standard occupational health and safety rules across all jurisdictions. Safe Work Australia will take forward the initiatives of the Commonwealth and the states and territories to streamline and harmonise workers compensation arrangements. For the first time in the history of our Federation, governments from each state and territory and the Commonwealth have formally committed to the harmonisation of occupational health and safety legislation through an intergovernmental agreement.

When Safe Work Australia comes into being, it must take into account the interests of the Commonwealth and the states and territories as well as workers and employers. It will be a reform focused body with the power to make recommendations directly to the Workplace Relations Ministers Council. The states and territories have agreed to an arrangement whereby the Commonwealth will fund 50 per cent of the budget for Safe Work Australia, while the states and territories together will fund the remaining 50 per cent. Details of those funding arrangements are set out in the Intergovernmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Occupational Health and Safety made between the Commonwealth and the states and territories on 3 July 2008.

Safe Work Australia will be a positive move financially for the government. The Commonwealth will be required to pay an initial minimum amount of $8.5 million which would be subject to indexation by the CPI as a minimum in the following years. This amount is less than the amount outlaid for the running of the Australian Safety and Compensation Council. It is an example of how a wise investment can deliver excellent benefits for Australian workers and employers.

The Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 will assist the nation in improving occupational health and safety outcomes and workers compensation arrangements in Australia because it will empower Safe Work Australia to do a number of things. It will develop a national policy in respect of occupational health and safety and workers compensation; prepare model occupational health and safety legislation and codes of practice for approval by the ministerial council and for adoption by the Commonwealth, states and territories; and develop compliance and enforcement policy to ensure that a nationally consistent approach is taken to compliance and enforcement. This is very valuable for employers who work across a number of jurisdictions; they will know the rules wherever they are operating. Safe Work Australia will also develop proposals relating to the harmonisation of workers compensation arrangements across all jurisdictions. It will develop proposals for national workers compensation arrangements for employers with workers in more than one jurisdiction. Importantly, it will build expertise across occupational health and safety laws and workers compensation schemes that will be readily accessible across jurisdictions and industries, which will reduce the complexity and costs for businesses.

Another feature of Safe Work Australia will be its ability to undertake data collection and research and to publish its findings. This will ensure that all jurisdictions and industries have access to up-to-date, industry-specific information. Employers and workers will be able to adopt practices that will reduce instances of risk and injury in workplaces across Australia. While facilitating data collection might seem a minor part of the bills before the chamber, it is in fact very important. We should never forget how important good data was in assisting and sustaining the victims of asbestos related diseases during their long fight in the pursuit of compensation. So I am very pleased to see that data collection is specifically mentioned in the bills as an important focus of Safe Work Australia.

The Safe Work Australia legislation will also create and maintain mechanisms for review and revision of the effectiveness of Safe Work Australia in performing its functions. This will ensure that the organisation is active in operating efficiently and is responsive in meeting its strategic and operational goals.

The bill also deals with the membership of Safe Work Australia. This will consist of representatives from Commonwealth, state and territory governments, as well as people representing the interests of workers and employers in Australia. This will make Safe Work Australia a truly representative body rather than just an expert body. It is an innovative structure. I am very pleased to support such a structure, particularly when it includes at a national level not only government representatives but also worker and employer representatives. The importance of having a representative body is also reflected in the bill by the stipulation that SWA needs to have at least two-thirds of its voting membership in place in order to perform its functions. I think that stipulation highlights the importance of the body and the need to ensure that all interests in the very vexing and sometimes difficult area of workplace safety are taken into consideration.

In closing, while commending the bills to the chamber, I would like to acknowledge the many workplace occupational health and safety delegates in Australia who volunteer to undertake the role of monitoring what happens in their workplaces, of advising their workmates on how to keep themselves safe and of reporting and improving on health and safety in their workplaces. They are the front-line warriors who ensure that workplaces in Australia are safe. No matter what legislation we pass in this place, it would be pretty irrelevant if we did not have these delegates on the ground doing what they do very well. I would also like to acknowledge the work in South Australia of the Asbestos Victims Association. It was at the forefront of ensuring that South Australians who were afflicted by the terrible diseases from asbestos had an opportunity to fight their case for compensation. Like Senator Xenophon, I would also like to acknowledge the work of Dr Kevin Purse, who is a fearless campaigner and sometimes a fearless critic of federal and state governments in the area of workers compensation. I thank him for his work.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Madam Acting Deputy President Hurley, I too place on record my congratulations on your elevation to such esteemed high office in this place.

