WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY BILL

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 10 November 2011.)

Clause 6.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 6 deals with matters concerning the meaning of supply. The minister will be pleased to know that I only have one question on this clause. I just want to check that my understanding of this clause is right, and that is that supply, under this particular bill, means the resale or resupply of something, including by second-hand marts, such as Lions marts and those sort of things. The local Lions club in my electorate has a second-hand mart where it onsells or indeed gives away on occasions a whole range of second-hand goods. I just want to check that under this particular provision, the meaning of supply includes the resale or gifting of items.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes; that is correct as long as the supplier is a PCBU. For example, it would not apply to a volunteer organisation or something like that, because they are not a PCBU—meaning a person conducting a business or undertaking.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Now you've mentioned that word 'undertaking'. From your previous answer when we were debating this last week, an undertaking includes not-for-profits and an undertaking includes a volunteer organisation if they employ staff.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So given that the Lions clubs employ a chief executive on a statewide basis, is the club running a second-hand mart caught by this supply provision if they supply, for instance, a power saw? If they sell a second-hand power saw or a second-hand kettle, are they then caught by this provision as being persons conducting a business or undertaking?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes; they would be a PCBU, and my advice is that that is the case now anyway.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I just want to check that supply means that, when I am on a building site and I lend my power saw or my drill to another tradesman (which happens every day of the week on a building site), that is covered by the definition of supply and that then means that I inherit a whole range of other duties under the bill about the warranty of that particular piece of equipment to be able to do the job that I am lending it for?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: There has to be some sort of exchange, so if you are just lending a power tool to another worker then, no, it would not apply.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So if you are gifting it or there is no exchange of money, then there is no obligation; is that right?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes; it has to be a commercially based supply.

Clause passed.

Clause 7.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Amendment No. 4 is consequential on amendment No. 1, which I lost in the previous week of sitting. In an outrageous vote by the government I went down on it. It is surprising, really.

The CHAIR: So you are not proceeding with that?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I will not proceed with amendment No. 4, but I will move amendment No. 5. I move:

Page 19, after line 23—Insert:

(4) Furthermore, where a person (the contractor) is engaged to perform work for another person (the principal) in connection with a business or trade carried on by the principal, the contractor, and any person employed or engaged by the contractor to carry out or to assist in carrying out the work, will be taken to be employed by the principal but the principal's duties under this Act in relation to them will only extend to matters over which the principal has control or would have control but for some agreement to the contrary between the principal and the contractor.

The amendment goes to one of the central issues of the bill, which is the question of control. If you look back at my second reading speech, which must now be four or five weeks ago, I quoted from a number of the industry associations that raised concerns that the government in this particular bill was broadening the control issue to a point where it has become quite ambiguous. For instance, Business SA wrote to the opposition on 12 September, and this goes to the issue of the control test. Business SA stated:

The Control Test—currently an employer is responsible for safety where the employer has 'control' over the matter. Under the proposed Bill, the 'control test' is removed and the obligations on the employer are more onerous and somewhat ambiguous. This is likely to lead to litigation and new precedent case law. In addition, it contradicts the ILO Convention No. 155, article 16.

I understand that is one of the Treasurer's favourites. Most of the industry associations have written to the opposition in similar terms about this control test. What we are seeking to do with our amendment is to reinstate the existing obligations back into the bill. We do not seek to take it any further than what currently exists. We have had extensive consultation with industry groups about it, and that consultation is still going on.

The instructions for the drafting were to take the government's bill and return it to the current provisions of the act so that it is crystal clear on the issue of control. All of the industry groups out there understand the current act. The employers and businesses have dealt with the current act now for some years. There is some understanding in the workplace about this issue.

What we are trying to do through this amendment is take the issue of control back to what it currently is, and that is if you are in control of a workplace then you inherit the obligations. The government's broadening of the issue of control and who then becomes liable and who has responsibilities makes it very ambiguous under its bill, and all the industry associations are raising this as a matter of concern.

