- Home
- Hansard & Papers
- Legislative Assembly
- 7 June 2005
Rural Workers Accommodation Amendment Bill
Printing Tips |
Print selected text
| Full Day Hansard Transcript
« Prior Item |
Item 28 of 30
| Next Item »
Page: 16505
Second Reading
Debate resumed from 24 May 2005.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [10.40 p.m.]: The Coalition has a view about this bill. It is not impressed by the way in which the Government is introducing the problems associated with occupational health and safety into the Rural Workers Accommodation Amendment Bill. Everyone believes in rural workers accommodation. Essentially, it has always been a bipartisan measure. Landowners and workers both agree that because of distances, the nature of farm work, and agricultural work generally, where a person is required to work on a farming property for more than a certain number of hours, accommodation should be provided. The Rural Workers Accommodation Act ensured, in a statutory framework, that that accommodation was provided.
However, through this legislation the Government is trying to import occupational health and safety principles, and that is not appropriate. That frustrates the whole purpose of rural workers accommodation, which, as I said, is a simple statutory framework under which workers have been accommodated when they were employed on an agricultural property for more than a certain number of hours. I foreshadow that the Coalition will move the following amendment in Committee:
Pages 6 and 7, schedule 1 line 29 on page 6 to line 24 on page 7. Omit all words on those lines.
The effect of that amendment will be to ensure that the bill does what it was originally intended to do, that is, to provide accommodation for rural workers. Throughout this process the Government has tried to insert WorkCover into the legislation as a governing authority and it has tried to insert occupational health and safety principles. That has been set out by Employers First in its analysis of the bill. Employers First makes the following points:
The Bill is drafted to incorporate the criminal proceedings, absolute liability, deemed guilt and inadequate defences of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 ... The effect of the Bill is to construe the same impossibly onerous OHS obligations to the provision of accommodation as those applying to the place of work. This is unacceptable and it is inappropriate to import notions of perfect safety and absolute liability into any legislation, let alone legislation dealing with the standard of rural accommodation.
The Occupational Health and Safety Act deals with workplaces. There is no problem with that. The Rural Workers Accommodation Act deals with accommodation places. The two are different. A hotel is different from a factory, yet the Government is trying through this legislation, without advising anybody, to merge the two. Employers First goes on to state:
There is no requirement for any additional legislation to ensure the safety and welfare of rural workers in regard to their accommodation. The RWA should simply be amended to retain the requirement to provide accommodation to rural workers who, because of the terms of their engagement, live for more than 24 hours on the premises on which they work, with a minimal code of practice to up-date and simple and practical guidance material for compliance.
Provision of accommodation for rural workers should be determined as a contractual issue or condition of employment and its provision should not be tied … to OHS legislation. Regulating accommodation on "safety grounds" well illustrates the Government's use of OHS legislation to achieve industrial relations objectives.
That is an underlying problem in both the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Workplace Fatalities) Amendment Bill and this bill. The Government is following an industrial relations agenda; it is not following an agenda of workplace safety or a rural accommodation agenda. In relation to part 5 Employers First states:
The OHS Act enforcement provisions should not apply to the RWA Act, which should retain inspectors appointed under the RWA Act and regulated by the Office of Industrial Relations. Nor should non-compliance be subject to criminal prosecution. The existing prosecutorial regime for service of notices and proceedings before magistrates in local courts should be retained.
The maximum penalty of 250 penalty units or $27,500 is excessive, particularly given the demanding and unrealistic provisions currently contained in the draft Code as the standard required to meet the duty of provision of "suitable" accommodation. It is also excessive in relation to contravention of a provision of an industrial instrument, where the penalty, a civil penalty, cannot exceed $11,500.
The bill imposes a penalty of up to $27,000 for a violation relating to the simple matter of accommodation. The penalties are onerous, they are excessive, and the former system of enforcement has been taken over by WorkCover. Employers First states:
The defences provided in Section 8 of the Bill, as prosecutions under the OHS Act have clearly demonstrated, are completely inadequate and absolutely unacceptable ... The notion of "reasonably practicable" has been significantly distorted within the OHS legal system and is now part of a regime which effectively requires perfect safety and zero risk.
In relation to clause 22 Employers First states:
Section 22 of the Bill imports one of the most offensive provisions of the OHS Act, and one contrary to the basic principles of our legal system, the deeming of guilt. Again, prosecutions under the OHS Act show that the available defences offer no real protection against a conviction.
