Page 2446 - Week 07 - Tuesday, 31 July 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
harmonised work health and safety legislation and framework designed to make it easier for businesses, particularly, to work across state borders.
When this legislation is enacted it will compel a principal contractor of a construction project which is worth $5 million or more to establish a work group in consultation with an eligible union; make the appointment of health and safety representatives mandatory; and require health and safety representatives to undergo formal training in an approved training course. It will also make the formation of health and safety committees mandatory and, again, force training in an approved training course as part of that requirement.
The kicker is that all of this must be overseen by a trade union. In other words, this forces a union presence onto sites where in some instances the workers have actively sought to exclude a union presence simply because they cause too many problems. Let us not forget that the CFMEU is the worst recidivist corporate offender in the country.
It is also worth noting that the government will be responsible for accrediting training providers in order for the relevant training to be provided. I would suggest that members look closely at union-owned training entities, which will undoubtedly find a way to profit from their new-found powers.
The legislation requires that construction projects over $5 million engage with all eligible unions. A union is eligible even if it represents just one worker on the project, resulting in every project being forced to negotiate with multiple unions. But ultimately it will be the CFMEU that is the biggest beneficiary of this change.
The financial burden for industry is real. And where will the cost ultimately be borne? Let me suggest that the homeowner will feel the pain of this impost. The delays that will come about as builders wait for the tick-off from multiple unions will be felt in the hip pocket by those trying to break into an ever more costly property market here in the ACT.
Let me make myself clear. There is no evidence to suggest that a unionised worksite is a safer worksite. Of the six deaths that have occurred in recent years on ACT construction sites, five occurred on sites which this legislation would capture. It is worth noting that all five of those sites had a union presence. It is also worth noting, likewise, that industrial manslaughter charges have recently been brought against prominent union members following another tragic workplace death.
Once again, there is no evidence to suggest that the measures enshrined in this legislation will have any impact whatsoever on safety on a worksite. In fact, it will more than likely impede any collaboration on safety issues. There is absolutely no sound evidence for making unions the authority on safety in the ACT.
I have spoken to many local construction businesses in the ACT about the implications this legislation will have for them. I am not talking about the big end of town here; I am talking about small to medium builders—builders trying to build townhouses, affordable homes—and companies of this kind. These businesses have
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video