This is one of the central amendments that we are moving, and we would hope the government would have sense to bring it back to what were their amendments to bring in the current act. All we are saying is that we accept the current act in this particular clause has some community and business understanding—it is crystal clear. All the industry associations are saying if you go down the government's model it is ambiguous as to who ultimately has the responsibility.

If you want workers' safety to be paramount and, indeed, employers' liability to be crystal clear then you cannot afford to have ambiguity in the provision that talks about who is in charge of occupational health and safety on the site. That is why we are moving this particular amendment. I have a couple of other questions outside of the amendment, but I will deal with them after the amendment is dealt with.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I think we will have to agree to disagree on this. The government does not support the member for Davenport's amendment. I will go on to the prepared text in a moment, but the important qualifier on the extent to which an employer is responsible for what happens in that employer's workplace is 'as is reasonably practicable', which is contained later in the bill in clause 19. That is an important qualifier, and it deals with the concerns that have been raised about the bill, in particular by the Housing Industry Association.

The bill does not contain any specific definition of control. It establishes a primary duty of care which requires the duty holder to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of any workers whom they have the capacity to influence or direct in carrying out work. The incorporation of the standard of 'reasonably practicable' in the duty will provide for a consideration of control in relation to compliance. So, if a duty holder does not have control over an activity, or a matter relevant to health and safety, then it cannot be reasonably practicable for the duty holder to do anything in relation to it.

For example, for a builder who has multiple building sites, as to the extent to which they can control what happens on any of those individual building sites, the important qualifier in their control of those building sites is what is reasonably practicable. It is simply not reasonably practicable for a builder to exercise direct supervision over each individual building site on which an activity might be occurring. So, if the control able to be exercised by the duty holder is limited, then that limitation will be relevant to determining what is reasonably practicable for that duty holder in the circumstances.

An advantage to this approach is that any focus on control occurs when considering compliance, at which time the focus is on effective management of risk rather than on whether a duty of care exists, and the parameters to it. The substantive provisions of the bill including the duties of care have been subject to extensive consultation at both a local and national level, and the primary duty as currently drafted has formed part of the model Work Health and Safety Act since its early drafting.

The Workplace Relations Ministers' Council agreed that there should not be a control test in the model Work Health and Safety Act. Those who argue against, including controls to determine the duty holder, or the extent of the duty, assert that existing duties of care that include reference to control, can encourage somewhat of an avoidance—or a focus on avoidance—of control so as to avoid the duty, rather than on practical compliance measures taken to meet the relevant duty.

The CHAIR: Member for Davenport, do you wish to say anything further?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Not particularly on the amendment. I will come to the issue of what is 'reasonably practicable' when we come to have an enlightened debate on clause 18 but for the purpose of the amendment—I have some other questions on clause 7, so if we can vote on the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Treasurer, I am just trying to work out what is work. Clause 7—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Can I quote you on that?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I am sure you will. Clause 7 deals with the meaning of worker. A person is a worker if the person carries out work, so it is a fair question to ask what is work? Go to the Treasurer's explanation of clauses about the meaning of worker. It says that the term 'work' is not defined in the act but is intended to include work, for example, that is carried out under a contract of employment, a contract of apprenticeship, or a contract for services. On that point, can the Treasurer please explain what are the circumstances where I pay a cleaner to come into my home? Is that then defined as work and therefore the act applies in my residence?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The first point to make is that nothing is changed by the provisions in this bill. In the example of a cleaner, it is likely that the cleaner will either be self-employed, in which case the cleaner themselves are the PCBU; or you will have engaged the cleaner through a cleaning agency, in which case the agency is the PCBU. Similarly, if a householder engages a tree feller at a domestic residence, the householder is not the PCBU. The tree feller might be running his or her own business, in which case they are the PCBU; or the tree feller might be an employee of a tree-felling company, in which case the company is the PCBU.

