Work Health and Safety (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD (Reynell—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (16:02): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am really proud to rise today to introduce into this chamber the Work Health and Safety (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill 2024. I am proud because this bill will make a really positive difference in the lives of workers, to business and to entire industries across our state. Our South Australian government firmly believes that every worker deserves a fair go, that every worker should be treated with dignity and respect, and that every worker deserves to feel and be safe in their workplace and to arrive home from work each day, morning, night or afternoon to their loved ones, safe, healthy, happy and satisfied with the work that they have undertaken during their particular shift.

Having had the privilege of representing workers engaged in a range of diverse industries, I have witnessed what can happen when workers suffer a work-related injury. I have witnessed the difficulties and the ongoing trauma and pain that a worker can experience and the ongoing impact that this can have on that worker and on their loved ones, on their family life, on their ongoing ability to positively engage in community life and on their ability to sometimes re-engage in their particular work environment.

Sadly, I have also seen the utter devastation that can happen for families, for colleagues, for communities, for employers, when the very worst happens, when someone's life ends as a result of a dreadful work accident, an accident that could in no way be prevented—and indeed in the horrific instances when an accident could perhaps have been prevented.

One of the government's most important commitments prior to the last election was to undertake a root-and-branch review of the state's work health and safety regulator, SafeWork SA. The purpose of this review was to improve workplace safety, to strengthen those prevention efforts and to ensure that workers get home safely, to deliver a mechanism for prompt action on safety concerns and disputes, and to ensure a genuine voice for workers in complaint and resolution processes.

That independent review was conducted in the second half of 2022 by Mr John Merritt, a widely respected former director of WorkSafe Victoria with decades of experience in health and safety regulations. I thank Mr Merritt for his important work.

Mr Merritt's review was preceded by the Boland review of the national work health and safety laws in 2020, and a 2017 review of Queensland's work health and safety laws, both of which recommended similar reforms to the dispute resolution processes this bill before us today encapsulates. The Liberals, on the back of the Boland review, could perhaps have followed the recommendations within it and progressed us so much further before now. Sadly, they did not.

The Merritt independent review received submissions from a really wide cross-section of stakeholders, including through 55 separate meetings between Mr Merritt and different individuals and groups involved in our work health and safety system. This bill makes important changes to South Australia's work health and safety laws in response to recommendations of that independent review.

The bill rightly codifies the functions of the SafeWork SA Advisory Committee, permanently establishing that committee as a tripartite body for stakeholders, including unions, business groups, and health and safety professionals, to provide advice to SafeWork SA and the government. This fundamentally recognises that no regulator, no matter how well resourced, can be in every workplace at once. Industry associations and trade unions have an important institutional role in promoting safe work practices and monitoring health and safety issues. Their role also enables us to respond to innovation and changes in particular industries.

When I think about that, I think about workers in particular industries that I represented over time, and I think about new and emerging issues that arose, first of all, about 30 years ago in the call centre industry when particular types of injuries were identified. I think about the introduction of other technologies which have also given rise to particular health and safety risks. Unions, and indeed industry associations, have a very clear, important and particular role to play in progressing change around the understanding of those particular new issues that confront industries and how we can work across a particular industry to drive change that absolutely makes workers safer.

This bill gives the state's independent industrial umpire, the South Australian Employment Tribunal, a much greater role in settling workplace disputes about health and safety issues, with a priority on alternative dispute processes, such as conciliation and mediation.

The dispute resolution powers are closely modelled on Queensland's work health and safety legislation, which has now operated successfully for nearly seven years. This provides businesses, workers and their representatives with a practical, accessible and low-cost system to seek to resolve health and safety disputes at the earliest possible stage before those serious, devastating workplace injuries or even workplace deaths can occur.

Importantly, this dispute resolution system is not about punishing employers; it is about proactively fixing health and safety problems and avoiding issues getting to the stage where more serious remedies such as criminal prosecutions may become necessary. These dispute processes take nothing away from SafeWork SA's essential role as the state's health and safety regulator. They complement rather than diminish SafeWork's important ongoing role in investigating and enforcing our work health and safety laws.

The Malinauskas government has proudly made significant investments in SafeWork SA to rebuild its capacity after four years of shameful, deliberate neglect under the former Liberal government, which cut nearly $7.6 million from SafeWork SA's budget—

Mr Patterson interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): Order, member for Morphett! The minister will be heard in silence. You will have a chance to make your contribution. Minister.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I will just repeat that, Mr Acting Speaker. The Malinauskas government has rightly made significant investments in SafeWork SA to rebuild its capacity after four years of shameful, deliberate neglect under the former Liberal government, which cut nearly $7.6 million from SafeWork SA's budget and slashed 35 full-time positions from the regulator, speaking to their utter disregard for the health and safety of workers in South Australia.

The Liberals' actions in government make clear that they do not care about work health and safety. When they were given the opportunity, they chose—deliberately chose—to tear funding away from the regulator rather than to build their capacity and support it.

This bill fixes longstanding defects in the act's confidentiality provisions that have kept workers and their families in the dark about what action is being taken by SafeWork SA in response to safety incidents. It also rightly ensures that the process for a family to request review of a prosecution decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions is fit for purpose and accessible, even if a family is only notified of a decision very shortly before the statute of limitations.

This bill is the product of an extensive stakeholder consultation process over the nearly 18 months since the independent review was released. That consultation has included key stakeholders such as industry associations, trade unions and, rightly, the families—those courageous families of workers who have suffered incredible tragedy with a relative, one of their loved ones, losing their life at work.

Across the board, those discussions have been marked by a genuine willingness by those different and diverse parties to consider compromise to achieve safety for workers across South Australia. I want to thank the many stakeholders who contributed to the independent review of SafeWork SA. I note two people here today in particular, Sean Hill and Dale Beasley, from SA Unions. I thank the many stakeholders—workers and their unions, employers, industry associations—who contributed to both the independent review of SafeWork SA and to the extensive government consultation process on these amendments before us today.

I am sure I will get another chance to do this more fulsomely, but I also say thank you very much to the Hon. Kyam Maher, the Attorney-General and minister in the other place, for his work toward this bill and throughout that consultation process. I also thank Angus Oehme in his office and Erin Sneath in the department.

I absolutely commend this bill to the house and seek leave to have the remainder of the second reading explanation and the explanation of clauses inserted into Hansard without my reading them.

Leave granted.

One of the clear outcomes of the Independent Review is that SafeWork SA cannot do its job alone. No regulator, no matter how well resourced, cannot be in every workplace across the State at once.

SafeWork SA needs to work closely with key stakeholders like business associations, trade unions, and health and safety professionals to project its influence, educate businesses and workers about health and safety, and target noncompliance.

A key recommendation of the Review was the formation of a tripartite advisory committee to help build a stronger relationship between SafeWork and the community, and provide a forum for high-level stakeholder advice on how to improve SafeWork's operations.

The SafeWork SA Advisory Committee was established by the Government shortly after the release of the Independent Review, and has been operating effectively for the past 12 months.

This Bill inserts Part 1, Division 5 to formally codify the constitution and functions of that committee as a permanent feature of the WHS Act.

I take this opportunity to thank all the stakeholder groups currently represented on the committee for their valuable contribution over the past 12 months, and look forward to continuing to work with you to improve health and safety in South Australia.

[Dispute resolution]

The Independent Review recommended the state's industrial umpire – the South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET) – be given a greater role in helping to resolve disputes about work health and safety matters.

Nobody benefits from an intractable workplace dispute. Ensuring that all parties have access to a practical dispute resolution system supports a harmonious industrial environment, and encourages the resolution of safety issues before workplace injuries can occur.

The Bill inserts Part 5, Division 7A to provide jurisdiction for the SAET to deal with work health and safety disputes.

Division 7A is heavily modelled on existing amendments made in 2017 to Queensland's work health and safety laws. The Queensland model has now operated successfully for nearly 7 years.

This model has not produced a flood of litigation; indeed, I am advised there have been less than 10 applications to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission each year since these amendments were made.

