Parliamentary Committee on Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation: Annual Report 2013-14

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (11:19): I move:

That the 18^th report of the committee, entitled Annual Report 2013-14, be noted.

The committee's role in keeping the health, safety and workers compensation legislation under constant review is an important one. The committee differs substantially in operation from other standing committees because the members are not remunerated, but members, both past and present, are no less dedicated to the work of the committee, and they have applied themselves diligently. Following the March election, a new committee was appointed, which has been familiarising itself with the functions of the committee and deciding priorities.

The Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Committee met on eight occasions in the last financial year and six witnesses appeared before the committee, but these statistics do not accurately reflect the activities of the committee. The last 12 months have been characterised by regular meetings at which witnesses have attended to assist the committee to finalise an indepth inquiry into the effectiveness and efficiency of SafeWork SA and an inquiry into occupational violence in health, hospitality and retail sectors.

The inquiry into the efficiency and effectiveness of SafeWork SA began in mid-2012, but was not completed until the end of 2013, during which time the committee received a total of 35 submissions, heard from 20 witnesses, and produced the report, with 26 recommendations. The committee found that SafeWork SA was performing well against national comparative data, but the implementation of the Work Health and Safety Act brought in some challenges, particularly in how the changes were communicated to business, industry and individuals. Some witnesses raised concerns that SafeWork SA had not been appropriately resourced to adequately implement the significant changes across South Australia to small and medium businesses and industry groups.

The committee also inquired into occupational violence in health care, hospitality and retail sectors. If one is to believe the media reports, the level of violence in the community has been increasing, but the committee found a lot of work-related violence goes unreported and is often tolerated because it is seen as just part of the job. Young casual workers, in particular, are often reluctant to make a workers compensation claim because they are concerned for their future employment opportunities.

To better understand the frequency and severity of work-related violence, the committee relied on data from a number of sources, including workers compensation statistics (as limited as they may be), police reports, armed robbery reports and code black incidents. A code black incident occurs in a hospital when a health professional fears for their safety and makes a call for security assistance. Between 2011 and 2012, more than 4,000 code black incidents were reported in metropolitan hospitals, 36 per cent of which were considered to be high-risk incidents. Annually, there are over 400 workers compensation claims arising from occupational violence, costing over $6 million. Over an eight-year period, claims arising from occupational violence have cost in excess of $68 million in the public health scheme alone.

While SA Health is implementing a strategy to reduce the level of violence in hospitals, the committee found a lack of information relating to aged-care and community-care facilities, which is disturbing because the highest average cost of claims occurs in the community, particularly in the paramedical services. There is also a lack of comprehensive trend data on code black incidents. The committee received few submissions from the retail and hospitality sectors but did hear from a few witnesses who expressed concerns about the increasing level of violence and aggression towards employees who work in those sectors.

The retail and hospitality sectors are the largest employers of young casual workers, many of whom are female between the ages of 15 and 24 years. Employees working in these sectors are at risk of exposure to abusive customers who may be affected by drugs or alcohol. As security increases in larger retail stores and in the financial sector, criminals are often drawn to softer targets, leaving young employees who work alone, especially at night, at increased risk of violence. Young men are at risk of serious assault, while young women are at risk of sexual violence.

I should say that one of the reasons we did this inquiry was at the request of the former member for Mitchell, Alan Sibbons, who had a number of constituents themselves or their parents come to him. They were concerned about their children working in places such as bottle-oh driveways being threatened and also in service stations, their being there at night alone and being very vulnerable. Part of this inquiry was in response to issues that had been raised by the member for Mitchell, and I hope that the current member for Mitchell is not getting that same level of complaints because it really is quite a scary statistic. I know that other members in this place may have had those sorts of concerns raised by constituents.

The largest number of assaults is experienced in the hospitality sector, while the retail sector experiences the highest number of robbery incidents. During 2011-12 financial year, more than 650 South Australian workers made a claim for workers compensation as a result of being exposed to occupational violence at work. The direct cost was over $9 million but the indirect cost, the impact on family members of injured workers and the rest of the community caused by these types of injuries is not so easily quantified.

The committee also considered the implications arising from new terminology in the Work Health and Safety Act by some of the contractors and consultants. This seemingly excessive use of SafeWork Method Statements required by some principal contractors reveals a level of confusion about legal responsibilities. The committee also noted that in a judgement by the Industrial Court concern was raised over the ability for an employer to obtain indemnity insurance for criminal negligence in relation to a breach of the health and safety law. The practice is a disincentive for business to invest in harm prevention strategies and has the potential to expose employees to significant risks. It is hoped that steps can be taken to discourage this illegal practice.

The 18^th report of the Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Committee summarises the committee's work for the financial year of 2013-14 and the cost to the taxpayer has been minimal. I am very pleased to report that the total expenditure for the committee for the financial year was $3,389.13. I take this opportunity to thank all those members and people who have contributed to the inquiries undertaken by the committee. I thank all those people who took the time and made the effort to prepare submissions for the committee and to speak to the committee. I also thank the people who came along to these public hearings just to hear about the work and hear from witnesses first hand.