However, if the householder is operating a business from his or her own home, then that householder would be a PCBU and would have some obligations under the act. If the home business employs other staff, then the business operator will have a health and safety duty towards those staff. As I said, this is no different from the current obligations that exist under the current act.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Just so I am clear, if I am running a single-person business from a home office and that business pays for the cleaner to clean the whole house (or for the gardener), I understand from your answer that, at that point, an obligation then applies to wherever the cleaner or gardener goes. An OH&S obligation comes in at that point on the person conducting the business from home; is that correct?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Yes, so they would be treated the same as any other business. If they are undertaking a business in the home, then they would have an obligation to the cleaner, under the act, for the activities of the cleaner at that workplace.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: If they are paying the cleaner or if the business is paying the cleaner?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: If the business is paying the cleaner. That obligation would apply to anyone who was visiting the home, so I am told.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: This is the point I wanted to get to to make sure that I am crystal clear. If someone is running a small home office, under this bill they have an OH&S obligation. If kids come and play at home, they have an OH&S obligation because dad is running an architect's business in the office.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I am advised that that would happen under the current act. There is nothing in this bill which changes that fact. If you are running a business from home, you have occupational health and safety obligations under law to anyone who visits your home.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Treasurer, the explanation of clauses then talks about the term 'work', which also includes 'an officer of a body corporate, member of the committee of management of an unincorporated body'. I just want to check this so that I am crystal clear where we are.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Are you reading from clause 7?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I am reading the explanation of clauses. This is the government's explanation of what the clause is meant to say, 'The term 'work' is not defined in the Act but is intended to include work, for example, that is carried out' by—and one of the examples is a 'member of the committee of management of an unincorporated body'. Does that mean that the organisers of our community Christmas pageants (and I declare that I am one), as that is an unincorporated association, then inherit OH&S liabilities for the whole of the community Christmas pageants, because 'work' is defined as being 'an unincorporated body'? Does that mean that all the activities of unincorporated bodies are now deemed to be work under the act and therefore the unincorporated body inherits OH&S obligations?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: It goes back to who the work is being done for and whether that organisation is a PCBU. If the unincorporated organisation, the organiser of the pageant, is a PCBU, then the obligations under the act would apply, but if they are not then they will not.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So, the Credit Union Christmas Pageant, which is conducted by, I assume—

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Events SA.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: —Events SA, which is a person conducting a business unit, one assumes, then the whole of the Adelaide Christmas Pageant is covered by OH&S obligations?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: I have a conflict of interest to declare: I was a participant in the Christmas Pageant this year.

Mr Bignell interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Indeed.

Mr Bignell interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Thank you, member for Mawson. I need to get some firm advice, but I have every reason to expect that the organisers of the Christmas Pageant would be a PCBU. I think that it is undertaken by Events SA, or there might be a board or something like that which is responsible for it. There is no doubt that the Credit Union Christmas Pageant is a PCBU and that means, yes, the PCBU that runs the Christmas Pageant does have occupational health and safety obligations to the people it employs, the volunteers who participate in the pageant, and the act applies to them. Again, I would say that this is no different from what would currently be the case under the existing act.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Ultimately, what is different—and this is the whole issue—there are now different definitions. For instance, the whole control issue is different. The government may well argue that the pageant is already covered to some extent but there are different implications by the different constructions of the words, and they will actually place greater liabilities and responsibilities on these groups, and that is ultimately the layer cake effect of this bill.

Clause passed.

Clause 8.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I want to check my understanding of this clause. The 'workplace' is defined by clause 8 and clause 8 defines a 'workplace' as:

...where work is carried out for a business or undertaking and includes any place where a worker goes, or is likely to be, while at work.