Importantly, the SAET's role under this model is not about imposing penalties or punishing employers. Instead, it is about helping to resolve disputes about health and safety issues and making workplaces safer going forward.

To encourage the resolution of disputes between parties at a workplace level, the Bill provides that a dispute cannot be notified to the SAET until at least 24 hours after the regulator has been asked to appoint an inspector to assist in resolving the dispute.

Any party may notify a dispute to SAET, including the person conducting the business or undertaking or a relevant worker, health and safety representative, or union.

The SAET will be empowered to deal with the dispute in any way it thinks fit for the prompt settlement of the dispute. That may include the SAET conciliating or mediating the dispute, or making a recommendation or expressing an opinion to the parties.

If necessary, the SAET will have the power to arbitrate the dispute by making any order it considers appropriate for the prompt settlement of the dispute. That could include, for example, an order that a person conducting a business or undertaking take steps to address a health and safety issue related to the dispute.

The SAET will also have the power to review a compliance decision made by a SafeWork inspector in relation to the dispute. This could include, for example, varying or setting aside a prohibition notice put in place by an inspector.

In dealing with disputes the SAET will have its usual procedural powers including the ability to require attendance at a conference, order disclosure, and make interim orders.

If the SAET resolves a dispute by arbitration then then the parties must comply with any order the SAET makes. If a party breaches an order, either SafeWork SA or a party affected by the breach may apply for a civil penalty to be imposed for the breach.

Consistent with existing provisions of the WHS Act, any penalty ordered is only payable to the State. However, if a party affected by a breach has been put to the cost of enforcing SAET's orders, they may receive an order for their reasonable legal costs of the enforcement action.

The SAET will also have the power to dismiss a matter without conducting a hearing or conference where it is satisfied the matter is frivolous, vexatious or lacking in substance.

Consistent with other industrial proceedings in the SAET, parties will generally bear their own costs of dispute however the SAET will have the power to order payment of legal costs if it is satisfied a party has acted unreasonably or vexatiously.

The government has confidence the SAET will bring to this new jurisdiction the same practical approach to the resolution of workplace issues that it currently exhibits in thousands of industrial and workers compensation matters each year.

A consequential amendment is made with the insertion of section 85A to clarify the interaction between this new dispute process and the existing right to cease unsafe work under the Act.

This amendment makes clear that, although SAET may deal with a dispute about the cessation of unsafe work under Division 7A, the availability of that new dispute process is not intended to impinge upon or reduce the existing right to cease unsafe work.

The right to cease unsafe work is an essential legislative safeguard to protect worker's safety. If a worker or a health and safety representative is confronted with an immediate or imminent health and safety threat, there is no requirement that they must notify or participate in a dispute to SAET before they can exercise that right.

[Measurements, tests and recordings]

The Independent Review recommended South Australia follow the lead of other jurisdictions to make clear entry permit holders may take measurements and recordings relevant to a safety contravention.

It is in the interests of the entire community that where there is a dispute about a health and safety matter, the most accurate information is available to SafeWork SA and, if necessary, to the SAET.

Workplace safety is not assisted by a subjective 'he said, she said' debate over what was observed during a worksite visit, particularly when objective photographic or video evidence could be available to clearly resolve the issue.

The Bill amends section 118 to provide a right for entry permit holders to take measurements, tests, photos, and videos directly relevant to a suspected health and safety contravention.

The Bill includes strong safeguards around these powers. It expressly prohibits the use of live streaming, and provides that insofar as reasonably practicable a photo or video must not record the image or voice of a person unless are relevant worker, a worker whose actions are directly affecting a relevant worker, or an inspector or emergency services worker attending the workplace.

The 'reasonably practicable' exception is intended to address situations where a permit holder cannot reasonably avoid other persons being included in a photo or video. This may, for example, include where the worksite is a public place with pedestrian foot traffic.

There are serious consequences for misuse of these powers. Photos and videos are subject to strict confidentiality requirements under section 148, and a breach of these requirements can result in significant penalties and the potential revocation of entry permits.

[Review by Director of Public Prosecutions]

When the model WHS Act was developed a clear policy decision was made that only the regulator would be empowered to bring criminal prosecutions for offences under the Act.

However, it was also understood that a safeguard was needed to ensure that, where victims and their families believed action by the regulator was inadequate, the regulator's decision in relation to a potential prosecution could be reviewed.

That is reflected in section 231 of the Act, which provides a process where a person may make a written request to the regulator for a prosecution and, if no prosecution is undertaken, may request a review of that decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

However, since the WHS Act was passed in 2012, multiple inquiries including the Independent Review have found the existing section 231 framework is not fit for purpose due to the very limited timeframe it imposes on victims and their families.

Take as one stark example the situation faced by Keith Woodford following the tragic murder of his wife, nurse Gayle Woodford, whose case was the subject of an independent review commissioned by this Government in 2022 by Hon John Mansfield AO KC.

Keith was only informed of SafeWork's decision not to commence a prosecution for a health and safety offence in relation to Gayle's death a few days before the statute of limitations expired.

By then Keith's right under section 231 to formally request a prosecution had expired. And even if that right could have been exercised, there was no practical way the DPP could have properly considered the evidence and provided advice before the limitation period struck.

To be clear, this is not a criticism of SafeWork in taking the time it did to make a decision about the prosecution. Work health and safety investigations are notoriously complex and, in cases involving a workplace death, it can reasonably be expected a decision about a prosecution may not be made until close to the limitation date.

However, what this case illustrates is that section 231 currently holds out to victims and their families a right of review which may simply be illusory. The situation faced by Keith Woodford is unacceptable, and the amendments made in this Bill will help ensure it cannot happen again.

The Bill amends section 231 to clarify that a request to the regulator for a prosecution can be made at any time up until the expiry of the statute of limitations, including after a coronial inquest into a workplace death.

The Bill also amends section 232 to provide that if a matter is referred to the DPP for review, then a prosecution may be commenced within one month of the date the DPP provides advice to the regulator on whether a prosecution should be bought.

This means that if a family is only notified of a prosecution decision very late in the process, they will still have the ability to request review by the DPP, and the DPP will have the opportunity to properly consider all the evidence before providing advice.

[Reform of confidentiality provisions]

Multiple inquiries including the Independent Review have now shown that the current confidentiality provisions in section 271 of the Act have cloaked SafeWork SA in a shroud of secrecy.

For far too long, SafeWork has been a black box where a health and safety complaint goes in, a decision about a potential compliance action or prosecution comes out, but where the internal reasoning process is often entirely opaque to the outside observer.

This has caused significant distress, particularly for families who are seeking information from SafeWork to try and understand the circumstances of a loved one's death at work.

While there are important reasons for confidentiality provisions to apply, as it stands the balance has not been properly struck.

If stakeholders affected by work health and safety incidents cannot understand how and why SafeWork makes decisions, then they cannot reasonably be expected to have confidence in those decisions.

The longstanding problems caused by section 271 will finally be addressed in this Bill.

The Bill inserts a new section 271A which provides the regulator with a broad discretion to disclose information relating to an incident to persons affected by the incident.

This includes people such as an injured worker or their family, the person conducting the business or undertaking, other workers at the workplace affected by the incident, or a relevant union.

Disclosure is subject to safeguards including that information cannot be disclosed if it would jeopardise an investigation, or reveal confidential legal advice or commercially confidential material. Disclosure also cannot be made to a person who may be a witness in a prosecution.

Decisions about the disclosure of information will be guided by a written policy published on the SafeWork website, which will be developed in consultation with members of the SafeWork SA Advisory Committee including representatives of victims and their families.

It is important to be clear that this amendment does not compel the regulator to disclose information where the regulator believes that disclosure would be inappropriate.

What this amendment does is remove longstanding statutory barrier to transparency, and put SafeWork in the same position as other prosecuting authorities like South Australia Police and the DPP in terms of the information it may provide to affected parties.

The Government's fervent hope is that this amendment will provide greater comfort to victims and their families, and help build public confidence in the regulator's decision-making processes.

[Minor and technical amendments]

The Bill also includes a number of more minor amendments.