I extend my sincere thanks to the members of the committee: the newly elected member for Schubert, Mr Stephan Knoll; the newly elected member for Reynell, Ms Katrine Hildyard; and from the other place, the Hons Gerry Kandelaars, John Darley and John Dawkins. I must say that we really value the new member for Schubert. We miss the input from the previous member for Schubert, my friend Ivan Venning. I thank Ivan Venning particularly. He was in this house for 24 years as the member for Schubert and has since retired. He was a member of the committee for four years and made a valuable contribution.

I also recognise the excellent contribution from the Hon. Rob Lucas from the other place for his contribution over that same period, and I am very pleased that he has been replaced by the Hon. John Dawkins, who has initiated a few inquiries for this next period of our committee. We are particularly looking at suicide in the workplace which is sadly a very important and topical issue. The Hon. John Dawkins has been a great addition. The Hon. Rob Lucas, with his background, was very hard to replace but I have to say that the Hon. John Dawkins has shown a lot of leadership in our committee and we thank him for that.

My thanks also go to our absolutely wonderful executive officer, Ms Sue Sedivy. She really is a hardworking professional who supports us. I know that all the committee members, both from the previous committee and our new committee, appreciate her work and contribution to making this an excellent committee. I commend the report to the chamber.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (11:29): I thank the member for Ashford for her work on this committee over my past eight months on this committee. I have found the committee to be one that works very well together. Each member of the committee brings a different level of experience and expertise, and we are able to have strong and cogent discussions on the issues at hand. Can I say that there is, quietly, some healthy tension within the committee. I think a diversity of views exists, and I think that that is a very good thing. As a committee that looks into some very serious aspects of working life in South Australia—occupational health and safety, whether it be WorkCover, method statements or a whole host of issues that are quite serious and difficult to deal with—an amalgam of views is not a bad thing.

On the committee, I believe that we should always look for ways to get that balance right, the efficiency of the system balanced against the effectiveness of the regulation, in order to achieve the best outcomes and keep people as safe as they can be at work. I believe that we need to find a balance between a cost-effective scheme that is not overly burdensome on employers but does provide proper benefits to injured workers, and make sure that the whole system takes responsibility for the people who work within it. I think that is something that the committee does genuinely try to grapple with.

I also see that the committee genuinely tries to grapple with always wanting to find better ways to look after genuine injuries, genuine claimants and genuine disputes, whilst always trying to find ways to seek out the less genuine and those who would otherwise render the scheme unworkable for all the stakeholders. That is a function of the committee and a focus of the entire system that is ongoing; we cannot stop looking at ways to create better definitions in that regard. I genuinely think that all members look at it in that way.

Certainly, my time on the committee has been very productive and very eye opening. I suppose it is not something that people often get passionate about, but there are some reasonably passionate members on the committee, and their passion is genuine. I was not on the committee during the inquiry into the effectiveness and efficiency of SafeWork SA, but I have taken the time to go through it and there is a lot of information. There is a lot of information to digest, and certainly the recommendations that came out of that inquiry are extremely common sense. Reading through them, you can see that diligent work was done by the committee in reaching those recommendations. I think there are good things for the minister to consider, and hopefully he does consider them.

In my travels through looking at some of the grants process that SafeWork SA undertakes, I have found there is quite a bit of detail and breakdown about research projects that are undertaken. I have managed to get quite a bit of information about small grants programs undertaken, but page 135 of the report talks about the health and safety partnerships program, which is a program that ran from 2007-08 until 2013. It is a grant program that gives $1 million dollars a year, divided evenly across industry sectors: community services, manufacturing, wholesale and retail, construction, and transport and storage. There is not as much information about this partnerships program but, when I look at the recipients of the grants, perhaps a common theme comes through.

The recipients of the grants were the Independent Education Union; the Australian Services Union; the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union; the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union; the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union; the Australian Workers Union; the Textile Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia; the National Union of Workers; the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Union; the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union; the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; and the Transport Workers Union. There does seem to be a strong common theme there. In subsequent years, the 2011, 2012 and 2013 financial years, the recipients of grants were concentrated into the ASU, IEU, AMWU, CFMEU, NUW, AWU, SDA and SA Unions.

I pass no judgement on the validity of these grants and this program, except to say that there is obviously quite a strong bias in the program. I look forward to reading the reports and the acquittals around this partnerships program and I look forward to, I suppose, discovering the process by which this grant program was decided and in making sure that this million dollars a year worth of government money has been well spent and that there was indeed strong levels of fairness and transparency around valuable taxpayers' money.

So, with that, I would like to say that I am thoroughly enjoying my time on this committee. I commend this report, even though I know it is only for noting—I note this report—and I look forward to the coming 12 months when we have a number of exciting projects on the go.

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (11:35): I would like to acknowledge the great work that has been done on this committee, particularly by our staff and the people who have contributed to the last year's work.

Motion carried.