The issue of ducking down to the shop for lunch, for instance: you are on a building site, you shoot down to the hardware store to pick up something, you shoot around to the deli to pick up lunch, you head back to the building site. Is that worker covered for the whole of the journey? When he is going from the hardware store to the shop for lunch, is he still at work and therefore covered? Where does work kick in and kick out?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Going to the hardware store obviously would be work, going to the deli for your own lunch would not be work, but what it really comes down to is the reasonably practicable test. Obviously, an employer cannot mitigate every single risk that might pertain to an employee undertaking such a journey. Really, if there was legal argument over an employer's responsibility with regard to a journey accident, the argument would not revolve around whether the journey accident was to the deli or back to work via the deli, and whether that constituted work; it would revolve around what was reasonably practicable. That would be the key thing.

Other than an employer encouraging an employee to do something reckless, as long as the normal protocols, the normal advice, were in place and guidelines were in place, an employer would be doing everything reasonably practicable to ensure the health and safety of their employee on that journey. Also, under the act the worker in these examples has a duty to take reasonable care for his own health and safety when carrying out the requirements of the job. This is also consistent with existing laws.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Just on the issue, can you confirm that a workplace can be an area where there is no work actually being undertaken?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: If I have missed what the member for Davenport is getting at I am sure he can get up and perhaps clarify. It is certainly the case that a workplace remains a workplace even though there may not be work being carried out in that workplace at a particular time. So, an office after hours when there is no-one present remains a workplace even though there is no work being done. As I understand it, somewhere there is an example of a shearing shed where shearing is not being undertaken at a particular time—it remains a workplace; if that is what the member for Davenport is getting at.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I read the explanation of clauses, and that was the explanation in there. I was more interested in the issue of people trespassing and what obligation, then, falls on the, for instance, shopkeepers for break and enter. What obligation is there? My understanding of the bill is that it applies to all people visiting the site regardless of whether they are authorised or unauthorised.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: In that case the only obligation on the shopkeeper is to guard against unauthorised access. So, as long as they take the normal security precautions—locks on the doors and things like that—then they have done all they are responsible for under the act.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Can the minister tell me what part of the bill actually says that? I cannot see any clause in the bill that states that out clearly. But if it is stated out clearly, then that would be good. If it is not stated that clearly would the minister consider an amendment between the houses so that it is crystal clear? I am concerned that some poor shop or pub owner is going to get done over by someone who breaks in and ultimately gets injured.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That provision is contained in the regulations. The regulations have been released. They are up on the Safe Work Australia website. I will get you the exact number of that reg.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Send me a copy. That is all on clause 8, thanks.

Clause passed.

Clauses 9 to 15 passed.

Clause 16.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: This clause is headed, 'More than one person can have a duty' and I am just trying to understand the ramifications for those in partnerships. Maybe the minister can explain what the impact of this bill is on those in partnerships. Also, I am intrigued as to how people are meant to discharge their duty in relation to the clause that says:

If more than one person has a duty for the same matter, each person…must discharge the person's duty to the extent to which the person has the capacity to influence and control the matter or would have had that capacity but for the agreement or arrangement purporting to limit or remove that capacity.

Does that mean that I can, by agreement, exit myself from that duty and by agreement pass it to someone else? I am not sure how anyone is going to judge the words 'capacity to influence'.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Basically, the effect of the clause is to make it so that you cannot waive your responsibilities and obligations under the act. Those obligations apply to you even though you may have signed a document saying otherwise and that is the purpose behind that provision.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The issue of partnerships, Treasurer?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: In the example of a partnership, the partnership is the PCBU; each of the partners have equal responsibilities and equal obligations under the proposed act. That is qualified under clause 19. It is qualified insofar as is reasonably practicable. Obviously, if a partner was overseas at a particular time or a partner was not engaged in the day-to-day running of the business then that would be taken into account but, all else being equal, all partners have equal responsibility under the act. It was pointed out to me that if you refer back to clause 5(3) it states:

If a business or undertaking is conducted by a partnership (other than an incorporated partnership), all reference in this Act to a person conducting the business or undertaking is to be read as a reference to each partner in the partnership.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The Treasurer gives examples of partners being overseas or not engaged, to use the Treasurer's word, but under this particular bill if you do not take action, if you do nothing, that in itself comes into the definitions of taking action or not taking action. A partner is not going to be able to say, 'I was not engaged', because you actually have a duty to be engaged, first of all, so it does not matter where you are as a partner you are going to have a duty to be engaged. Then, under clause 16, you have the capacity to influence as a partner. The fact that you decided not to will not exclude you from the risk.