I rise to speak on the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 and the Safe Work Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2008. I say from the outset that perhaps there is a case for those on the other side of this chamber to seek some assistance because I think too many of them actually suffer from short-term memory loss in relation to their attacks on Australian workers over their almost 12 long years in government. To have people like Senator Boyce come into the chamber and make the assertions she did during her speech is a real case of short-term memory loss—or maybe it is just selective memory.

As promised prior to the last election, the Rudd government is delivering a new independent national body to lead and improve occupational health and safety and workers compensation arrangements in Australia. As most of us in this place would be aware, there have been too many changes at the state level over the last decade or so. I know that all workers in Australia are very much looking forward to these changes and this new legislation.

The purpose of this legislation is to establish Safe Work Australia as an independent Commonwealth statutory body to improve occupational health and safety outcomes and workers compensation arrangements in Australia. The legislation establishes the operational arrangements to support Safe Work Australia, including provisions relating to the nomination of, the appointment of and the terms and conditions of members, conflict-of-interest issues, procedures relating to the conduct of meetings, and decision-making processes. The legislation also enables the chair to constitute committees to draw upon a wide range of expertise for the performance of its functions.

Safe Work Australia will be funded by both the Commonwealth and the states, with each side contributing 50 per cent of the cost. Safe Work Australia will comprise 15 members, including an independent chair, nine members representing the Commonwealth and each state and territory, two members representing the interests of workers, two members representing the interests of employers, and the CEO. Safe Work Australia will develop national policy relating to occupational health and safety and workers compensation; prepare, monitor and revise model OH&S legislation; develop a compliance and enforcement policy to ensure nationally consistent regulatory approaches across all jurisdictions; develop proposals relating to the harmonisation of workers compensation arrangements—and I do not think we can emphasise too much the importance of that; collect, analyse and publish OH&S and workers compensation data and undertake and publish research; drive national communications strategies to raise awareness of health and safety at work; further develop the National OHS Strategy 2002-2012; and advise the Workplace Relations Ministers Council on OH&S and workers compensation matters. So there is definitely a very important responsibility attached to that board. The legislation will also create and maintain mechanisms for review and revision of the effectiveness of Safe Work Australia in performing its functions. This will ensure that the body is active and operating efficiently in meeting its strategic and operational goals.

Safe Work Australia will replace the Australian Safety and Compensation Council, which was set up administratively by the previous government as an advisory council. In contrast to the ASCC, Safe Work Australia will be funded by both the Commonwealth and the states and territories and will provide a central role in occupational health and safety and workers compensation reform. The government has set itself the task of creating a seamless national economy unhampered by unnecessary state duplications, overlaps and differences. Occupational health and safety is a prime example for this sort of reform.

More than 300 Australians are killed each year at work and many more die as a result of work related disease. Each year over 140,000 Australians are seriously injured at work. There were 139,630 serious workers compensation claims in 2005-06. A large majority of these claims—around 70 per cent—involved injury or poisoning, totalling 98,360 claims. The most common industries where workers are injured at work are transport, construction and manufacturing. According to the ACTU, every week nine Australian workers die under traumatic circumstances. I do not think that we can overestimate the impact that illness, serious injury and death causes to individuals, families and workplaces—and let us not forget the effect on the economy. But we cannot overlook the human cost—the impact on people’s future earnings, their capacity to support their families and the mental health issues that arise from these injuries. Too often workers have to regain their confidence and self-esteem. All these things have an impact on their families and the community as a whole.

