Parliamentary Committees

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION: WORKPLACE INJURIES AND DEATHS

Mr KENYON (Newland) (11:04): I move:

That the 10th report of the committee, entitled Inquiry into Law and Process relating to Workplace Injuries and Deaths in South Australia, be noted:

The 10^th report of the committee provides an in-depth and thorough analysis of the laws and processes relating to workplace injuries and death in South Australia. The report has been prepared in consequence of the committee resolving on its own motion to conduct a review of the current occupational health and safety laws in South Australia. As many members are aware, members of this committee are unpaid for their work. Nonetheless, the members spent a great deal of time and effort on conducting this inquiry and producing the final report. All committee members worked cooperatively, trying to achieve consensus on the best way to improve occupational health and safety in this state.

In doing so I believe they have shown great dedication to this cause and have contributed significantly to this vital area of employment law. The committee has met on 16 occasions in relation to this inquiry. In total, the committee received more than 20 written stakeholder submissions and heard from eight witnesses. Thus it can be said that all relevant stakeholders had sufficient opportunity to comment on this inquiry. Furthermore, the committee gave careful consideration to all stakeholder submissions and viewpoints during its deliberations. The submissions have been clearly outlined in the report, and all attempts have been made to reflect fairly the different viewpoints expressed.

In 2003 the Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare (SafeWork SA) Amendment Act introduced a central face to occupational health and safety in South Australia, namely, SafeWork SA. Many of the occupational health and safety responsibilities previously held by WorkCover and Workplace Services were vested in this newly created government agency. Therefore, as part of this inquiry the committee sought to examine the practical operation of occupational health and safety in South Australia following these changes. In order to do this the committee examined the laws and processes concerning prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of workplace accidents. Areas on which the committee focused in this respect included employee responsibility and occupational health and safety, right of entry for union officials, improved assistance for businesses and a general educational and assistance role of SafeWork SA.

Another factor behind the committee's current inquiry was the Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare (Penalties) Amendment Bill currently before the house. The committee assessed the penalties in South Australia and examined penalties in other jurisdictions in order to benchmark the South Australian approach. It would appear from all accounts that, in the past, penalties in South Australia have been far less harsh than in other states and territories, and it is time for South Australia to consider not only the quantum of penalties under the act but also the penalty regime more generally.

The committee also wished to address serious offending under the act. Occupational health and safety breaches that result in serious injury or death of an individual have a devastating impact on the lives of victims and their families. Consequently the committee is concerned that victims and their families receive adequate information and support when such an incident occurs. The committee recommended that in certain circumstances the victims and their families should have access to a dedicated counselling service and be able to submit a victim statement to the court and be eligible to receive part of the monetary penalty imposed on the offender.

Clearly all committee members agree that incidents of serious injury and death are entirely unacceptable and should not be tolerated under any circumstances. Where there is wilful failure by companies to comply with their OH&S responsibilities, the law must provide for appropriate penalties. The majority of the committee advocated the introduction of tougher measures, including a new aggravated offence provision, imposing a reverse burden of proof on directors and managers and increasing penalties for repeat offenders.

Finally, the committee considered South Australia's position with respect to other Australian jurisdictions and the commonwealth. Obviously an important aspect of any federal structure is cooperation between the states and the national government. In the case of occupational health and safety it is particularly desirable to achieve consistency between the laws in different states and territories so that the conflicting laws in different jurisdictions do not unduly burden national companies. While South Australia, on its own, can do little to improve the national consistency of occupational health and safety laws in Australia, consistency should be a paramount consideration when amending existing state legislation.

The committee framed broad terms of reference, which in turn have allowed for a comprehensive analysis of OH&S laws and processes within South Australia. The impact of past legislative changes, the operation of present laws and processes and the future direction of OH&S have all been considered. In this way the committee hopes its tenth report is of much assistance to both members of parliament and the public when considering occupational health and safety issues.

Finally, I take this opportunity to thank all who have contributed to this inquiry. I thank those people who took the time and made the effort to prepare written submissions for the committee and to appear as witnesses and speak before the committee. I extend my sincere thanks to members of the committee: the members for West Torrens and Unley and the Hons Nick Xenophon, Bernard Finnigan and Terry Stephens. I also thank the staff: Mr Malcolm Lehman, Mr Rick Crump (the secretary to the committee), Mr Joseph McIntyre and Ms Kathryn Bion (the research officers) for their efforts and assistance in conducting this inquiry and producing this report.