My lay reading of it is that there is nowhere to hide by saying, 'I am a disengaged director' or, 'I wasn't responsible for that role', because in taking no action you are brought into the loop; having the capacity to influence you are brought into the loop; and if you actually are the person responsible then you are clearly in the loop.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Again, it comes back to what is reasonably practicable, and it may only be reasonably practicable for a partner not engaged in the day-to-day activities of the business to ensure that his or her partners are fulfilling the requirements of the act. It would depend on the particular incident that happened but, again, it all comes down to what is reasonably practicable. For a partner who is not engaged in the day-to-day activities of the business, their obligations under the act in what is considered to be reasonably practicable could be somewhat less than another partner who is engaged in the day-to-day activities of the business.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I will not hold the house any longer on this issue, but I will just make this point: one partner gets done for not fulfilling some occupational health and safety duty, but the other director or partner is clearly going to be caught in, because the first question I would ask as the representative of the worker is, 'So obviously, as the partner who wasn't directly responsible, you no doubt asked this partner if he was meeting all obligations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and you obviously checked that, didn't you, director; didn't you, partner? You obviously checked that. Now, just walk me through exactly what you did to check that.' And the answer is that 90 per cent of people would just take that person's word for it. Did he have the capacity to check? Yes. Did he have a duty to check? Is it practical and reasonable that you would check? Probably. This is where it is so open-ended, in my view.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: In terms of general requirements, there is nothing in this bill that changes what currently applies now with regard to partnerships and what might be the responsibilities—

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Except with different definitions of the words.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Again, it comes down to what is reasonable, and what constitutes reasonableness in any particular situation is a well-developed concept in the law over which much case law exists. It is not at all a vague notion. It is a notion with which the courts are very familiar.

Clause passed.

Clause 17 passed.

Clause 18.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Clause 18 is the clause much quoted by the minister because it defines what is reasonably practicable. It is interesting that, under clause 17, the minister keeps saying there is no new obligation on anyone under this particular bill. It is all as it is currently in the act. My point to the committee and my point to the business community out there is to go and get the current act and this bill and highlight all the different words.

All the different words have different meanings. There is no better one than in clause 17, which talks about 'A duty imposed on a person to ensure health...' To ensure health is a new wording in the bill. It is new. That means something different to what exists, so I disagree with the Treasurer that this bill is essentially the same as the act.

Clause 18 deals with what is reasonably practicable to ensure health and safety. It comes down to a number of issues and what this really means is that the whole system simply relies on someone's judgement about what is reasonably practicable. Ultimately, if you look at what this clause means, it simply says that:

reasonably practicable...means that which is, or was at a particular time—

which I assume is the time of the injury. I assume that means time of injury. Why it does not say at the time of the injury, I am not sure, but it says 'at a particular time'—pick a time—

reasonably able to be done in relation to ensuring health and safety, taking into account and weighing up all relevant matters—

so the employers out there have an obligation to keep themselves abreast of 'all relevant matters' because they have to weigh them up. They have to weigh them up, so if there is some change somewhere out there in business world, some new procedure or some new guide to a piece of equipment, ultimately the employer would need to be aware of that, because they have to weigh up:

all relevant matters, including—

(a) the likelihood of the hazard or risk concerned occurring; and

(b) the degree of harm that might result from the hazard or the risk; and

(c) what the person concerned knows—

I assume this refers to the person with the duty and not the person who is injured. I will ask this question to the Treasurer in due course: I assume 'the person' in clause 18(c) is referring to the person with the duty, not the worker. It provides:

(c) what the person concerned knows, or ought reasonably to know—

so if the employer does not know something they should have known, then they are done in relation to this—

about—

(i) the hazard or the risk; and

(ii) ways of eliminating or minimising the risk; and

Interestingly enough, the way the government has it drafted, it does not have to worry about the ways of eliminating or minimising any hazard. Under clause 18(c) it only talks about eliminating risk, not hazard. It continues:

(d) the availability and suitability of ways to eliminate or minimise the risk; and

(e) after assessing the extent of the risk and the available ways of eliminating or minimising the risk—

Again, it comes back to you don't know what you don't know. Then it is judged against whether the cost is grossly disproportionate to the risk. What is 'grossly disproportionate to the risk' is highly interpretive, ultimately, so the whole obligation falls on this particular provision. If you look at the minister's answers, based on his advice, it is all about, 'Well, don't worry, it is what is reasonably practicable.'

My point is that it would be nigh on impossible for most businesses to be abreast of all relevant matters at all times and therefore be able to weigh them up, or to have knowledge of available ways of minimising all the risks. The simple fact is that you do not know everything all the time. I understand where the government is coming from with this clause and that it is almost identical—not quite identical, but nearly identical—to the existing provision. However, when you add in the other changes to all the other words (the number of definitional changes, etc.) and apply them with this background, I think businesses are more exposed under this bill than they are under the current act.

My questions to the minister are: first, where it says 'or was at a particular time' is the time referred to the time of injury; and, secondly, in clause 18(c) where it talks about 'what the person concerned knows', is the person concerned the person with the duty or is the person concerned the worker? If it is the person with the duty, where is the clause that says that the employee undertaking the action should consider what they know or do not know about it? Where is the obligation on the employee on this particular issue?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: 'At a particular time' is the time at which there is an assessment taken of the risk. The second question was: who is the person? As the member for Davenport said, that is the person who has the duty within the PCBU.

The Hon. I.F. Evans interjecting:

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: The person with the duty within the PCBU.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: The first one.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: 'At a particular time' is the time of the assessment of the risk.

Clause passed.

Clause 19.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: My amendments are consequential, and therefore I will not proceed with them on the basis that the issue has been decided by the committee. I want to check, as the way I understand clause 19 is that you have a primary duty for all visitors to the site. How does that work for clause 19(3)(f) where it talks about 'the provision of any information, training, instruction or supervision that is necessary to protect all persons'? I assume that, for any visitor to any workplace, there needs to be some process in place to make sure that they have information, training, instruction or supervision—indeed, all of those four things—to make sure that they do not get injured.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: That happens already.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I want you to put it on the record for me.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: That happens already. I have visited many factories and workplaces—sawmills—where, before I have been allowed to enter the workplace or leave the office enclosure and visit the workplace, I have been given appropriate safety garb and appropriate instructions to remain within certain areas and, on several occasions, been shown a short video as to what the obligations are. It would be in proportion to the risk of the sites. Obviously, with a sawmill or a factory dealing with dangerous chemicals, more stringent measures have to be taken than with an office.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: So it would apply to, obviously, retailers and their customers?

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING: Obviously not, because it would be in proportion to the dangers of the workplace and what would need to be reasonably explained to a person in such circumstances.

Clause passed.

Clause 20.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I am just trying to get my head around the issue of the duties of persons conducting businesses or undertakings involved in the management and control of a workplace, in regards to residences. The way the bill is drafted is that a person with management or control of the workplace means a person conducting a business or undertaking to the extent that the business or undertaking involves the management or control, in part or in whole, of the workplace. It goes on to say that the workplace does not include the occupier of a residence unless the residence is occupied for the purposes of, or as part of, the conduct of a business or undertaking. I just want to get this on the record so we are crystal clear: if someone is running a single-person business from one room in the house, then the whole of the house becomes a workplace for the purposes of this bill.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.

[Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00]