Suddenly, as a result of this legislation, the Rural Workers Accommodation Act will incorporate the onerous, unfair and harsh regime laid down by the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which is founded on the premise of deemed guilt. The submission goes on to refer to clause 23 in the following terms:
This section offers the Government carteblanche opportunity to legislate on anything seen as remotely related to the provision of rural workers accommodation …
That clause empowers the Government to make regulations, and those regulations will allow for the imposition of fines of up to 100 penalty units or $11,000. It allows the Government to add to a regime that is already comprehensively set out in both the original Act and in the amending Act. It is simply not known what it was envisaged the regulations could possibly achieve, as these Acts are comprehensive and standalone; they have always stood alone. It is clear that the Government simply wishes to have a basis for a further exercise of power to apply to accommodation the principles of law applied to the workplace.
Accordingly, the Coalition objects to the legislation and its underlying premise, which is to ensure symmetry between accommodation and places of work. We object to the application of occupational health and safety principles to accommodation. As I said earlier, a hotel, a hostel, a boarding house and a residence are not workplaces and they are not, and have never been, subject to the same regime as workplaces. Yet this bill would merge places of accommodation with places of work, and apply occupational health and safety principles to rural workers accommodation. It will ensure that the WorkCover Authority oversees rural workers accommodation.
WorkCover has enormous power and is a prosecutorial regime. It deems guilt unfairly, onerously and harshly, denies trial by jury, and imposes massive penalties—up to $27,000—for any breach under this amending bill. WorkCover will not allow for an independent prosecutor and makes provision for ministerial discretion in prosecutions—which no-one doubts will be exercised in favour of leftwing trade unions. These are the principles that the Government seeks to insert into what should be a simple statutory framework for the accommodation of workers in rural New South Wales. Accordingly, the Opposition will move the appropriate amendment in Committee.
Ms ANGELA D'AMORE (Drummoyne) [10.51 p.m.]: I support the Rural Workers Accommodation Amendment Bill, which will significantly update the Rural Workers Accommodation Act 1969. The bill is the outcome of the national competition policy review of the 1969 Act. The review recommended that the requirement in the 1969 Act to provide accommodation remain but that significant structural amendments to the legislation be made. The amendments to this bill will, first, restate the principal requirement of the 1969 Act in plain language; second, repeal the archaic highly prescriptive requirements; third, provide that a code of practice be made under the bill; and, fourth, apply the enforcement mechanisms under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
The 1969 Act imposes extremely precise, detailed and inflexible requirements about various aspects of the accommodation to be provided. For example, the Act goes as far as specifying the measurements of the front steps and what clothes lines are to be made of, and requiring that a separate—and unrefrigerated—"meat house" be provided for butchering and storing meat when more than 10 workers are using the accommodation. These requirements, and the many others like them, have not been revisited since the legislation was enacted in 1969. However, rural industry has changed significantly since then, and so have construction standards. The application of the Building Code of Australia and other requirements contained in planning instruments and similar legislation have overtaken the need for the kinds of minute details that are in the 1969 Act. These archaic, prescriptive requirements will be repealed and replaced with provisions for a new code of practice. The code of practice will provide flexible guidance to controllers of rural premises about the kind of accommodation that is suitable.
The code of practice will not represent a step down in the protection of rural workers. Rather, it will reflect modern accommodation standards more realistically instead of requiring strict adherence to the outdated standards that currently apply. The Government is consulting closely with union and employer representatives about the content of the code of practice, and I note that the Australian Workers Union and Unions NSW support the bill. This process is an ideal opportunity for people involved in rural industry to reach agreement about the kinds of accommodation arrangements that are suitable in 2005 and beyond. The 1969 Act contains a number of provisions that have become obsolete over the years. The new bill omits those provisions and will increase legislative efficiency by eliminating duplication. The bill applies the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act relating to investigations, inspectors' powers to issue notices, and proceedings for offences under the Act. Under the 1969 Act, inspectors had to be appointed separately to enforce the rural workers accommodation requirements. The bill is written in plain English and will help controllers of rural premises to understand their obligations. I commend it to the House.
Mr IAN ARMSTRONG (Lachlan) [10.54 p.m.]: The Rural Workers Accommodation Amendment Bill is of considerable interest to me. I spent a lot of time living in rural workers accommodation as a younger person—many years ago.
Ms Linda Burney: So did I.
