In a historic day for Australian democracy, Julia Gillard managed last November to achieve something remarkable: she had Tasmanian Liberal Senator Eric Abetz, aggressive advocate for the human right to log, and Senator Rachel Siewert of the tree-loving Greens in bemused agreement with one another over the government’s plans for the new Safe Work Australia body. The problem for Julia? She wasn’t invited to the party.

According to the COAG agreement that got the ball rolling, Safe Work Australia should be responsible for ‘driving national policy development in respect of OHS and workers’ compensation matters’. Harmonisation, however, has again taken a back seat to political manoeuvring.

The Senate refused to pass the Safe Work Australia Bill (SWAB) without amendments that decreased Ministerial discretion, increased employer and employee representation on Safe Work Australia, and increased transparency and accountability. Sensible measures? Not according to Gillard.

The Government rejected these changes, claiming that they would slow down the harmonisation process. Gillard abandoned the legislation and in April 2009 set up Safe Work Australia as an executive agency, bypassing parliament.

Now, however, SWAB has been re-tabled, with Gillard citing her obligation to stick to the terms of the intergovernmental agreement that spawned Safe Work Australia in the first place. In other words, the government is worried that Safe Work Australia won’t be perceived as legitimate unless they get it through parliament. 

So what does all this mean for harmonisation? Depending on your perspective, either more delays in a process that has already stretched out over at least 15 years, or a chance to ensure that truly tripartite consultation leads to workable harmonised laws.

As it stands, Safe Work Australia is made up of 15 members, comprising nine government representatives, and two representatives each from employer and employee groups.

The Liberals, the Greens, the ACTU and the ACCI all – like the government – support harmonisation, but are critical of the make-up of the newly minted Safe Work Australia body.

According to the opposition parties, the unions and some business groups, the balance of Safe Work Australia is weighted too heavily toward government, with too little say given to employees and employers. With SWAB back in parliament, there is a chance that more employer and employee representatives could yet find their way into Safe Work Australia, if the Senate sticks to its guns.

Of course, including employees and employers in the conversation about harmonisation is just the first step: the real challenge is ensuring that the conversation is constructive. If employee and employer groups adopt an antagonistic approach to each other, it is difficult to see how the process will move forward.

In terms of workers’ comp, Jarrod Moran of the ACTU is opposed to a harmonised system that sees the restriction of any rights employees currently have. “The highest standard in any jurisdiction is the lowest we will accept,” he said.

Given that South Australia has some of the best provisions for workers but some of the worst RTW and workers’ comp outcomes, this is likely to be a sticking point.

At the moment, business groups are emphasising the unnecessary costs of complying with different laws in multiple jurisdictions, but whether the projected savings associated with harmonisation will translate into more generous systems for workers remains to be seen.

It’s not enough to just be as good as the best system we have – a new one must be better. Issues surrounding OHS and workers’ comp laws in Australia are too numerous, and the personal and financial cost too high, for it to be at all conceivable for Australian organisations and individuals to suffer any further losses at the hands of new, unified legislation, especially when such legislation has the potential to substantially improve outcomes.