The Bill amends section 117 to remove the requirement for a written report to be provided to SafeWork after every exercise of entry rights, consistent with a recommendation of the Independent Review. A permit holder may still choose to provide a report in which case SafeWork must advise of any action taken in response.

In that context, I note the Government has not accepted a recommendation of the Review that permit holders should no longer be required to notify SafeWork before exercising a right of entry, to provide an opportunity for an inspector to attend the workplace at the same time. Those notification requirements will be retained under this Bill.

The Bill amends section 143 to increase the penalty for breaching an order of the SAET dealing with a right of entry dispute to $100,000 for a body corporate or $10,000 for an individual. That is consistent with penalties for breaching an order relating to a health and safety dispute and emphasises the need for parties to comply with SAET's orders.

The Bill amends section 223 to provide that the representative of a person conducting a business or undertaking or a worker has standing to seek internal review of a reviewable SafeWork decision.

The Bill amends Schedule 2 so that the Mining and Quarrying Occupational Health and Safety Committee will be located within ReturnToWorkSA instead of the Attorney-General's Department. That move is widely supported by stakeholders.

The Bill also amends Schedule 2 so that in future the Executive Director of SafeWork SA will be appointed by the Governor, consistent with most other regulators and prosecuting authorities in South Australia.

[2-year Review]

The Bill provides for an automatic review of these amendments to occur 2 years after their commencement and to be tabled in Parliament.

This will provide a timely opportunity to consider the practical impact of these amendments and any necessary changes to deal with technical or other issues which may arise in the meantime.

The government notes the Queensland Parliament has recently passed amendments to its own dispute resolution model, which have not yet come into effect, which in part expand the range of matters which can be dealt with by its industrial relations commission.

The 2-year review will provide an important opportunity to consider how those amendments have operated in practice in Queensland and whether they should also be incorporated into our legislation.

Explanation of Clauses

Part 1—Preliminary

1—Short title

2—Commencement

These clauses are formal.

Part 2—Amendment of Work Health and Safety Act 2012

3—Amendment of section 4—Definitions

Certain definitions are amended, inserted or deleted for the purposes of the measure.

4—Amendment of section 10—Act binds the Crown

Section 7(2) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1992 does not apply in respect of proceedings before SAET under proposed Part 5 Division 7A.

5—Insertion of Part 1 Division 5

This clause inserts a new Division into Part 1 as follows:

Division 5—SafeWork SA Advisory Committee

12A—Establishment of committee

Proposed section 12A establishes the SafeWork SA Advisory Committee, and outlines that the committee shall consist of 15 members, with 4 ex officio members, and 11 appointed by the Minister. Subsection (3) provides for the appointment of alternate members.

12B—Terms and conditions of office

Proposed section 12B provides for the terms and conditions of an appointment to the advisory committee.

12C—Functions

Proposed section 12C establishes the functions of the advisory committee, and gives the committee various powers to support the performance of its functions.

12D—Procedures at meetings

Proposed section 12D makes provision for how the advisory committee will conduct itself at meetings.

12E—Conflict of interest

Proposed section 12E establishes certain circumstances where a member of the advisory committee will not have a direct or indirect interest in a matter for the purposes of the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act 1995.

12F—Confidentiality

Proposed section 12F requires members of the advisory committee not to disclose confidential information acquired as a member of the committee without the approval of the Minister.

12G—Use of staff and facilities

Proposed section 12G makes provision for the advisory committee to make use of the staff, equipment or facilities of either the Department (with the agreement of the Minister) or of any other agency or instrumentality of the Crown (with the agreement of the relevant agency or instrumentality).

6—Amendment of section 85—Health and safety representative may direct that unsafe work cease

This clause inserts a clarifying note and is consequential to clause 8.

7—Insertion of section 85A

This clause inserts a clarifying amendment about the concept of 'reasonable concern' for the purposes of sections 84 and 85 and is consequential to clause 8.

8—Insertion of Part 5 Division 7A

This clause inserts a new Division allowing for notices to be given to SAET regarding certain WHS disputes and giving SAET jurisdiction to deal with the dispute.

9—Amendment of section 117—Entry to inquire into suspected contraventions

These amendments—

correct a minor drafting error; and

make provision of a report to the regulator by a WHS entry permit holder discretionary; and

provide that, if a report is provided to the regulator, the regulator will be required to advise the WHS entry permit holder of any action taken following the report.

10—Amendment of section 118—Rights that may be exercised while at workplace

This amendment adds the right to take measurements or conduct tests, or take photos and videos, directly relevant to a suspected contravention of the Act to the list of things a WHS entry permit holder may do while at a workplace.

11—Amendment of section 143—Contravening order made to deal with dispute

This amendment increases the penalty from $50,000 to $100,000 and adds a note to the foot of the section.

12—Insertion of section 152A

New section 152A is inserted:

152A—Right of regulator to intervene in proceedings

The regulator can intervene in any proceedings before SAET under the Act.

13—Amendment of section 223—Which decisions are reviewable

This clause makes a clarifying amendment.

14—Amendment of section 231—Procedure if prosecution is not brought

This section extends the existing time limit for making a request under the section from 12 months to 24 months (where a person reasonably considers that the occurrence of an act, matter or thing constitutes an industrial manslaughter offence, a Category 1 offence or a Category 2 offence) and also provides for making a request within 12 months after a coronial report, or proceedings at a coronial inquiry or inquest. The amendments also require the regulator to provide certain updates and information to the person making the request.

15—Amendment of section 232—Limitation period for prosecutions

This amendment provides that if a matter is referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions for advice on whether a prosecution should be brought, the limitation period in relation to that matter is extended to 1 month following the provision of the advice to the regulator.

16—Amendment of section 254—When is a provision a WHS civil penalty provision

This clause makes consequential amendments.

17—Amendment of section 260—Proceeding may be brought by the regulator or an inspector

This clause makes a consequential amendment.

18—Insertion of section 260A

This clause insert a new provision as follows:

260A—Proceeding may be brought by a party for contravention of certain orders relating to arbitrations

If an order made for the purposes of arbitration under section 102C(3) or 142(3) is contravened, proceedings may be brought in SAET against a person for the contravention of the relevant WHS civil penalty provision by a person affected by the contravention.

19—Amendment of section 262—Recovery of a monetary penalty

This clause makes minor amendments to section 262 to ensure monetary penalties can be enforced as if they were an order of the Magistrates Court or the District Court.

20—Insertion of section 271A

New section 271A is inserted:

271A—Additional ways that regulator may disclose information

Proposed section 271A makes provision for the regulator, or a person authorised by the regulator, to disclose to certain persons in certain circumstances, information relating to an incident.

21—Insertion of sections 272A and 272B

This clause inserts new sections preventing a person entering into, providing or taking the benefit of a contract of insurance or any other arrangement to indemnify a person for a liability for all or part of a monetary penalty imposed under the Act. The sections create an offence punishable by a maximum fine of $50,000 and impose additional liability on officers of a body corporate in certain circumstances.

22—Amendment of section 274—Approved codes of practice

This amendment replaces references to the Consultative Council with references to the advisory committee.

23—Amendment of Schedule 2—Local tripartite consultation arrangements

These amendments replace references to the Consultative Council with references to the advisory committee and replace a reference to the 'Department' with a reference to RTWSA.

24—Amendment of Schedule 5—Provisions of local application

These amendments replace references to the Consultative Council with references to the advisory committee and provide for the appointment of the Executive Director.

Schedule 1—Related amendments, transitional provisions and review

This Schedule includes transitional provisions and provides for a review (including assessment of certain specified matters) 2 years after commencement of the measure.

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (16:15): I rise today to provide a contribution to the Work Health and Safety (Review Recommendations) Amendment Bill and note for your benefit, sir, that I am the lead speaker for the opposition in regard to this bill. There are so many places that I could start in terms of this piece of legislation before us, but I will start at the place where I should by acknowledging the fact that, despite the view of those opposite, there is a shared commitment across both sides of this house to ensure that South Australian workplaces are safe for all workers.