Researchers estimate that at least 2,500 workers a year die as a result of illness or injuries, and about 170,000 people suffer a work related injury or illness. The figures are actually higher than this because these are only the deaths and injuries recorded by the workers compensation authorities. Many more Australian workers suffer injuries or illnesses that go unrecorded. Factor in to all of this the work related diseases such as cancer, asbestosis and occupational asthma and the total number of work related fatalities rises to around 2,900 a year. In Tasmania in 2007, nine workers lost their lives in traumatic workplace incidents. I believe this is unacceptable, and the Rudd Labor government believes this is unacceptable. The cost to our economy of these injuries has been estimated at $34 billion per year. However, you cannot put a cost on those injured and the effects on their families and friends and the wider community.

The establishment of Safe Work Australia is an essential part of the government’s strategy to improve safety outcomes and workers compensation arrangements across Australia. Since coming to office we have undertaken a review of the Comcare scheme, set up an independent panel of experts to conduct a national OH&S review and developed a landmark intergovernmental agreement with our state and territory counterparts to harmonise occupational health and safety legislation nationally. The legislation, together with the intergovernmental agreement, ushers in a new era of cooperation and collaboration between the Commonwealth, states and territories in this important area. It is a collaboration that will improve the health and safety of workers across Australia and reduce the complexity of regulation for businesses.

Occupational health and safety and workers compensation are issues too important to be neglected any longer. We do not have to search too far back in our memories to recall the sorts of attacks that the previous Liberal coalition government made on Australian workers. In fact, I think there had not been such an attack since 1929, and we saw the effects of that with the former Prime Minister in fact losing his seat and repeating history.

Workers’ lives and health are also at stake, and so too is the efficiency and impact on the running of our country’s economy. Occupational health and safety and workers compensation reform will increase profitability and productivity and better protect the lives and health of all Australian workers. Safe Work Australia will play a pivotal role in this reform. Every worker has a right to a safe workplace and to a work environment that enables them to live a socially and economically productive life.

I would like to join with my colleague the former speaker in putting on record my thanks to those people who take up the position of occupational health and safety officers in workplaces around the country. In fact, I know firsthand from the experience of my husband, who held that position in local government for a number of years, that it can be very challenging. It is not always easy when you have to take on the bosses—in his case, local government—and companies to ensure that workplaces are safe. After all, everyone is entitled to a safe work environment. This bill reaffirms the Rudd government’s commitment to safer workplaces.

I join with my colleagues in commending this bill to the Senate and I hope those on the opposite side of the chamber will show some sense and will support this in the interest of all Australian workers and their families.

Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to incorporate Senator Hutchins’s speech.

Leave granted.

Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The incorporated speech read as follows

I rise tonight to give support to the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 and Safe Work Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2008. Let me elaborate on the current occupational health and safety system in place in Australia in the present time.

Currently, every state and territory has a different Occupational Health and Safety Act. There are even two Commonwealth OH&S Acts. More than that, there are also several state-based industry-specific OH&S laws like those that cover coal mining in Queensland. These Acts all have a large degree of overlap but their rules and regulatory provisions are different.

For any employer operating across two or more states, this means coming to grips with and implementing not one, but several OH&S regimes into their work environments.

Four years ago the Productivity Commissions raised this problem and identified the need to harmonise our multiple OH&S schemes into a set of national standards. Importantly, the Productivity Commission recognised that any harmonisation of OH&S laws should not come at the expense of workplace safety standards in any one state.

In response to this the Howard Government created the Australian Safety and Compensation Council—a toothless bureaucratic tiger whose role was reined in to “coordinating” and “monitoring”, “promoting” and “recommending”. Four years later, we’re still no closer to minimising the red tape faced by business and we still have eight distinct OH&S regimes.

Inconsistencies between jurisdictions mean that some workers are at risk of poorer safety standards than those in other states. At the same time, these inconsistencies increase the complexity, paperwork and costs for more than 39,000 Australian businesses that operate across state boundaries.

In response to this challenge, the Howard Government choked.

The ASCC was nothing but a smokescreen to cover up the inaction of the Howard Government on occupational health and safety.

It was a toothless tiger with the power to advise and not much else.

During the Federal Election, the now Labor Government made a commitment to overhaul the Australian Safety and Compensation Council and replaced it with a body that could deliver results.