Mr IAN ARMSTRONG: Good luck to you. I have also provided accommodation for rural workers for the past 40 years, so I suppose I can see both sides of the coin. My rural workers accommodation was inspected six or seven years ago. I must inform the House that the majority of hut inspectors perform a dual role as WorkCover officials and Australian Workers Union representatives. The hut inspector arrived at my accommodation and said, "It says that you've got to have six metal hooks per employee in each bedroom." So I pulled out the wooden pegs and put six six-inch nails in the wall, which satisfied her. The inspector then said, "The accommodation Act says that you shall provide a wire stretcher, which shall be flat." The Cyclone company makes wire stretchers with modernised springs top and bottom and a raised head. But the stretcher cannot have a raised head, so I put it on the ground and drive a tractor over it to flatten it. That is how stupidly the Act has been applied in the past.
My next general introductory point is that in most cases shearers drive for up to an hour or an hour and a half in the morning and the afternoon to get home. A shed is operating at the moment between Boorowa, Crookwell and Cowra from which shearers drive for an hour and 20 minutes every morning and every afternoon. They will shear about 16,000 sheep in the next couple of weeks. New section 5, part 2, "Provision of accommodation", states:
Accommodation to be provided for rural worker
A person who has control of rural premises must provide suitable accommodation to a rural worker who works at the rural premises if due to the nature of the work, the rural worker must live for a period exceeding 24 hours at or near the rural premises.
I would like the Minister to explain how that provision will apply. It says that the rural worker "must live for a period exceeding 24 hours at or near the rural premises". Does that refer to piecework, requiring night and day work from time to time, or does it mean that the worker is required under some award to live in situ for the duration of the contract? I would like an explanation as to how that provision will be applied. New section 22, part 6, "Miscellaneous", refers to offences by corporations, and states:
(1) If a corporation contravenes, whether by act or omission, any provision of this Act or the regulations, each director of the corporation, and each person concerned in the management of the corporation, is taken to have contravened the same provision unless the director or person satisfies the court that:
(a) he or she was not in a position to influence the conduct of the corporation in relation to its contravention of the provision, or
(b) he or she, being in such a position, used all due diligence to prevent the contravention by the corporation.
Most rural workers accommodation is owned by family companies and family operations. It is not uncommon for a family company to have six or seven directors, that is, the mother, father and three or four children. By the same token, it is not uncommon, particularly in the Western Division, for a farm to be owned by a company and leased to another family company. There might be a manager and an overseer as well as station hands who have various responsibilities. An offence could be alleged against a rural property and as few as four or as many as eight or nine people could be caught under part 6 of the bill, which states:
… each director of the corporation, and each person concerned in the management of the corporation, is taken to have contravened the same provision unless the director or person satisfies the court …
Those people will have to obtain legal representation and argue their case in court to prove to the court that they were not responsible and defend their position as a company director—and nine times out of 10 they are non-active directors. That is absurd. It shows a lack of knowledge as to how the ownership of most rural enterprises operate, be it orchards, broad acre, or wool-growing. It does not take into consideration the mechanics of management that are applied across most properties in New South Wales.
I sincerely ask the Government to re-examine that measure and seek legal advice on how it will be applied, how the application will be made to the court, and, indeed, how much time the court will be prepared to devote to that matter if a charge is brought to prove negligence on behalf of some or all the directors and/or management. The bottom line is that if this legislation is to improve the situation—I hope it does; there is always room for improvement in this type of facility in some areas—there has to be a reasonable, practical solution as to how the improvement might be used to the benefit of employees and, by the same token, how to make it achievable for the owners of accommodation to comply with the Act. In other words, commonsense must apply.
I suggest to honourable members that some requirements in this legislation are onerous, impractical, I suspect ill-conceived, and almost unworkable. I have no doubt that much of the confrontation that has historically erupted between hut inspectors—union officials under the WorkCover Act who have a dual responsibility, as I said—and property owners will continue into the future. It is absurd that under the Act a hut inspector can force a farmer who lives within eight kilometres of a country town to erect accommodation that is not used for something like 13 years. The owner of the farm I referred to was some 77 years of age at the time. That happened outside the town of Boorowa a few years ago.
So there are a lot of anomalies, and I cannot see how this legislation addresses them. I think that in many ways it will only add to the problems of employers and affect the good relationship between employers and employees when there is a close working arrangement, as there is in these areas of agricultural employment. Travelling raises another point. As I said, shearers will now travel for up to an hour or an hour and a half in some cases. The award day is from 7.30 a.m. to 5.30 p.m., five days a week, with half an hour in the morning and afternoon for smokos and one hour for lunch. The sheds often finish at 4.30 p.m. on Fridays to allow the men to get back to town early in the afternoon and to allow the boards to be washed.