Mr PISONI (Unley) (11:09): I echo the remarks of the chair, the member for Newland, and congratulate him on chairing a successful committee. The committee was well balanced, as we had members of the Labor Party representing the trade union movement and the Hon. Terry Stevens and myself with small business experience, so we were able to go into this committee with a broad breadth of experience.

Many of the recommendations were passed unanimously. However, I would like to comment about some of the recommendations that we on this side of the house had difficulty with. First, in relation to recommendations 2 and 2A, we felt it was fair and reasonable, if we were serious about ensuring that workplace safety be paramount, that random drug testing should be an option available to employers who felt it was necessary to use such measures to establish where there are difficulties dealing with certain behaviours within the workplace.

The chairman's report goes on to say that it was argued that, whilst employers can do much to improve occupational health and safety in the workplace, ultimately they rely on employees to implement the safety measures on the ground. Of course, if employees are in a state where they may be intoxicated through either alcohol or drugs of some description, it makes it very difficult, of course, for them to understand their responsibilities at the time and have the response time they may need to look out for each other or make decisions to shut off a machine or not take a step backwards at a particular time.

I have had a lot of practical experience in my workshop through being on the factory floor, and I think this applies to most occupations. Obviously, we already have those provisions for people who drive or operate machinery in their workplaces but, if this was approved, it would extend to workplaces such as building sites and the factory floor where forklifts and machinery could be operated, or even trolleys are pushed or steps need to be climbed. Obviously, when you are in that sort of position and operating in that environment, you need to be fully aware and mindful. So, the Hon. Terry Stephens and I felt it was a tool that employers could use to implement improved safety measures in their workplaces.

Recommendation 4, that there be an audit in respect of the adequacy of numbers and training of health and safety representatives, we felt was probably reasonable, but we did point out that the current provisions for health and safety already cover that, and perhaps it would be better that workplace safety used the tools it has already rather than imposing more bureaucracy onto business.

Of course, the recommendation of greatest contention for those members on my side of the house and also the Labor Party is the right of union officials to be granted entry on safety grounds. Currently, my reading of the act is that if a union member would like to discuss occupational health and safety with their union, the union has the right to enter the workplace in order to do that. We feel that is adequate. However, the Labor Party wants to take that further and allow the entry of trade union officials into workplaces that do not have union members, on the ground of occupational health and safety. Who says they have a monopoly on understanding occupational health and safety? Why should they be given an unfair advantage over any other group or business that is out there offering occupational health and safety advice?

We see this for the cynical exercise that it is, and that is to get unions into non-union workshops. Using the process of occupational health and safety is an old trick, and has been used for years to get in the door of a workshop. I know in my own factory I had to deal with union officials wanting entry to my building on occupational health and safety grounds, and it is a very effective tool, because it gives union representatives an instant audience, and one that they would not have access to under normal situations.

They have a number in the phone book which people can ring if they want to join a union but, as we know, union membership has dropped to about 15 per cent in the private sector. That is happening because people do not feel they are getting value from the services which unions are providing. The reason they are not getting value is that there has been legislation to put unions in the front seat, if you like, in industrial relations for decades in this country—and they have grown lazy. They have relied on the industrial relations law to give them access to workplaces and workers. What has happened over the past few years is that the law has been removed and they are out in the open market, offering their services.

Quite frankly, their services are not attractive to workers because workers are not renewing their membership. They are not joining unions. Basically, they are saying, 'What value am I getting from the union movement?' In other countries, where unions are not protected by the industrial system, they offer all sorts of benefits to their members, including discounts on credit cards, insurance and mortgages. They use their mass of numbers to make it worthwhile for people to be part of the membership.

Union membership in Australia has been designed over the years on the Amway model, where the more members there are at the bottom the better, and the less active they are the better, because the unions just want them as numbers. They are the customers of the union movement and they just want them as numbers. The wider the base of the pyramid, the more people can be pushed up to the top of the pyramid and, at preselection time, into safe Labor seats—usually at the expense of women and hardworking local members.

Ms Ciccarello: Where are your women?

Mr PISONI: There is a lot of that happening in the current election. Senator Linda Kirk had every intention of continuing but she had no choice; she was dumped. I believe that she was not aware that the SDA's policy was against stem cell research. I have not seen it on the SDA's website. I have spoken to a few checkout operators who are not aware that the SDA is against stem cell research and, unfortunately, neither is Linda Kirk—but she had to pay the price. She got flicked out of her seat, the safest seat possible in South Australia, the No. 1 Senate position, in favour of SDA secretary Don Farrell.