This new body was to be independent and non adversarial; feature inclusive representation from all Federal and State and Territory Governments, as well as employer and employee groups; allow inclusive input to policy development and research into issues; develop expertise across OHS laws and workers compensation schemes; be responsible for data collection mechanisms through which risk, injury and cost profiles can be readily accessed across jurisdictions and industries; drive policy development which will deliver consistency across OHS legislation and across workers compensation schemes; and have powers through its ability to refer matters to the Workplace Relations Ministerial Council and enforcement of common implementation dates for reforms. Safe Work Australia will be that body.

This bill is just another example of Labor meeting its election commitments. It’s another example of Labor’s cooperative federalism—working cooperatively with the States rather than playing politics on the critical issues that matter to working families. It’s another example of Labor getting the job done.

We’ve heard a number of complaints in this place during the course of this debate about the membership of this committee. Senator Abetz had the nerve to claim that this bill is the result of deals between “Labor mates” in State Governments. There have been some concerns that employer and employee representation on this body has been reduced and government representation has been increased.

I think this is indicative of one of the many reasons that the Coalition failed time and time again to achieve any meaningful federal reform in 11 and a half years in Government.

If you want to end the blame game with the States, you’ve got to start by talking and consulting. You can’t just throw a model bill at them and tell them to pass it.

I’m not surprised at Senator Abetz’s allegations one bit—the closest the Howard Government came to cooperative federalism was threatening to pull funding whenever a State wouldn’t do what it was told. Senator Abetz and the Coalition were the bullies in the political playground—stealing the lunch money of the states that wouldn’t play by their rules.

The Rudd Labor Government is trying something that the Howard Government never even tried—we want to use the carrot, not the stick.

11½ years of the Commonwealth Government telling the States to “do what I say or else” has demonstrated that the stick doesn’t work.

By bringing the States to the table and giving them a voice in the formulation of a model Occupational Health and Safety Bill, we’re giving them a stake in the legislation that we’ll be asking them to pass—the carrot they’ve all been waiting for.

Senator Abetz and the Coalition need to get it into their heads that a bit of cooperation never hurt anybody.

The passage and enactment of this legislation will put into motion the Intergovernmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Occupational Health and Safety agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments in July—a truly momentous landmark in the development of Commonwealth-State relations. Something never seen in the 11 and a half years of the Howard Government.

I want talk a little bit about the primary function that Safe Work Australia will adopt under this bill—developing model Occupational Health and Safety legislation for adoption by the States and Territories.

This is a fundamental policy role that Safe Work Australia’s predecessor —the Australian Safety and Compensation Council—was denied.

The Productivity Commission noted in its review in 2004 that any harmonisation of OH&S laws should not be a case of harmonising down to the lowest common denominator, but rather harmonising up to the best practice OH&S standards of the day.

Assuming the bill passes through this place, there needs to be an acknowledgement by the new members of Safe Work Australia that industry-specific issues need to be confronted and accommodated by any model legislation developed.

I draw the Senate’s attention to one particular industry-specific problem—the pressure placed on truck drivers to meet deadlines and the occupational health and safety hazards this poses.

The trucking industry is facing a safety crisis. 275 people died in heavy vehicle accidents in the twelve months between March 2007 and March 2008—an increase of 19.7 per cent on the previous year.

It’s time that the trucking industry had some recognition in OH&S Laws for the unique risks that truck drivers are faced with every day.

I’ve heard many of the horror stories from drivers about the demands placed on them—forcing them to speed, or ignore breaks and sleep time, and even in some cases use illicit drugs to push through and meet an unrealistic deadline.

These stories take up pages and pages of the Transport Workers Union submission to the National Transport Commission investigation into driver remuneration and payment methods in the Australian Trucking Industry.

I’ll give you a couple of examples: Greg from Port Melbourne says:

“I am paid by the hour, but know that there is no way you can survive on 7.6 hours pay a day so you work as much overtime as you can to survive. As a result I have driven whilst I’ve felt fatigued in order to finish the job and earn more money. I have experienced being pressured to accept lower rates in order to keep work and was been told indirectly that I must do the job or face consequences such as termination.”

Keith, an owner driver from Hemmant in Queensland sums it up:

“Blokes are dying because they can’t get enough money no matter how hard they push themselves.”