In some cases employers will allow an 8.00 a.m. start and a 5.00 p.m. finish. Of course, that affects the cost of shearing, but it is to accommodate people who, understandably, want to get home to their families. But one cannot expect to have it both ways. One cannot expect owners to give up award time and also provide accommodation. If owners are prepared to give travelling time to employees who make arrangements with their contractor or organiser, I cannot see why they should be forced to provide accommodation that will stand idle in many cases for years and years and just deteriorate.
Mr STEVE WHAN (Monaro) [11.03 p.m.]: As a Country Labor member it gives me pleasure to support this bill. First I put on the record that Country Labor and the Labor Party believe it is important to look after the standard of accommodation in the workplace.
[Quorum formed.]
I am indebted to the honourable member for Gosford for gathering this audience, even if it will only be for a short time. The bill is of great interest to Country Labor and the Labor Party because we believe that rural workers should be looked after and should be entitled to proper occupational health and safety standards. Also—obviously members opposite do not believe in this—rural workers should be entitled to accommodation if they are required to stay overnight in the area in which they are working. I am sure that honourable members are aware that people who must travel for many hours and a long distance to work on a property often find it more convenient to stay overnight. Certainly, as the honourable member for Lachlan said, that might not be as frequent as it once was, when transport was not as good and when the Labor Government had not built good roads throughout New South Wales to ensure that people can easily travel to rural areas.
Now that we have better roads I acknowledge that there is less call for people to stay overnight at their place of employment. However, that does not mean that we should drop this legislation or that rural workers should not be guaranteed accommodation. The Government is of the view that these people are important and that it is important to guarantee their rights and needs. I guess it is a sign of the Opposition's interest in the rural work force that not one Opposition member is in the Chamber during this debate. Members of The Nationals are nowhere to be seen; only one member of The Nationals has spoken in this debate.
The bill updates the Act. The previous Government speaker ably gave the detail of the bill, and I will not go into it again. The bill updates a very old Act, the Rural Workers Accommodation Act, which, I am told, was one of the earliest pieces of legislation introduced into this Parliament. So it has a long heritage. Under national competition policy, the Government was required to review the Act to see whether it had anti-competitive elements. The Government determined that it is not anti-competitive, because it is necessary to ensure occupational health and safety standards for rural workers. For that reason, the Government has attempted to update the Act to bring in new provisions to make it more relevant to today's society and consistent with occupational health and safety standards. The Act needed to be updated. I acknowledge the points made by the honourable member for Lachlan, who reminisced about his experience and the application of the Act over the years. Some of the examples he gave highlight the need in this modern era for the Act to be updated.
I was not surprised to hear the honourable member for Gosford, who led for the Opposition, say that the amendments were not needed. He suggested that rural workers did not need a guarantee of a certain standard of accommodation. The Government rejects that proposition because workers who need to stay overnight should be entitled to a certain standard. This bill provides for codes of practice to be put in place to provide practical guidance to persons who have control of rural premises with respect to the type and nature of accommodation that is suitable for rural workers who fall under this Act. There will be consultation in relation to putting those codes of practice in place.
A number of workplace injuries still occur in rural employment, which has special conditions that are not found in urban areas. It is important to recognise that rural workers fall within a special category, and that is why it is important to retain this Act. The Government rejects what the honourable member for Lachlan said about the Government trying to have it both ways. While some people now find it easier to travel to and from work, even though they travel further than they did 60 years ago, there is certainly a need in some areas for workers to stay overnight at their place of employment. In those circumstances, it is important that they have a decent standard of accommodation.
I reinforce the fact that Country Labor believes that rural workers are important. They are a group who are often ignored by the Opposition, particularly by The Nationals. The honourable member for Lachlan said the provisions of the bill were not practical and would not be easy to implement. It is important to protect workers and to make sure they have a good standard of accommodation. They are entitled to a workplace that is safe. They are important to rural communities because they live there and they make rural industries tick. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms KATRINA HODGKINSON (Burrinjuck) [11.13 p.m.]: I endorse the comments of Opposition members on the Rural Workers Accommodation Amendment Bill, and I restate that this amending bill is the outcome of a national competition policy review of the Rural Workers Accommodation Act 1969. The review said the requirement to provide accommodation should remain, but that significant structural amendments should be made to the Act. Whenever it comes to rural workers and accommodation there will always be different points of view, depending on whether one provides accommodation or one inhabits that accommodation. That was emphasised very strongly by the honourable member for Lachlan, who made a good contribution to the bill.
I note that Employers First has specified some concern with the bill and believes that its intent is adversely affected by the Occupational Health and Safety Act. It is important to place on the record that many employers across the State have difficulty not only with this legislation but with many pieces of legislation we have been debating over the past several years, and that they are severely impacted by the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The Nationals are strongly of the opinion that the Act impacts very negatively in many ways upon employers, and that it can have the resultant effect of being an employment negative. It is important that the Government understand that many employers are of that opinion in relation to legislation such as this. Certainly the Rural Workers Accommodation Amendment Bill is no exception.
Ms LINDA BURNEY (Canterbury) [11.15 p.m.]: Honourable members might be intrigued about why I would speak to the Rural Workers Accommodation Amendment Bill. A number of them may be aware that I grew up in the Riverina and the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area and spent much of my youth not only picking oranges and grapes but also working on harvesters at night on tomato harvesting. That was very challenging for a kid at school to supplement the meagre family income and lifestyle, but that is what kids did in the Riverina. So I know a little about this subject from a very personal perspective. I have seen and I understand the difficulties and challenges involved in the provision of workers' accommodation on many farms.
It is important to understand that this discussion has arisen out of a WorkCover review of the Rural Workers Accommodation Act 1969, something I have not heard much about in this debate. A consultative process has involved, and will continue to involve, not only itinerant workers but also those who provide residential accommodation for them. People do not think seriously about the implications for families, their children and, in many senses, the communities who actually follow work in rural areas, whether in the picking fields or the cotton chipping fields, or about the need to provide adequate accommodation for them.
This bill is ultimately extremely sensible, and deals with a whole range of matters. Essentially it gives clear guidelines to people who are responsible for providing accommodation to rural workers who will be away from their home for more than 24 hours. The bill makes clear their responsibilities and those of a number of other instrumentalities. Rural workers face special conditions not faced by workers in other sections. When we, and a whole range of other workers, are away from home we get a generous travel allowance. One can imagine how hard it is for two parents with three kids to cope with getting their kids a decent education through correspondence, or in primary school or secondary school, as well as a decent standard of accommodation as they live in a number of places over a number of seasons. I saw many families growing up in the Riverina—the honourable member for Wagga Wagga would understand what I am talking about—including in Leeton, Griffith, Coleambally and a whole range of other places.
Mr Daryl Maguire: Ivanhoe, Wilcannia, Broken Hill, Menindee.
Ms LINDA BURNEY: Ivanhoe, Wilcannia and Darlington Point, where people are moving from one field to another—be it potatoes, peas, tomatoes, cotton, oranges or peaches—with extremes of accommodation. This bill tries to regulate equitable accommodation for people who find themselves in this industry. That is extremely honourable. Why should people who have itinerant arrangements, who follow the seasons and the crops, be subject to living in absolutely abhorrent conditions? Some of them are. In some cases there may not be showers, there may not be any distinction between men's and women's ablution blocks, and study time for kids may receive very little regard. They are the fundamental issues we are talking about in this bill.
This bill will not be enacted straightaway. It will develop a code of practice that will be discussed and negotiated with a whole range of people in this industry before it is enacted. The bill does not beat anyone around the head. It is thinking about families and the standard of accommodation that workers should expect if they follow the seasons and the crops. A lot of people are in this position. They are good people but very often on the edge because they do not have a lot of things like superannuation and all those sorts of things that people expect are a normal part of one's work experience. The bill focuses on a level of accommodation that is adequate and decent. It looks at it from the perspective of the Rural Workers Accommodation Act 1969. It has involved an enormous amount of consultation, and that will continue until there is a code of practice.
More importantly, it will make sure that people who are responsible—be they companies or individual farmers—for responding to this bill and making sure rural workers accommodation is adequate are given every opportunity to meet those standards. The workers who follow the picking season, the cropping season and the chipping season and their families, like everyone else in our community, deserve a decent standard of accommodation. This bill is a good wakeup for us in this Chamber that there is a whole community of people from many different ethnic backgrounds and experiences who make their lives picking, cropping and chipping, and we should be responsible for and respect those people's needs by implementing the Rural Workers Accommodation Amendment Bill. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [11.23 p.m.]: The contribution of the honourable member for Canterbury has prompted me to also make a contribution. I agree with much that has been said about the area from which we hail. The honourable member indicated to the House that she was raised around the Whitton area—Narrandera, Griffith, Leeton—and has fond memories of the area. She also relayed to the House the standards of some accommodation used by her family, friends and others. I can speak from first-hand experience, having been raised in the Western Division in the triangle between Cobar, Wilcannia and Ivanhoe. It is a very remote area. As my dad worked as a station hand on stations, whether it be shearing sheep or mustering, much of that time we lived for long periods in rural accommodation supplied by the owners of those large stations. I spent school holidays on the boards of the sheds rouseabouting, earning an income—as most rural kids do. The standards of accommodation differed markedly. The honourable member for Canterbury referred to the Griffith area and the itinerant fruit pickers. Again, the standards vary markedly.
Honourable members have covered various parts of the bill and it has been explained fairly well, but I would like the Minister to respond to what I am concerned about: the code of practice. The Opposition has proposed amendments to the bill. The words "modern standards" concern me. Much of the accommodation provided is seasonal. In the Western Division shearers often cannot drive the hour or hour and a half to the shearing shed and then get home, so they are required to stay in rural accommodation. As I said, the standards vary markedly. I want to know what this group of people who will develop the code will expect the people in the Western Division in particular to adhere to as a modern standard. In cities and towns, where most of us reside these days, modern standards are quite different from the accommodation that was built on the stations, on the large rural holdings, many years ago. Certain improvements have had to take place in the provision, particularly, of shearers' accommodation and that has been policed adequately by unions, WorkCover and others. Many modern homes have airconditioning and ceiling fans. They also have lots of features that perhaps will be expected to be included as standard features in these accommodation blocks that were built for a purpose many years ago.
The bill says there will be consultation on draft codes. This Government's consultation record is very poor. Apart from WorkCover and, as it says in the bill, whoever the Minister may direct, I want to know who else will be included. What assurances do we have that the code that will be put before the Minister and the industry will be appropriate and unanimously agreed upon? We have often seen brought before this place bills that have been withdrawn after embarrassing back flips by the Government because they have been ill-conceived. We have seen legislation before this place that has not been finalised. This is an example—approve the bill and we will tell you the detail later. It is the devil in the detail that people should be concerned about. The modern standard that has been referred to should be a major concern, not only to members on our side of the House but also to members on the Government side. All of us represent diverse electorates.
All over New South Wales there are industries that rely on the very valuable contribution that itinerant workers make. Whether picking fruit in the Griffith and Murrumbidgee area or on the North Coast, these workers are very important to the industry. I acknowledge the importance of providing appropriate accommodation for them. The question is: What standard of seasonal accommodation units will WorkCover and the Government expect to be supplied? If unreasonable demands for accommodation are made, many industries would have to spend untold amounts of money to upgrade their accommodation units. That is not to deny that work needs to be done to bring some of this accommodation up to a reasonable standard. I know I harp on this, but to industry—
Mr Steve Whan: "To industry"?
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE: It is important to industry. The honourable member has in his area shearers who would want a reasonable standard of accommodation. The question is the terminology used in the debate, such as "modern standards" and "modern expectations". Modern lifestyle demands everything at the flick of a switch, many gadgets in modern households and modern facilities which, when the subject buildings were constructed 50 years ago, were not even thought about. I ask the Minister in his response to the debate to tell us more about the code of practice. Exactly what are the mechanics of it? What can we expect? What will be the process if employers are unhappy with the code of practice? How will they go about getting a fair and reasonable outcome? Those are important questions because all too often the Government bulldozes industries on certain issues. The Government asserts that it has consulted everyone, yet we get rafts of letters from peak bodies complaining that they did not have a say, were not included in the negotiations, and that the Government is imposing something that is unreasonable. I repeat: reasonable standards of accommodation should be provided for seasonal workers, but if the cost of that to New South Wales industries puts at risks their business, the Government should return to the drawing board.
Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for the Central Coast) [11.32 p.m.], in reply: I thank honourable members who contributed to the debate, including the honourable member for Gosford and the honourable member for Drummoyne. Every time the honourable member for Lachlan speaks in a debate we are left wondering why he is not the Leader of The Nationals in this Chamber.
Mr Chris Hartcher: What about saying something like that about me?
Mr GRANT McBRIDE: I think you are being beaten by a beard and 49 kilos! I thank the honourable member for Monaro and the honourable member for Burrinjuck. I thank the honourable member for Canterbury for the insights into her early life.
Ms Linda Burney: I have picked fruit.
Mr GRANT McBRIDE: That is why I thanked you for your contribution. I do not say it is amazing, but it must be embarrassing for the Opposition that an honourable member on the Government side has such a detailed knowledge of the conditions of workers in rural New South Wales. I thank the honourable member for Wagga Wagga for his contribution. We had discussions before he spoke about the content of his contribution, and he lived up to my expectations! I use code there! Talking about code, I would like to respond to a number of issues raised by the Opposition. The Opposition asked whether inspectors are given more powers under this bill. The answer is clearly, no. At present, all WorkCover personnel who are appointed as inspectors under the Rural Workers Accommodation Act 1969 are also general occupational health and safety inspectors.
The bill makes it clear that inspectors under the Occupational Health and Safety Act are allowed to enter premises that are being used for the purpose of rural worker accommodation, with the occupant's permission. This will avoid any argument that premises being used for rural worker accommodation are not places of work, which could prevent inspectors or authorised employee representatives from entering them. Inspectors will be able to use the powers they now have to issue improvement and other notices in relation to rural workers accommodation. The honourable member for Wagga Wagga raised an issue about the code of practice and consultation. The consultation included New South Wales Farmers, unions and other groups that represent rural employers. All their views will be considered to create a balanced document.
The code of practice will contain flexible standards, instead of the prescriptive, archaic and inflexible provisions that exist today. Employers will benefit from this increased flexibility, and employees will benefit by getting a decent standard of accommodation. Everyone wins. It is a win-win for both employers and the workers. If the amendments proposed by the Opposition are passed, an employer could be at risk, for example, of separate prosecutions for breaches of each of the rural workers and occupational health and safety Acts. The provisions provide clarification of the relationship between the two Acts and protect employers from double jeopardy. The amendments therefore will be opposed. This is important legislation.
The Rural Workers Accommodation Bill significantly modernises and updates the Rural Workers Accommodation Act 1969. The bill retains the key requirement of the Act that rural workers who are required to live on rural premises for more than 24 hours because of the nature of their work must be provided with accommodation. The bill will continue in force the existing law, which is aimed at ensuring the health, safety and welfare at work of workers. The bill takes into account the particular issues faced by rural workers and controllers of rural premises. The bill being considered arises from a recent national competition policy review of the 1969 Act. That review and the development of the bill have been undertaken in consultation with key industry stakeholders. Industry stakeholders are also involved in the preparation of the code of practice, which will be made under the amended Act. Consultation on the code will provide an opportunity for people involved in the industry to discuss the kinds of accommodation arrangements that are suitable for rural workers of today. In conclusion, I am pleased to advise honourable members that New South Wales Farmers and the Australian Workers Union support the bill.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time.
In Committee
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER (Gosford) [11.37 p.m.]: I move the following Opposition amendment:
Pages 6 and 7, schedule 1, line 29 on page 6 to line 24 on page 7. Omit all words on those lines.
The functions of the WorkCover Authority and the principles of occupational health and safety relate to workplaces. The words that the Coalition seeks to remove from the bill would, if they remain part of the legislation, insinuate into places of accommodation the principles of present law applying to places of work. That is wrong. It exceeds any reasonable expectation. It will not achieve any desirable result for either employers or employees. Places of accommodation are not places of work, and an authority that governs places of work is not an appropriate authority to govern places of accommodation. Standards and rules for places of work are not appropriate for places of accommodation. The Government made extraordinary assertions that somehow the current provisions in the legislation are necessary. However, they are simply unjustified.
There is a statutory framework for the provision of rural accommodation. Rural accommodation has lost a lot of its importance, as the honourable member for Lachlan so eloquently expounded. Nonetheless, we agree there is still some need for rural accommodation. If rural accommodation is needed, we agree there needs to be a framework under which it is provided. We do not agree that the principles of occupational health and safety must apply to places of accommodation. They never have and there is no reason why they should now. The Government has not advanced any reason. The Minister in his second reading speech flatly rejected the Coalition's amendment without giving any detailed or comprehensive reason. We insist upon the amendment. We have heard the speeches by Government members. The interesting note that permeates those speeches, especially the speeches of the honourable member for Monaro and the honourable member for Canterbury, is that cost is an irrelevancy. They are not concerned about the cost that this legislation imposes upon employers. They are careless about expense.
Ms Linda Burney: Point of order: The honourable member for Gosford has misrepresented what I said. I did not ever mention costs.
The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Mr Paul Lynch): Order! That is a point of debate, not a point of order.
Mr CHRIS HARTCHER: The honourable member for Canterbury especially was careless about expense. She simply waxed lyrical about workers and their standards without any concern at all as to the impact this legislation would have on employers. She was not concerned at all about the plight employers now face in a drought-stricken landscape. She simply demanded that her expectations for places of accommodation be met and the legislation enacted accordingly. We reject that. We believe that the legislation needs to be appropriate. We accept the principle of places of accommodation, but we do not accept the principle that the Occupational Health and Safety Act is an appropriate Act to govern places of accommodation. Accordingly, the Opposition moves the amendment.
Question—That the words stand—put.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 45
Ms Allan
Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Barr
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Mr Brown
Ms Burney
Miss Burton
Mr Campbell
Mr Collier
Mr Corrigan
Mr Crittenden
Ms D'Amore
Mr Debus
Mr Gibson | Mr Greene
Ms Hay
Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter
Ms Judge
Ms Keneally
Mr McBride
Mr McLeay
Ms Meagher
Ms Megarrity
Mr Mills
Ms Moore
Mr Morris
Mr Newell
Mr Orkopoulos
Mrs Paluzzano | Mr Pearce
Mr Price
Ms Saliba
Mr Sartor
Mr Scully
Mr Shearan
Mr Stewart
Mr Tripodi
Mr Watkins
Mr Whan
Mr Yeadon
Tellers,
Mr Ashton
Mr Martin |
Noes, 32
Mr Aplin
Mr Armstrong
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Cansdell
Mr Constance
Mr Draper
Mrs Fardell
Mr Fraser
Mrs Hancock
Mr Hartcher
Ms Hodgkinson | Mrs Hopwood
Mr Humpherson
Mr Kerr
Mr Oakeshott
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Page
Mr Piccoli
Mr Pringle
Mr Richardson
Mr Roberts
Ms Seaton | Mrs Skinner
Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Stoner
Mr Tink
Mr Torbay
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R. W. Turner
Tellers,
Mr George
Mr Maguire |
Pairs
Mr Bartlett | Mr Brogden |
| Mr Gaudry | Mr Hazzard |
| Mrs Perry | Mr Merton |
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Amendment negatived.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Bill reported from Committee without amendment and report adopted.
Third Reading
Mr GRANT McBRIDE (The Entrance—Minister for Gaming and Racing, and Minister for the Central Coast) [11.55 p.m.]: I move:
That this bill be now read a third time.
The House divided.
Ayes, 45
Ms Allan
Mr Amery
Ms Andrews
Mr Barr
Ms Beamer
Mr Black
Mr Brown
Ms Burney
Miss Burton
Mr Campbell
Mr Collier
Mr Corrigan
Mr Crittenden
Ms D'Amore
Mr Debus
Mr Gibson | Mr Greene
Ms Hay
Mr Hickey
Mr Hunter
Ms Judge
Ms Keneally
Mr Lynch
Mr McBride
Mr McLeay
Ms Meagher
Ms Megarrity
Ms Moore
Mr Morris
Mr Newell
Mr Orkopoulos
Mrs Paluzzano | Mr Pearce
Mr Price
Ms Saliba
Mr Sartor
Mr Scully
Mr Shearan
Mr Stewart
Mr Tripodi
Mr Watkins
Mr Whan
Mr Yeadon
Tellers,
Mr Ashton
Mr Martin |
Noes, 32
Mr Aplin
Mr Armstrong
Ms Berejiklian
Mr Cansdell
Mr Constance
Mr Draper
Mrs Fardell
Mr Fraser
Mrs Hancock
Mr Hartcher
Ms Hodgkinson | Mrs Hopwood
Mr Humpherson
Mr Kerr
Mr Oakeshott
Mr O'Farrell
Mr Page
Mr Piccoli
Mr Pringle
Mr Richardson
Mr Roberts
Ms Seaton | Mrs Skinner
Mr Slack-Smith
Mr Souris
Mr Stoner
Mr Tink
Mr Torbay
Mr J. H. Turner
Mr R. W. Turner
Tellers
Mr George
Mr Maguire |
Pairs
Mr Bartlett | Mr Brogden |
| Mr Gaudry | Mr Hazzard |
| Mrs Perry | Mr Merton |
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a third time.
Last modified 05/12/2007 16:31:54 : Update this page