When it comes to 'seamless economy' national schemes, the relevant Ministerial Council signs off on legislation that is then usually rubber stamped by state parliaments with nary a change, because ‘COAG said’.
However there have been some signs that state parliaments may be less inclined to acquiese.
States and territories are introducing legislation that broadly introduces the model Work Health and Safety Act agreed by the Workplace Relations Ministerial Council (the WMRC).
We have previously noted the relevant intergovernmental agreement permitted some variation from the model legislation provided it doesn't ‘materially affect the operation of the model legislation’.
A major commitment of the incoming NSW Government was to implement the model law as agreed.
This meant not re-enacting some current NSW provisions, including the ability of unions commencing OHS prosecutions, hearing OHS cases in specialist industrial courts rather than courts of general jurisdiction, the reversal of the onus of proof and the effective imposition of absolute liability on employers.
However, the Shooters and Fishers Party were successful in moving some amendments in the Legislative Council.
As the party’s leader said:
If politics is the art of the achievable this is the best that we believe could be achieved in terms of a middle ground between both starting positions, that is, what the Government, farmers and business wanted and what the unions wanted. A number of issues raised with us have been considered by our party in coming to our position.
The Shooters and Fishers Party supports the concept of harmonising occupational health and safety laws in New South Wales with those in the rest of Australia. This gives effect to a Council of Australian Governments [COAG] agreement signed on 3 July 2008, when each State and Territory agreed to develop and implement uniform national occupational health and safety laws by December 2011.
At the same time we recognise that there will be minor differences between States and Territories. I believe that most members of this House and the Legislative Assembly would acknowledge the unique position of the New South Wales economy in the Commonwealth, and it is imperative for all of us to maintain and develop the competitive position of New South Wales in respect of other States and Territories.
In the event, unions will be able to prosecute in some circumstances (but not claim a moiety or bounty) and some prosecutions will still be heard in the Industrial Court rather than the Local and District courts.
In South Australia, the model bill was introduced and then withdrawn by the Government in the Legislative Council.
This was because there was some dissention about the ambit of the primary duty of care imposed by the legislation.
The model bill imposes a general duty on people conducting a business or undertaking to take all reasonable steps to ensure health and safety.
However, some argue this duty should be restricted to duty holders who have ‘control' over the relevant workplace.
It is understood the Government may not have got the bill as introduced through the Council.
However, an unamended bill was reintroduced into the House of Assembly on 19 May 2011.
So it will be interesting to see if the opposition to the terms of the model law will be sustained.
Western Australia is considering the Occupational National Law Bill 2011.
This is an ‘applied’ law - where one jurisdiction passes a 'template’ law (in this case, Victoria), and the others adopt that law as a law of the jurisdiction.
Sadly, the WA Legislative Council Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review Committee hated the law, saying:
1.2 The Bill does not introduce national occupational licensing. It proposes a process for developing a national licensing system. Other than that, it largely consists of a list of matters about which regulations may be made. It is not uncommon for uniform legislative schemes to leave detail to regulations. However, the Bill goes beyond this. It requires the substance of the licensing scheme to be in regulations.
1.3 Given this, it is particularly important that the Bill meet minimum standards for good legislation. It should provide a reasonable degree of certainty and coherence as to the legislative framework , to which the regulation-making powers relate. The Bill does not meet this standard. It lacks clarity. Too often the Bill is silent. Too much is still to be developed. Too many options are left open. Too much is left to regulations. The Bill is not clear on what is permitted and what is not, what is to occur and what is not.
1.4 As a result, it is not clear whether the Bill asks Parliament to delegate its legislation making power (to a Ministerial Council) in respect of the proposed licensing system or abrogate it.
Other jurisdictions have passed the law, although in most the law has yet to be proclaimed – that is, it is not in operation.
Proposed draft occupational licensing regulations for the occupations regulated by the so-called NOLS scheme (ranging from real estate agents to refrigeration mechanics) are about to be released.
It will be interesting to see that whether, following consideration of the regulations stakeholders and governments will be happy to see NOLS continue as proposed.
It is finally noted the South Australian House of Assembly has been given notice to consider providing the parliament’s Legislative Review Committee a reference to develop a process to consider ‘the issue of sovereignty separate to any other debate on a bill, thereby avoiding unnecessary debate on this issue in parliament and instead enabling the debate to focus on the purposes and content of a bill.’
This is because:
(o)n many an occasion when a bill has sought to apply a law scheme from another jurisdiction—the most recent example I am aware of is the Controlled Substances (Therapeutic Goods and Other Matters) Amendment Bill—the issue of sovereignty is raised and an unnecessary amount of time is spent debating constitutional law issues instead of debating the purposes and content of the bill.
During the debate on that piece of legislation, and one other, I said to the member for Morphett—because I understand the issues being raised by the opposition in terms of sovereignty—'How about we refer the matter to the Legislative Review Committee to see if it can come up with an appropriate way of dealing with these types of measures so that we can reach some consensus about how to do it?' So, that is what I seek to do. The I advice I have is that, given the nature of what I am asking the Legislative Review Committee to do, it has to go through both houses of parliament, so I commend this motion to the house.
Unfortuately the reference lacks clarity.
The issue of whether a state should yield (or if a European Union fanatic, 'pool') sovereignty with other jurisdictions is a threshold issue when considering whether a particular Bill has merit. It is difficult ot divorce this consideration from others.
Perhaps the question is whether the South Australian Parliament should either create, or clothe the Legislative Review Committee with responsibility for, the functions discharged by the WA Legislative Council’s Uniform Legislation and Statutes Review Committee.
It would be appropriate to have the matter clarified, as this reference could play an important national role as a mechanism that can assess the appropriateness of the model law and applied law models of implementing ‘seamless economy’ national legislative schemes.