The role of Safe Work Australia is not simply to harmonise our OH&S laws across States and Territories. The role of Safe Work Australia is to take a leading role in the development of Occupational Health and Safety policy—to be the open forum for debate between governments, employers and employees on occupational health and safety standards.

This is a unique opportunity to build on our existing OH&S standards and ensure that we are enforcing best practice measures in every jurisdiction in Australia, across every industry. This means delving into the industries facing unique challenges and doing something about it.

In the case of the trucking industry, the TWU argues that the rates of pay and conditions in the transport industry force drivers to succumb to the pressure to work excessive hours, exceed legal speed limits, drive through break and sleep times, and in some cases use illegal stimulants to keep them going.

All of these pose not only a risk to the employee or self-employed driver, but they are a threat to the very safety of any motorist. These pressures arise from unsafe payment practices.

The existence of the link between remuneration and safety standards was made very clear in the NSW Industrial Relations Commission Mutual Responsibility for Road Safety case. The Full Bench of the NSW IRC found that:

“… every 10 per cent more that drivers earn in pay rate is associated with an 18.7 per cent lower probability of crash, and for ever 10 per cent more paid days off the probability of driver crashes declines 6.3 per cent”.

In response, the Transport Workers Union has proposed a safe rates system to the National Transport Commission. This would include enforceable rates of pay and conditions for employees and owner-drivers which do not encourage or require the drivers to engage in unsafe driving practices, and enforceable requirements on planning for safe and legal performance of road transport journeys. The safety of truck drivers and other road users should dictate journey planning, not the requirements of clients; establishing a chain of responsibility in which all contracting participants from the driver through to the ultimate client are held accountable for the safe and legal performance of road transport work; and an appropriate and adequate enforcement regime—providing sufficient resourcing to regulators and industry and employee groups.

This is the subject of a review by the National Transport Commission at the moment but these are the sorts of industry-specific issues that Safe Work Australia—should this bill pass through this place—needs to consider in formulating national occupational health and safety policy.

Again, this bill is the height of cooperative federalism and is a big step in the right direction for worker’s occupational health and safety rights. It replaces the toothless Australian Safety and Compensation Council and provides a unique opportunity to build strong, national standards for workplace safety.

Colleagues, it is with great pleasure that I commend this bill to the Senate.

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

If there are no further speakers in respect of the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008 and related bill I will seek to close the debate. I thank senators for their contributions to the debate on these bills. This legislation will give effect to the intergovernmental agreement for regulatory and operational reform in occupational health and safety agreed by COAG on 3 July 2008. This is an historic agreement and a watershed in Commonwealth-state relations. For the first time governments from each state and territory and the Commonwealth have formally committed to the harmonisation of OH&S laws and the implementation of uniform OH&S legislation complemented by consistent approaches to compliance and enforcement.

The Australian government recognises that occupational health and safety is primarily a state and territory government responsibility and that true reform in this area can only be achieved with the Commonwealth, state and territory governments working cooperatively as partners rather than as adversaries. The intergovernmental agreement ushers in a new era of cooperation and collaboration between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. It is a collaboration which will improve the health and safety of workers across Australia and reduce the complexity of regulation for business. The establishment of Safe Work Australia is an essential first step in this process. Safe Work Australia will play a pivotal role in realising the shared commitment of the Commonwealth and all state and territory governments to work together to achieve harmonisation of OH&S laws. It will have the important task of developing a model OH&S act, model regulations and model codes of practice with approval by workplace relations ministers.

However, during the course of this debate, various senators have expressed concern about aspects of Safe Work Australia’s governance and have indicated that they intend to move amendments to the bill. During my summary I will turn to the various issues that have been raised and, of course, they will be dealt with as well in the committee stage, I would expect. Various senators have questioned the composition of Safe Work Australia and the voting rules relating to the model OH&S legislation. Opposition senators have sought to deflect attention from their own appalling record in the area of occupational health and safety by claiming that this legislation is fundamentally flawed because it creates an imbalance between the representatives of the state and territory governments on the one hand and the representatives of employers and employees on the other. They have also claimed that these rules reduce the role and effectiveness of the workers’ and employers’ representatives.