One can see why the Liberal Party is concerned about recommendation No. 5, which gives a right of entry to union officials on occupational, health and safety grounds. It is a government protection at a time of free markets, and at a time when we are removing protections from industry and encouraging them to be efficient and competitive. The Treasurer in this house has said, 'We are not into industrial welfare or business welfare. We do not pay businesses to get them to stay in South Australia.' But the government is more than happy to put legislation in place to give unions an unfair advantage to sell their services compared with other businesses in the community.

We see this as a threat to small business, in particular. This will allow unions to go into people's home. If it is a home-based business, the legislation will allow trade union officials to go into someone's home and into their lounge room.

Time expired.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:19): I would like to commend the committee on its report. It is a topic that often does not receive the attention it deserves, but it is very important. Sadly, in South Australia, even in recent years, there have been quite a few fatalities in the workplace, and people—both employees and employers—need to be ever vigilant. We know that life is full of risks; working is a risky business, and we need to manage the risk, reduce it and, if possible, eliminate it.

There are a couple of aspects that I think need to be looked at. We have had people coming around to electorate offices to check power cords. I am not saying that it is an unworthy activity, but I do not know how many people have ever been electrocuted in an electorate office. There are a few people who some might wish would suffer that fate, but how many people have been electrocuted in an electorate office? Yet we have people going around diligently checking power cords and putting a tag on every one of them. The cost must be enormous.

I know a lad in my electorate who is working for a plumbing firm and drives around in a van with no safety barrier in the van whatsoever. There are gas bottles, tools, and so on, in the back of the van. No-one ever seems to worry about whether someone in that situation is at risk. I would say that, if someone in a van stopped suddenly on the freeway while travelling at 110 km/h, the gas bottles would keep travelling at that same speed.

One can argue that conducting zealous inspections in electorate offices is not justified, but I think that one has to keep some sense of balance and proportion in this whole exercise. One of the most dangerous areas would definitely be on the farm, and particularly in farm workshops, where in many cases there are open pits for servicing vehicles, welding equipment and power saws around the place, and all sorts of things happening. I believe that a lot of effort needs to be made to keep focusing attention on safety in the farming sector because, as I have indicated, they are potentially very dangerous places.

I go to the Mallee quite a lot (whenever I can, to escape from this place), and I still see little kids (and when I say 'little', I mean three year olds) sitting on the back of a quad bike (the dad probably thinks he is doing the right thing), whizzing around the farm, and also even on tractors—and if someone falls off a tractor, they are history. Sadly, a family at Blackwood lost two of their boys, I think, because their father used to let them ride on the Caterpillar tractors when he was doing earthmoving. It is a very dangerous practice.

The point is that, ultimately, with respect to safety in the workplace, it clearly comes back to employer responsibility, but the employee also has to take responsibility not to do silly things or to take shortcuts. We still see people speeding past road workers. I fully support tough police action against people who speed past road workers, whether they be Telstra technicians or Department of Transport employees. One sees people whizzing past them with almost reckless abandon and absolutely outrageous disregard for the welfare of those employees.

Talking about danger on farms, I remember as a student working at Keith during the university vacation (I think the property owner is a relative of the member for Mount Gambier, so I have to apologise to him). The owner was fairly impatient, and on one occasion I ended up putting one of the wheels of the tractor in the pit in the workshop, but I managed to retrieve it after some period of time.

The point is that, wherever you are, there are inherent dangers, and that applies in all work situations. However, I come back to the point that I made at the start. We seem to have an obsessive focus on what I would call minimal risk safety in electorate offices, in terms of possible frayed power cords, and yet at the same time there are people out there driving vans for plumbers with no protection whatsoever in the form of a safety barrier within the van. Maybe it is time for the appropriate authority to have a look at some of those issues. There will always be a conflict in this area between those who speak for employers and those who speak for employees, but the bulk of the population is not concerned about any ideological battle.

They are concerned that their family member—whoever they may be—is safe at work and that any risk to that person is kept to an absolute minimum. In some institutions—it happened in TAFE—the desire to protect students was taken to such a point that, in many cases, you could not even operate a machine because it was virtually impossible with the protective cage put on some of the machines. You have to have some common sense in applying some of these rules. You do not want people at undue risk, but you also have to be able to go about your daily business in a way which is sensible and productive. Teachers tell me that, even in tech. studies, they are so hampered by some of the occupational health and safety provisions that they hardly ever end up doing much effective training because they are so shackled by requirements in terms of occupational health and safety. I mean, if people do not want to take risks, the answer is for them to stay in bed in the morning, stay at home, do not do anything and do not go anywhere.

Mr KENYON (Newland) (11:26): I have nothing further to add, other than to thank members for their contribution.

Motion carried.