Page 4551 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 23 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
agreed to in principle by former IR minister Peter Reith. But as we all know, principle and reality are always blurred with the federal government.
More concerning is the act’s restriction on industrial action based on reasonable concern about an imminent risk to his or her health or safety. The onus is now on an employee to prove that the action was based on a reasonable concern about the imminent risk to health and safety. But an employer does not have to prove that a workplace is safe.
A young worker, for example, on his third day at work, who is concerned about safety in his workplace, must prove that he is at risk. He must articulate an argument as to why working from three storeys without a harness or scaffolding is a risk to his safety. Say his experienced colleagues, union members, decide to assist this worker by voting to stop work until the workplace is safe, they will be fined $22,000 each. Further, their union will face a fine of $110,000. The fine for refusing to work in an unsafe workplace is $22,000. Even employer groups—the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Constructors Association—believe this figure is too high.
I would like to give this Assembly another figure: $11,754,082. That is how much was paid out in the 2003-04 financial year in compensation in those industries covered by the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act. In that reporting period, some 652 workers were injured, with injuries ranging from body stress to being hit by a moving object. If the federal government were serious about assisting employers in the construction and building industries, surely they would focus their improvement act on reducing the number of workplace injuries.
The federal government’s national code of conduct deals with safety issues within the building industry. Here is another figure for you: $2,200. That is how much an individual can be fined for breaching the code. $11,000 is how much a body corporate can be fined. If you strike unlawfully you face a fine of $22,000, as an individual. But if you are an employer who fails to supply a safety harness, you face a fine of $11,000. It does not make sense. But this act is not about sense; it is not about safety; it is about frightening workers into industrial compliance, with fines.
The federal government was not content to leave it at frightening workers; it wants to terrorise them. The act introduces into the building and construction industry the Australian Building and Construction Commission, at an expense of $96 million. In addition to the power to get an injunction to stop that broadly defined industrial action, the ABCC gets its own police. This is exactly the intent of the ABCC inspectors. These building police can enforce a penalty of imprisonment for six months against any worker who does not attend for questioning. You can face six months imprisonment for failing to hand over documents in an investigation.
As if this were not enough, your civil liberties will be under threat, for the act says that witnesses cannot avoid answering questions on the basis of self-incrimination. Heaven forbid if you are an employer that does not wish to pursue any action in the event of a breach. The ABCC can, irrespective of an employer’s view, do the same.
But wait, there’s more. An employer can be prosecuted for not reporting so-called unlawful industrial action. So much for deregulation! A group of employees who refuse to work, on safety grounds, can be fined $22,000 each and face jail time of up to six
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .