Mr MATT KEAN (Hornsby) [5.50 p.m.]: The Work Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2013 does not represent a change in government policy; it simply seeks to clarify some provisions made under the Work Health and Safety Act, which received assent in 2011. I remind those opposite who oppose the legislation that they could have debated this policy 12 months ago. This bill seeks only to give effect to the Government's policy of conferring jurisdiction on the District Court in occupational health and safety prosecutions, and to address other technical issues.
The member for Heffron gave a history lesson about the role of the Labor Party in standing up for workers' rights. I place on the public record my respect for the role that the Labor Party has played in protecting the important rights of workers. This legislation will not undermine workers' rights. In fact, the rights and safety of workers in New South Wales should be close to all our hearts. This bill seeks to protect workers' rights and to strike the right balance between the rights of workers and the rights of businesses to thrive, create jobs and make this State a better place. That is what this bill seeks to do, and these amendments clarify that position.
The original bill sought to ensure that businesses would benefit from a national system through reduced complexity and red tape. That bill, which was passed in 2011, was the result of harmonisation of national legislation introduced by the former Federal Labor Government. If Opposition members find this policy so objectionable why did they not speak up at the time to their Federal Labor parliamentary colleagues, particularly Prime Minister Julia Gillard? She sought to reduce red tape and make it easier for businesses to operate in New South Wales by standardising workplace and safety laws across the Commonwealth, for which I commend her. That is exactly what this Government did also. Employers will benefit from greater certainty and a simplified legislative system. Workers will benefit from the enhanced protection provided by modernised laws and rights that are easier to understand and apply. For example, the bill recognises the changing face of the workplace and does not rely on the traditional concepts of employer and employee.
I put on record the purpose of the amendments. The objects of the bill are to include in the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 provisions of the regulations under that Act that establish savings and transitional arrangements relating to proceedings for offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 alleged to have been committed before the repeal of that Act. The bill also makes it clear that proceedings for an offence against the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 or the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 may be brought and prosecuted by an Australian legal practitioner who represents a person authorised to bring the proceedings. I note the member for Cessnock supports that provision. I respectfully disagree with his assertion that the amendments are not the best options for workers. I think they are good options for workers and businesses that strike the right balance in our industrial system.
The bill puts beyond doubt the validity of acts or omissions under provisions transferred from the regulations and of prosecutions by legal practitioners acting on behalf of authorised prosecutors. It clarifies that restrictions on the power to make savings and transitional regulations under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 that deem provisions of that Act to be amended did not apply to certain provisions of the regulations. Finally, the bill permits proceedings for offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000 to be recommenced if the original proceedings were terminated for invalidity but would have been validated by this bill, even if the time for commencing those proceedings has expired. The Workplace Health and Safety Act 2011 gives effect to a nationally harmonised scheme for work health and safety legislation, which has been implemented across most Australian jurisdictions. Upon its commencement in January 2012, the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 repealed and replaced the previous Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000.
There are recent legal challenges to that legislation. I note that Empire Waste Pty Ltd and Dean Baldwin v District Court of NSW and Inspector Steven Brock and Australian Native Landscapes Pty Ltd v Inspector Nathan McDonald and District Court of NSW sought to challenge the jurisdiction of the District Court. The bill addresses the issues raised in those appeal proceedings for the purposes of clarity and avoidance of doubt. I do not wish to comment on or to prejudge court proceedings. However, it is important that injured workers and their families who face uncertainty because of the challenges to the legislation have those technical issues resolved, which is what these amendments seek to do. The intent of the bill is to clarify the initial legislative intent of the Act. The current challenges on foot are largely based on unintended technical grounds. For the benefit of my friend the member for Cessnock, and the member for Heffron, I reiterate that this bill is not a change in policy; it merely deals with minor technical amendments to clarify the intent of the legislation to give certainty to injured workers and their families. That is what this Government wants. It wants certainty in workplaces and to ensure a level playing field, where employers and employees know the rules, know they will get a fair deal, and know their rights and safety will be protected.
This Government wants to make minor technical amendments to clarify legislation that was enacted in 2011. There is no need for the member for Cabramatta to hyperventilate, gnash his teeth or beat his breast, because these are minor, technical, innocuous amendments that provide certainty for those who need it most. The bill does not affect the substantive issues being considered in the court proceedings. The Government's policy position that previous occupational health and safety matters, as criminal offences, should be heard primarily by a District Court has always been clear; it was clear in the original Act.
The bill gives effect to that policy intention and prevents defendants from escaping liability on a legal technicality. I reiterate the importance of members opposite supporting the bill, given the public interest consideration at play. Many of the prosecutions concern workers who have been severely injured or even killed and their families follow the progress of work health and safety prosecutions very closely. I urge the member for Cabramatta and the member for Liverpool, who are in the Chamber, to take the bill seriously and not to get worked up about what is an innocuous and technical amendment to the Act.
Read full transcript in Hansard here.