The membership of Safe Work Australia was agreed in the intergovernmental agreement. It seeks to balance the interests of the jurisdictions, who will be required to enact the model OH&S legislation as agreed by the ministerial council and by the employers and workers who will be affected by the model legislation when it is enacted. I acknowledge that the membership levels agreed in the intergovernmental agreement involve a reduction of employer and worker bodies when compared with the various bodies that preceded the one proposed by this legislation. Both the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission and the Australian Safety and Compensation Council had three representatives from employers and workers. Having said that, however, it is difficult to see what benefits will accrue from increasing the worker and employer membership on Safe Work Australia. Workers and employer representatives together comprise one-third of the membership of Safe Work Australia.

The Commonwealth, state and territory governments, who will jointly fund the operation of Safe Work Australia, are represented by only one member each. Indeed, the Commonwealth’s representation on Safe Work Australia has also been reduced when compared with its membership on the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission and the Australian Safety and Compensation Council. In each case the Commonwealth had two members. With two members each, the social partners will continue to play a significant role in the decision making and effectiveness of Safe Work Australia. Quite frankly, any suggestion that increasing worker and employer representation will increase the expertise available to Safe Work Australia or improve the quality of decision making in Safe Work Australia simply does not stack up. Not only will worker and employer representatives be involved in Safe Work Australia’s operations, they can also engage with the harmonisation process through participation in advisory committees and through any consultation process undertaken by Safe Work Australia.

The opposition would have us believe that state government bureaucrats will be able to repeatedly override legitimate concerns raised by the social partners during OH&S harmonisation discussions. Quite frankly, this is not the case. All questions will be decided by a two-thirds majority vote of members present and voting at a meeting. In the highly unlikely event that there is a split between the states and territories on the one hand and the employer and employee representatives on the other, the independent chair will have the deciding vote.

During the debate today, senators have also taken exception to the fact that the bill does not specifically name the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry as bodies who can nominate representatives for appointment to Safe Work Australia.

Prior to the suspension of the sitting I was providing a summary of the debate on the Safe Work Australia Bill 2008. In concluding those remarks I was going on to say that, by not naming the representative bodies in the legislation, the minister is able to seek nominations from the most representative organisation of employers and workers at the time nominations are sought. In this way the minister is able to ensure that a balance of worker and employer interests are represented on Safe Work Australia.

Turning to the issue of voting rules, Senator Siewert has expressed concern about the voting rules and in particular the provisions requiring an absolute majority of the states and territories for any decision about the model OH&S legislation. The voting rules were also agreed in the intergovernmental agreement. Questions relating to the model OH&S legislation will require an absolute majority of all the voting members who represent the Commonwealth, states and territories. This is as it should be, because it is the Commonwealth, states and territories that will be required to enact the model OH&S laws.

Turning to the role of the ministerial council which was also mentioned by a number of senators contributing to the debate, senators criticised the fact that Safe Work Australia is reliant on the cooperation and participation of the ministerial council to which it is required to report directly. The government makes no apology for this. If Australia is to have a harmonised set of OH&S laws then it will only do so with the agreement of the states and territories. The ministerial council will have the responsibility to agree by consensus to the model OH&S legislation proposed by Safe Work Australia, unless at least a majority of jurisdictional representatives on Safe Work Australia support the proposed model OH&S legislation. It is unlikely the ministerial council would reach agreement by consensus.

What the criticisms of the bill fail to acknowledge is that the composition and governance arrangements of Safe Work Australia were agreed by the Commonwealth, state and territory governments as part of the negotiations on the Intergovernmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Occupational Health and Safety. They overlook the commitment demonstrated by the states and territories in negotiating the intergovernmental agreement and contributing 50 per cent of the funding for Safe Work Australia. The intergovernmental agreement obliges the states and territories to take all necessary steps to enact the model OH&S act.

Occupational health and safety and workers compensation are, quite frankly, too important to be neglected any longer. Workers’ lives and health are at stake, and so too is the efficiency of our economy. Occupational health and safety and workers compensation reform will increase profitability and productivity and better protect the lives and health of Australians. Safe Work Australia will play a pivotal role in these reforms. With those words, I commend the bills to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bills read a second time.