I still to this day do not understand why there is a view from those opposite that it is the inherent view that those who employ would want to possibly see their workers put at risk. Something that is said not as often as it should be is that it is in a business's best interests to ensure that their workers are safe, that their workers have the opportunity to go to work and return home safe every day. That is not something that is disputed on this side the house or the other. It is not disputed that any injury or loss of life at work is a tragedy. We should all in this place want to do things that can help prevent these things occurring, without a shadow of a doubt.

While we do have—I certainly believe anyway—a shared ambition to this end, it does not mean that we are always going to see the same actions as being necessary. It does not mean that we are always going to be aligned in terms of agreement on the best way to achieve those shared ambitions, but there is no doubt that it is in the best interests of business to have their workers go to work and to be safe.

The Liberal Party, I would say at the first instance as well, supports unashamedly the role of SafeWork SA as the independent safety regulator of workplaces in South Australia. Like every government agency, there is always room for improvement; however, fundamentally we believe in the role of an independent regulator and that it is important to have independence in terms of the work health and safety regulator and inspector to ensure that we do have harmonious industrial relations in the state.

The disappointing part of this bill, more so than anything else I think, is that there actually was not a need for there to be any sort of disagreement or adversarial nature to some of the recommendations that were brought out of the merritt review. We certainly by no stretch of the imagination are going to sit in the way of the government making a decision to codify the SafeWork SA advisory board. That has been working in practice now since the change of government under regulation.

While of course there can be debate about what is the best way to structure the division of these responsibilities between the multitude of different government boards that exist within the WHS space or, more broadly, the industrial relations space, we do not have any fundamental issue with that proposal that has been put forward by the government today, nor do we have any fundamental issue with what we believe to be a sensible change in regard to the confidentiality provisions that are being sought to allow essentially those parties that are affected by workplace incidents that need to be investigated by SafeWork SA, sometimes over a prolonged period, in most circumstances for reasonable reasons, to have the same access to or ability to provide information from SafeWork as the DPP or SAPOL has. We will certainly not be standing in the way of those changes at all.

Thirdly, in regard to the changes that are being made by way of changes to the process of referral for review with the DPP or review more generally under the existing provisions, we believe the changes that are being proposed to be sensible. The tragedy that occurred in the Gayle Woodford incident was obviously something that nobody in this house wants to see occur again. Without a shadow of a doubt, we are happy to make those changes to allow families the ability for closure in such tragic circumstances to ensure that, as best we possibly can, they are put in a position where they feel all potential avenues were explored and that the right decisions were made. I think we owe that to those families who are affected in that way. We owe that in particular to people who are serving our state through public service who unfortunately were put in that position.

There is no contention on this side of the house in regard to those reforms that the government is putting forward. We could have been here together moving essentially a bill with bipartisan support should the government have considered those changes independent of the other two major aspects that are contained within this bill. As we saw it, some of the other changes that were made, not through legislative reform process, on the back of the review into SafeWork SA, were sensible, and quite frankly we had no issues with them.

But then we start to come to the two aspects of the bill that we certainly do have concerns in regard to and unfortunately cannot support for a range of different reasons. The question that comes before I start to address those aspects in particular is: why now? As the minister said, after a prolonged process of, I think she said, 'constructive discussions' between industry bodies, between unions and other people who were party to these discussions, why this week? Is it perhaps, should we pose the question, that in pushing this bill through this week there is a chance that there is going to be a smaller, reduced level of public discourse, due to the fact that there are other things going on with the budget passing tomorrow, to deal with this legislation?

Members interjecting:

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Brown): Order, members! Excuse me, member for Colton. Members, the member for Colton has the right to be heard in silence like every other member, including as the minister was earlier.

Mr COWDREY: Is there a reason that the government has departed from its list of government business to address the item that has just been shifted down here that sat at No. 23 on the Notice Paper, when we have reasonably significant bills to deal with? Some have been foreshadowed by the government that have not been introduced to this point to deal with significant issues of vulnerability for government more broadly. Why today?

For a government that has, on one side of the street, purported to be so pro-business how possibly could anybody within the business community in South Australia deem themselves to potentially have a view that the Malinauskas government does not have their back? Or is this simply the two particular aspects that are here today: are those two aspects here in this bill simply to acquiesce those desires of the union movement in South Australia to be the first of what potentially may be a domino effect of similar legislation being introduced around the country, because that is how these things tend to work with the Labor Party: that we have one jurisdiction plough ahead, making these changes, and then suddenly the next jurisdiction, because it is best practice. Look over the border to the next state: that clearly has to come here and happen. Look over the border to the next state: that has happened and that needs to come here as well.

We have to have some genuine discussion about what this is trying to achieve. On this side of the house what this looks like, plain and simple, is a union power grab. It is nothing more, nothing less than that. What we have here is a cost-shifting exercise as well: shifting the cost of WHS investigations onto businesses, onto unions. Union fees are of course paid through their membership and indirectly from businesses themselves in the first place, and then directly on the other side having to cover their costs of representation within the SAET. It is a cost-shifting exercise and a union power grab, nothing more nothing less.

If we look more closely around what exactly is being proposed—and I will come back to a couple of statements that were made by the minister as she introduced the second reading today as well. I will not speak directly, nor will I cast any aspersions in terms of the independence of this report. I take the minister on face value that this was an independent report, undertaken in a way that did not have any sort of ulterior motive or view, or anything else from any other party in terms of where it was going to land.

From time to time I reflect on the Rann/Weatherill time in government. There was a saying that went around the business community at that time, and more broadly as well, that that government never undertook a review unless they understood what the outcomes of that review were going to be before they started. I certainly hope that this review was not conducted in that way, that this review was done with the best meaning for an outcome that was not predetermined. I think more broadly the people of South Australia need to have confidence in their government that when they undertake these reviews they are done sensibly and in accordance with what people would understand and purport to be an undertaking that is clear of any influence. Again, I do not in any way cast those aspersions here.

In terms of the proposals that we have in front of us, again the two aspects in particular we simply cannot support today. Regarding the first, I found it fascinating to hear the description by the minister that this would not in any way diminish the role of the independent workplace regulator or inspector. That is very difficult to take on face value, unfortunately, because what is proposed and what is before us is for quite simply that to occur.

If I look at the other statement by the minister in terms of increased powers to the arbiter, that is 100 per cent true, that SAET is going to take on increased powers as a result of this bill. That goes without saying. But significant increased powers will also be flowing to unions as a result of this bill and, while there is an intrinsic tension between loss/addition operating alongside, there is no doubt that essentially SafeWork SA has been told to take a seat when it comes to WHS complaints in South Australia on the back of the legislation before us today. They have effectively been sidelined in the instances that the union decide that they should be.

To get back to the specifics of the two proposals before us, the first is the alternate—for lack of a better term—WHS dispute resolution pathway, or as referenced in the independent review and also more broadly in the model law reviews at a national level, essentially the ability for WHS issues, complaints, to be referred to a relevant legal body within 24 hours if the dispute is not settled.

At this point, I will concede that the bill before us is certainly much improved on the one that was sent around as a draft consultation version; that goes without saying. The revocation of the civil penalties, from that draft to where we are today, certainly is an improvement to the bill. I think there would be many in the building and construction industry who would say that the ability to revoke entry permits should they be misused or used frivolously would be something that would be helpful for them if it were retained in this bill, but again that was a change made by the government between the draft version and the one that has reached this place.

Despite those changes, for the reasons I have articulated to this point and for those I will continue to articulate, we simply cannot support this proposal. For starters, neither through the review that was undertaken nor through the review at the federal level or the subsequent response has the issue that this proposal is trying to solve ever really been clearly articulated.

To use a metaphor of essentially the investigation of any other matter of a criminal nature, what we are proposing here is essentially to sideline the police after 24 hours when they have been undertaking their investigation and go straight to the magistrate. It is a bizarre proposal to start off with, noting that usually in the course of an independent investigation you would have an independent investigator there, seeking to establish what occurred, seeking to understand the facts from an unbiased position, seeking to determine what brief needs to be passed forward to the independent arbiter to ascertain whether that fact is correct or not.

It is just a simply strange thing to think that, within 24 hours of having a SafeWork official on site undertaking their investigation into a particular issue, it would make sense from a time and efficiency perspective to simply shift that to a court, to not allow somebody with a level of independence and a non-biased approach to continue to ascertain what the facts are in a particular situation. In what context and in what way does the Labor Party think that this is going to improve the process? In what context and in what way does the Labor Party think that this is going to make for a less adversarial system when effectively we are saying that, within 24 hours, let's go before a judge?

I simply cannot fathom any sort of logic to make a proposal of this nature. It is not just me, funnily enough. It is not just us on this side of the house that think this idea lacks merit, because the review that the minister referenced at the federal level in regard to the model law review was considered, funnily enough, by Safe Work Australia on 7 April, a couple of months after the minister became responsible for the portfolio. I quote from the Safe Work Australia website:

At their 7 April 2022 meeting, SWA Members agreed to maintain the status quo on the basis that the current provisions and jurisdictional processes are working as intended.

The chair wrote to WHS ministers—the head of SafeWork SA is a member of Safe Work Australia—on 2 May advising of the outcome that, in the view of Safe Work Australia, the processes at a jurisdictional level and the current provisions that were in place, which have operated in South Australia, which have been in place across most of the rest of the country, were adequate and maintaining the status quo was their recommendation.

There was significant backlash to the government's original proposal with regard to this issue. I think it has been well charted. The Advertiser certainly covered running commentary from most employee groups in South Australia with regard to this at the time that the draft legislation was distributed. It is certainly my view that the views of the employer organisations have not changed, that they still think that this idea is not worth pursuing, that this idea is silly, that this idea simply provides significant increases in union powers and provides a cost-shifting mechanism that will result in more businesses being responsible for costs.

The other aspect in particular that we disagree with, with regard to what has been put forward by the government, relates to an ability under the current legislation, under the bill before us today, a proposal essentially if one of these disputes does take place, as unfortunate as that would be, and one of the parties decides that a referral to the SAET is appropriate. On referral, there is a clause in the bill before us—despite the fact that the party that makes the referral, likely a worker, one would assume, may not be a member of a union, and despite the fact that that member may not wish the union to be a party to the dispute taken to the SAET—that would allow the union at any point to make an application to be a party to that dispute, whether the person making the application wants that to happen or not.

Does that sound like overreach? I pose that question to the government. The other issue, specifically, that we disagree with and cannot support is around increasing the rights of entry powers for union officials. I do note again that the version before us is still better than what was originally proposed with regard to making some changes around the specifics of how data pictures, for lack of a better term, can be captured. Again, it goes back to the very principle of why we have an independent regulator and investigator undertaking the investigation of these issues.

How is it that we should not have somebody with an unbiased view, that is, independent of either party, going in to collect data? How is it that they should not be the people going in to ascertain the facts of the situation, the evidence that is before them? To take another analogy, you would not have the defence or the prosecution going in to collect evidence. That is the role of an independent investigator, to go in and determine the facts, understand what is happening, while the prosecution or the defence may have their own expert witnesses, may have their own additional information that is provided to a court.

At the very basis of understanding if there is enough evidence to move forward with charges or with a complaint or with an issue, it is up to an independent arbiter, an independent officer, to undertake the investigations and determine whether there is an issue that needs to be dealt with.

We have a range of questions that will still come forward when we shift to the committee stage of this bill. I am certainly keen to understand the process that was undertaken from a more holistic level: the proposals that were determined, why the changes were taken, and how we have ended up with this bill in front of us today of all days in comparison to any other timeline.

But I will finish where I started. The recommendations to come from this review did not need to be adversarial. There could have been broad support for a range of sensible reforms to SafeWork SA. We owe that to the family of Gayle Woodford and those who have had issues corresponding appropriately with SafeWork SA. I am happy to go as far as congratulating the government for bringing those reforms to the floor because it is appropriate and it is sensible, but there is simply no way that the opposition can support what can only be described—those two aspects of the bill—as a union power grab and a cost-shifting exercise that beggars belief.

Mrs PEARCE (King) (16:41): I rise to speak briefly on this transformative bill which will bring about some of the most significant reforms to work health and safety in this state since the Work Health and Safety Act was introduced in 2012. This is not a union power grab. It is a progressive step forward to better protect workers of this great state without having to wait for a tragedy to occur. I remind those in this place that this bill has been informed by extensive consultation beginning with the independent review of SafeWork SA in 2022 and the approximate 18 months of discussions with both unions and business groups, many of which I understand have expressed that this is a reasonable compromise.

In regard to comments made regarding being able to go to the independent umpire, it actually fundamentally misunderstands industrial relations. It has long been recognised in matters such as underpayment of wages that both regulators and persons affected by industrial issues, such as businesses and unions, are able to seek the assistance of courts and the industrial commission to resolve these disputes. Through this bill, new legislation will provide workers, unions and businesses with the ability to refer health and safety disputes to the South Australian Employment Tribunal if disputes cannot be resolved at the worksite level. It will therefore see the SAET having a greater role in settling workplace disputes where they arise regarding health and safety.

SAET will have broad powers to help settle these disputes through conciliation, mediation and arbitration. These reforms will therefore provide a clear and practical pathway to improving workplace safety by ensuring that workers, unions and businesses can seek the help of the independent umpire of SAET to resolve these issues.

This bill also contains another crucial reform which will ensure fairness for victims and also their families. We know that from across multiple reviews, confidentiality requirements in the current Work Health and Safety Act have often left SafeWork SA unable to be able to communicate with victims and also their families, which means that for many they have been left in the dark about accidents which have taken place at work or what SafeWork is going to be able to do to investigate them.

The intention with these reforms is to therefore restore that fairness to victims and their families in the act by putting SafeWork into a similar position to that of other prosecuting authorities, such as SAPOL and the DPP, to be able to help improve the information that can be provided about that investigation. Additionally, should SafeWork decide against prosecuting, the bill will also allow for the victims or their family to request a review of a prosecution decision by the DPP, which will further boost fairness in the system with appropriate oversight of decisions.

The bill before us will also formalise the establishment of the SafeWork SA Advisory Committee, a tripartite body that includes the voices of unions and businesses so that they are able to provide advice to the government and SafeWork on how we can improve work health and safety in this state.

It is through the work of the likes of John Merritt's Independent Review of SafeWork SA that we intend to improve the strength of SafeWork SA, to make workplaces across South Australia safer. Merritt noted in his review that for SafeWork to achieve this, as an organisation they will need to embrace their relationships with stakeholders to be able to address the challenges faced as a community, to address the issues of work health and safety. Having been established following John Merritt's recommendations, the SafeWork SA Advisory Committee has hit the ground running, undertaking very important work, including building greater synergy between relevant stakeholders to improve the sharing of information and advice with government to better protect the safety of workers.

I must say it has been an incredible privilege to have been able to assist the committee on behalf of the Attorney-General for much of last year, and I am very thankful for all the work and advice shared by members of the committee who I have worked alongside, to be able to help address health and safety challenges that we are seeing across workplaces and industries. I have every confidence that the member for Gibson will continue to deliver strong reforms and solutions in this space through her work on the committee.

The amendment bill will also improve the ability of union entry permit holders to document health and safety issues subject, of course, to very strict confidentiality requirements. They will also now be able to take photo and video recordings. This will ensure unions can more effectively investigate and document safety matters across our workplaces. Additionally, it will see that the executive director of SafeWork SA is appointed by the Governor, much like other regulatory authorities in South Australia and, importantly, it provides for a review of these amendments after two years, which will then be tabled in parliament.

I want to finish by emphasising just how important these reforms will be for workers and their representatives across all of our state. By being able to provide a clear path to help improve the resolution of health and safety disputes through SAET, this will help to protect workers by resolving problems before they become serious injuries or even workplace deaths.

In promoting fairness for victims and their families, we are sending a very clear message that the voices of workers and their families matter, and that they have a right to know what is happening. By enhancing the right of union entry permit holders to document safety issues, we are providing the necessary tools to permit holders who are out there trying to ensure the health and safety of workers is protected.

As I mentioned at the very beginning, these reforms represent a significant step forward for work health and safety, and will go a very long way to ensuring that every worker in South Australia is afforded their right to return home safely at the end of each day. I would very much like to thank the Attorney-General for all the work that he has done in this space, and also his team—they have done phenomenal work to get us where we are today—and I really look forward to seeing these reforms help make a difference in the lives of working South Australians.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (16:48): I am interested to follow the debate and to gain any further appreciation of the motivation for particularly that part of the bill that introduces the new division 7A, the subject of clause 8 in particular, but that part of the bill, the subject of clauses 6 to 12, and I will come back to that specifically.

Just for the avoidance of any doubt, and because these things are sometimes necessary to make very clear, there are a whole range of aspects of the bill that are clearly uncontroversial. Without resorting to restatement endlessly, I would have thought it was obvious—and I am glad to take the opportunity to indicate, of course—that all of us in this place are committed to ensuring that workplaces are safe for all workers.

On the now two or three occasions that I have had the opportunity to reflect on legislation that has been introduced by this government in the industrial relations space, I have had occasion to reflect on the importance of mutuality and of reasonableness with a view to enhancing outcomes that way.

An approach to legislating in this area that is driven by ideology, or too much driven with a preoccupation in terms of what I might call one-way rights, as opposed to keeping very firmly in mind the benefits of shared responsibility of mutuality and reasonableness, is, I think, always risking that what results is a backward step in those respects and, to that extent, warrants scrutiny. As the shadow treasurer has indicated with respect to particular arrangements in terms of referral of the work of a SafeWork inspector to the SAET, it warrants opposition and scrutiny. So I do foreshadow taking a particular interest, in the course of the committee, in regard to those provisions.

In restating our commitment to ensuring safe workplaces, it is also important in the context of this debate, which really seems to be shifting a variety of initiatives and responsibilities away from SafeWork SA, to restate my and my party's support for the role of SafeWork SA as an independent safety regulator of workplaces in this state. The work that SafeWork SA does is important, of course, and there is—

An honourable member interjecting:

Mr TEAGUE: If that was an interjection meant to be heard by me, it was not. I am happy to engage in debate, but if the minister has something to say I was not able to hear it just now. The improvement that we expect to see in the performance of SafeWork SA over time is something that is common to all responsible bodies, and that is something that one expects to see across the board. There is no doubt that SafeWork SA is an important independent safety regulator in workplaces in South Australia, and its integrity ought to be preserved as we undertake the legislative task.

It is in that context that the Liberal Party has not had any difficulty at all with Labor's review of SafeWork SA. Rather, it is what has emerged from that and, to an extent, the mystery associated with what could possibly be improvement in terms of efficacy, the result of some of the provisions that are now proposed the subject of this bill. I have not heard anybody on the other side of this place, speaking up in support of the bill, actually set that out in anything that rises any higher than a sort of generality or platitude.

Insofar as the member for King referred to the reference from SafeWork to the courts—the observation of this somehow being a history of connection between the independent regulator and referral to a court—that is unsurprising. It is a far cry from that to now be stipulating what is the subject of the 102B provisions. Again, I will come back to that in a moment.

The opposition, as the shadow treasurer has said, is supportive of much of the contents of the bill, and I will not repeat those observations. However, it is of particular significance to emphasise our opposition to what the shadow treasurer has described as—and put the counterpoint, by all means, to the extent that one exists—a union power grab. That is a fairly blunt way of drawing attention to the matter, but it is a fairly apt description in terms of the reference of a dispute to SAET in the way that is provided for in this new division 7A.

Of course, it also begs the question, with the budget just a few hours away, that it is our understanding that the government is pressing on with having this legislation moved through this house now as some sort of new priority, it having arrived in this place at the end of the list just yesterday. Coming, as we are now, a few hours away from the budget, then it is obviously going to be keenly followed in terms of what resourcing SAET and SafeWork SA are going to receive in the budget.

We are now going to see an interaction between SafeWork SA's work and the SAET in a way that SAET certainly will not have seen anything like to the extent it has previously. Again, it is a part of all this process that is somewhat mystifying, because it really goes to the core of what a WHS inspector's work is. On the face of it, it really seems to cut across and undermine the work an inspector does in terms of the process that is now provided for.

I will just give some observations from SafeWork SA about what inspectors do, because SafeWork SA spells this out really quite thoroughly in its advice to the public, and to workplaces in particular. SafeWork SA indicates that inspectors undertake workplace visits and provide advice and information to businesses and industry to assist in improving work health and safety practices. They monitor and enforce compliance with work health and safety laws, and can provide notification in the event that there is an issue that has been detected during a visit.

Inspectors visit. They might do that in response to an incident or a complaint, and they might also do it as part of a proactive compliance campaign. It is spelt out in some detail what inspectors do in the course of a visit to a workplace: they will engage with those in the workplace, review documents, speak to people in the workplace, and so on, and they will do so in that variety of different circumstances.

Inspectors have certain powers: powers of entry, to request individuals' details, to determine the outcome of matters, to assist in resolving disputes, to undertake inspections, and to acquire evidence by a whole variety of means, including the compelling of reasonable assistance, making inquiry, taking away samples and also taking statements from people. It is a very thoroughgoing range of work that inspectors do in the interests of ensuring better standards in the workplace and, where necessary, dealing with disputes.

It is against that background that the bill is going to provide—what really is spelt out in these new provisions, the subject of division 7A—this great big hammer blow to the inspector's functions. In contrast to the way that the member for King described it in terms of, 'It has always been thus,' applying a referral power that kicks in at a period of time as early as 24 hours after the request for an inspector really has all the ingredients of just effectively sidelining work.

All one needs to do is consider for a minute the range of tasks that an inspector is going to undertake in terms of investigating a matter. To basically say, 'That inspector's work is sidelined as soon as 24 hours after appointment' is really, in many cases, going to be nothing more than a sort of enforced escalation, an enforced cost-shifting, and therefore an enforced grab for power and influence by parties to the dispute—including the relevant union, which has a very prominent place in terms of the definition of those that are parties to the relevant dispute.

Those of us on this side of the house think that it is a proposal that lacks merit. I have not heard anything in terms of the course of the debate from those on the other side that would begin to explain it, let alone persuade, but I would be glad to hear it. Indeed, Safe Work Australia, as we understand, dismissed the recommendation in these respects as soon as it saw it—this is going back a couple of years now. The Safe Work Australia position was that the status quo was to be preferred, on the basis that the current provisions and jurisdictional processes are working. That national position was put to WHS ministers around the country by the chair more or less exactly two years ago. It is in that context that it is certainly not just us finding cause for pause in circumstances of this model now being presented.

Obviously, there are a range of matters that need to be interrogated in the course of the committee process as a result, but let me just state very clearly what is in prospect. We have what is a fairly substantial piece of reform. The shadow treasurer has said, and I endorse, it contains in large measure proposed changes that are supportable and supported by those of us on this side of the house.

We have, stuck in the middle of all of that, at clause 8 this new division 7A, which is entitled 'Work health and safety disputes'. There we find this new regime, the subject first of a new section 102B. Subsection (1) of that section provides that, if a dispute remains unresolved at least 24 hours after any of the parties to the dispute has, under another provision of this part, asked the regulator to appoint an inspector to assist in resolving the dispute, then a party to the dispute may give notice to the SAET. On receiving the notice, SAET must go ahead and publish it. If there is a union involved for a worker affected and if they are not named as a party to the dispute, then the union may notify SAET and hop on board. A union can give notice under the section, and from then on they are taken to be a party.

New section 102B kicks it off and sort of sets the scene in terms of shifting the inspector's work more or less immediately to SAET in the event that a party decides that that is what they want to do. Even if the inspector manages to get appointed and then forms a view and tells the parties about that within 24 hours, then 102D tells us that SAET can go along and review those decisions made by an inspector. So we will be interrogating those matters, not impressed by those aspects of the reform. I look forward to the committee stage of the debate.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD (Reynell—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (17:08): I thank those who have spoken in the course of this second reading debate and particularly the member for King, who fulsomely set out why the progressing of this bill is important. In making a few remarks at this point, noting that clearly there will be some particular issues to traverse in the course of the committee debate, I must put on record that I do find it curious that, despite the actions of those opposite to cut $7.6 million, I think it was—in the vicinity of $7 million—from SafeWork SA during their time in government, they now seem to have some deal of concern about the capacity for SafeWork SA to operate in this particular environment that we now traverse.

The second thing that I would note—and, again, I am sure we will have an opportunity to more fulsomely discuss these issues in the committee stage—it is also curious that throughout the contributions of those opposite there was not a mention of the fact that industry associations also have the rights that they seem aggrieved about in terms of the rights of unions to air particular disputes through the SAET processes.

I look forward to committee discussion that is forthcoming and I want to place on record again my thanks to the many, many stakeholders, diverse groups of stakeholders, who contributed both during the review and during consultation on the bill. I again thank the Attorney-General and staff in his office and also in the department for their work toward this bill that we debate today.

It is an incredibly important bill. I think it will make a profound difference in the lives of workers and absolutely assist with expediting the resolution of disputes in relation to work health and safety disputes. Everyone of us in this chamber knows that, if disputes are left too long to fester, they generally create more health and safety issues of great concern. We, on this side of the chamber, want to make sure that through the progressing of this bill we make sure that those engaged in this system have the best opportunity, whether they be unions or employers, to efficiently and effectively resolve work health and safety disputes when they arise. Again, I commend the bill to the house and I look forward to the debate during the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

Mr COWDREY: I just wanted to pick up a comment that was made by the minister as she was closing the second reading debate in reference to industry representative bodies having access to the same rights under the bill as unions and workers. Are you able to confirm that that is the case, that industry representative bodies have the same rights under the bill?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: In short, a person who is conducting a business or undertaking, so a PCBU for the purpose of this committee going forward, does have the same right to refer a particular dispute, and that is what I was speaking about in that comment I made.

Mr COWDREY: I will go back to the very beginning. We may come back to that issue in a second. You also referenced at multiple points that there had been a request from industry groups for the ability to refer WHS matters in this particular way that has been articulated in the various forms to this point.

The Hon. K.A. Hildyard interjecting:

Mr COWDREY: You do not recall saying that? That there had been a request made from industry groups, given they have the same rights?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I think I have talked at length about the consultation that was undertaken both during the process of the Merritt review and also in consultation on the bill, and that is what I have referred to in a general sense. That is my memory. If there is something else I have said, I am happy to further explore whichever particular issue you would like to explore.

Mr COWDREY: Perhaps I misheard; I am happy to be corrected. In regard to those that have been consulted to this point, at multiple times, there has been reference through debate from the minister regarding this as a compromise, insinuating that there has been a sign-off or an agreement that this is an agreed position that both business and unions, and others perhaps, are happy with. Could the minister please provide an indication of how many industry groups have specifically endorsed the government's position and the bill before us?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: What I would point the member to—I think you are shadow minister for industrial relations and obviously shadow treasurer also—is the comprehensive list that the Attorney-General provided to the house in terms of the range of bodies that had been consulted. I am not going to go into details about the various discussions, but there is a comprehensive list that has been provided to the Legislative Council. I am sure we can obtain that list and provide it again here, but it was provided to the Legislative Council, so I would point the member to that particular list.

Mr COWDREY: I am not asking for a list of who has been consulted: I am seeking an indication of who there have been discussions with. The minister has referenced a compromise position. A compromise position insinuates that there has been an agreement of such. Again, I will ask the minister: can she provide the committee with an indication of which industry business representative groups have endorsed the government's position on this bill?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I am not sure what to add other than my previous answer. There has been extensive consultation. The list of who has been involved in that consultation has been provided to the Legislative Council. I presume that the opposition has also consulted with various groups, industry associations and others about particular matters contained in the bill.

Mr COWDREY: From the response from the minister, one can only assume that there has been no support garnered from those groups in regard to the so-called compromise position that has been reached. My question to the minister is in regard to potential increasing cost to residential construction and commercial construction that potentially arises from this change. Has the government turned its mind to or conducted any analysis into if there will be an impact, and how much, on the construction industry or other industries as a result of the reform that it is undertaking today?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Two things: in a general sense, we certainly do not foresee any additional costs, but what I can also advise the member is that I have been advised that the Master Builders, and others potentially, would see the provisions in this bill actually provide a mechanism for more effective and efficient resolution of disputes.

Mr COWDREY: A point of clarification from the minister: the minister indicated that the Master Builders Association would see this as an improvement. Does the minister have confirmation that the MBA does see this as an improvement and have they endorsed the position of the government?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): That was two questions.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Two questions, and I think I have already answered that question regarding industry views about the provisions in this bill around dispute resolution being provisions that assist in the efficacy, the efficiency, the speed of dispute resolution. I suggest that if there are further questions for particular bodies, the opposition may wish to speak further with those bodies.

Mr TEAGUE: At this point, just to be clear in our understanding, the bill is addressing several distinct areas, and they are easily able to be separated one from the other. As the shadow treasurer has indicated and as I have walked through to some extent, notwithstanding my particular interest in those aspects, subject to the new division 7A, those distinct areas I think might fairly be described as the establishment of the SafeWork SA Advisory Committee first and, secondly, providing the ability for WHS complaints to be referred to SAET in new ways, particularly in terms of time frames and then review. That is controversial.

The third area is the expansion of rights of entry powers. That is controversial as well. The fourth is the DPP's work on SafeWork SA in terms of reviewing those terrible circumstances faced by the Woodford family following the murder of Gayle Woodford. That, of course, has been the subject also of legislation in the previous parliament; indeed, an act bearing Gayle Woodford's name.

Importantly, so far as this aspect of the bill is concerned, going to the way in which the interaction of a SafeWork SA investigation works in terms of the time limits on proceedings that might be brought separately, we have the particular circumstances of the review and the circumstances faced by Keith Woodford that can act as a direct comparator in terms of these changes that would ameliorate the situation for those who are in similar circumstances.

Finally, there are reforms as to confidentiality provisions; that has been addressed. In terms of a fairly extensive piece of legislation, it has been observed that it was well within the government's control to cover those aspects that are non-controversial, and to do that move it through, including in particular those changes that I have described subject to the DPP's review. The government has not elected to do that. It has wrapped it all up, including those parts of the bill that are going to be unsurprisingly controversial. Has the government in those circumstances given any consideration to breaking the bill up according to those distinct parts and, if so, why has it come to the conclusion that it is pressing ahead with the inevitable result that it will inspire this kind of scrutiny in terms of the controversial aspects of it?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: First of all, I think we got to a question at the end, but I will just respond to the member's fairly lengthy explanation of his understanding of the contents as listed in the bill. That is a broad summary from his perspective and that is very nice and I will leave that there.

The second thing I would say, though, is that the short answer to the question he had at the end is no. There has been consultation for 18 months and workers and business have waited long enough for this reform.

Clause passed.

Clause 2.

Mr COWDREY: In regard to submissions that were received in the process of consultation, is the government willing to provide those submissions to the committee?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: No, they are a matter for stakeholders.

Mr COWDREY: How many formal submissions or responses to letters or general feedback in a formal way has the government received from employer industry groups on the final version that was introduced in the other place?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I would just point to an answer to an earlier question on clause 1, title of the bill, and point the member again to the list that was provided in the Legislative Council by the Hon. Kyam Maher. I would also say that I am not going to go into detail about how particular parties that have been comprehensively and very openly detailed in the submission by the Hon. Kyam Maher to the upper house provided their submissions and views on this bill, but I can say that there has been comprehensive consultation with a diverse group of stakeholders and the details of that diverse group of stakeholders have been aired in the Legislative Council.

Mr COWDREY: I do not believe that the question that was posed was in any way disregarding any sort of privacy concerns of individual stakeholders. It was a simple question about numbers of submissions received in relation to the bill that was introduced to the house. I was not asking for who was consulted. You have certainly provided that in the other place and we all understand that.

The question was in regard to a particular number, not outlining who the industry group was, not outlining any further detail in regard to what their submission contained, not outlining anything more than an indication of a number of how many submissions were received by the government from industry and business groups relating to the final version of the bill that was introduced in the other place. But, alas, I understand that I am not going to get an answer to that question because the minister has decided not to answer it, so I will move to another in regard to how the commencement of this bill will work from a practical perspective.

In terms of when the government expects this reform to be operational, there has been an indication through the bill briefing process that there will be no additional resourcing provided to the SAET in regard to the undertaking of this additional jurisdiction. I am just again seeking confirmation from the minister that there will be no additional funds or resources provided to SAET to undertake the additional jurisdiction that is being essentially transferred to them as a result of the changes that are described in the bill today. From a practical perspective, when does the minister believe that the SAET will be operational in terms of being capable of taking referrals through the operations of the bill, and at what point does she see SafeWork officials being provided guidance as to how they should proceed, given changes in the bill?

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): I think there might have been four questions there, but, minister, if you still want to answer your first one.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: I think that was four questions in relation to commencement but I will try and step through them. I will just go back a step just to say that I have actually answered the question about stakeholder submissions and consultation, and I would again encourage those opposite to engage with those stakeholders and find out more if they would like to about their particular discussions in the course of that consultation.

The next question about when: as soon as possible. The next question: the answer to that is that we will consult with SAET to make sure that they are comfortable with any processes etc. that they need to have in place. But the short answer is that as soon as possible we will endeavour to have these provisions implemented.

Also, my understanding is that SAET are comfortable to undertake the duties inherent in this bill within existing resources. I say that because it is my understanding that they have looked carefully at the legislation and its impact in Queensland. There is a relatively small number of cases that have arisen that they have been involved in, in terms of resolving disputes in the same way that this bill contemplates. I think the number is around 10 per annum in the seven years that the bill has been in place. My understanding is that SAET, having considered that, is comfortable with moving forward.

Mr COWDREY: I just wanted to ask a question of the minister in regard to the point that she has just made. The Queensland model has been operating now for seven years and no other jurisdiction has taken up the rollout of similar legislation up until this point. No other jurisdiction saw the need to follow the Queensland model in the seven years that it has been operational; is that not consistent with the recommendation that was made by SafeWork South Australia that the current regime within the jurisdiction is operating efficiently?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: No, because the Boland review actually did recommend this change.

Clause passed.

Clause 3.

Mr TEAGUE: Maybe this is an opportunity for the minister to explain what I heard in the course of the second reading debate to be a reference to business organisations having access to the 7A process. Here we are at clause 3 where we are dealing with the establishment of the SafeWork SA Advisory Committee so far as there are definitions that are relevant to it. We see here the reference to the definition of representative. That is clear enough. Subclause (5) has the definition of representative at the bottom of page 3 and then, going over to page 4, representative is there defined as:

(a) in relation to a person conducting a business or undertaking, means—

(i) an employer organisation representing the person conducting the business or undertaking; or

(ii) any other person that the person conducting the business or undertaking authorises to represent them; and

(b) in relation to a worker, means

(i) the health and safety representative for the worker; or

(ii) a union entitled to represent the industrial interests of the worker; or

(iii) any other person that the worker authorises to represent them;

So there is a definition of representative that is contained within clause 3. I do not know if the minister might take the opportunity to indicate whether the minister was intending to refer to that particular definition for the limited purpose for which it applies when making the observation about the opportunity for business organisations to have access to the 7A process. It is not the occasion perhaps to set out the particulars of the 7A process, but we do not see any reference as far as I can tell to representatives as defined for that purpose. We have representatives defined in those terms for the purposes of clause 3.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: In relation to a PCBU, what is really clear is that given the agency and the power that PCBUs have, they can of course appoint an industry association to represent them and take up particular matters on their behalf.

Mr TEAGUE: I just indicate to the committee that I do not find that answer particularly instructive or responsive to the question. It might be that it is more convenient to come to it when we get to clause 8. Anyway, for the time being I do not find that particularly helpful.

Clause passed.

Clause 4 passed.

Clause 5.

Mr COWDREY: I am seeking some further information in regard to how the government seeks to, for lack of a better term, practically task the advisory committee in terms of the number of meetings that one is expected to attend each year, the remuneration arrangements for those board members who would be remunerated—obviously, understanding the existing legislation that covers this area—and also more broadly, in terms of the composition of the advisory committee, whether there is a requirement on attendance in terms of how many members need to be present for the committee to effectively provide decisions?

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: Regarding the existing advisory committee, it is my understanding that they meet every two months. It is also my understanding that that process will continue. In relation to remuneration, that will be determined in accordance with existing government policy. I understand that that government policy was applied during the term of government of those opposite. Government policy around remuneration will continue. In relation to members, they do have deputies, etc., but of course any issues around ongoing inattendance would be looked at in the context of policy.

Clause passed.

Clause 6.

Mr COWDREY: Outside of making a contribution in regard to what was presented in the other place, essentially I think we have well articulated, to this point, the position of the opposition, where we are happy to support certain segments of the bill that have been outlined to this point but, obviously, we will not be supporting the sections of the bill with the clauses that relate to the specific issues that have been outlined to this point as well, specifically the referral of WHS complaints to the SAET and also the expansion of right of entry powers.

I indicate that the opposition will not be supporting clauses 6 through 11 for those purposes, understanding that there are, through technicality, a range of other clauses that obviously overlap or have consequential interactions with them. Just for the clarity of explaining and clearly articulating the opposition's position: we will be opposing those clauses for those reasons.

The committee divided on the clause:

Ayes 22

Noes 11

Majority 11

AYES

NOES

PAIRS

Clause thus passed.

Clause 7 passed.

Clause 8.

Mr TEAGUE: Just for the sake of completeness—and I will be quite brief about this—we have heard from the minister in the course of the committee that references to the opportunity for a PCBU to involve their business organisation might be there. I think that amounts to nothing more than the right that a party to a dispute might have to engage advisers, usually legal advisers, to represent them.

It is completely different to the provisions that are the subject of 102B(4) and 102B(5), which basically give the union the right to wade on in any time it feels like it, whether or not it is a party and whether or not the party engages it in the same way. It is a completely different sort of situation and, of course, business organisations do not have anything like a corresponding right; in fact, they have no seat at the table, no right to participate.

That might be just observed on the face of it. You only need to look at what the definition of a dispute is and then, of course, read the provisions of 102B. I just put that on the record.

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD: A few points in relation to this particular statement or question from the shadow attorney-general. First of all, I point again to the Queensland legislation and make it clear that there certainly has not been any concern around that identical provision in the Queensland act, and it is my understanding that provision is operating very well.

The other thing I would point out, in the hope that the member might better understand this particular point in relation to businesses and unions, is that their involvement in a range of particular matters and the way they represent particular individuals or groups of workers or a particular business is actually governed by different sets of laws. The pathway for them to represent particular individuals or groups of individuals is quite different, so I would ask the member to look at that particular matter to provide further elucidation on this particular statement or question that he has put forward.

The third thing I would say is that this government is absolutely clear that unions are a really important stakeholder across industry in upholding work health and safety for workers, for all of the reasons that we spoke about in my contribution and in the contribution from the member for King. They have a very, very important place and a critical role to play.

I spoke in my second reading remarks about why unions do play a role in terms of looking right across an industry in relation to particular matters, because the thing is, particular issues that arise in one workplace may arise in another workplace in the same industry. For a union to be able to articulate those issues—particularly those new and emerging issues which, again, I spoke about in my second reading speech—is actually really, really important. It is important because unions do have a very important role to play in upholding health and safety right across industries, and because fundamentally it is really important that unions can represent a collective group of workers around particular issues.

I do not feel like I should have to say this, because it is obvious, but particular individual workers do not always have the confidence in terms of feeling like they can raise particular issues, and they may need the support of their union to do so. That is well known. That is a very important part of what unions provide to individual workers. It also speaks to, as I said, the important role that unions play in providing context right across an industry about particular issues, particularly those issues that emerge through innovation, through different technologies, through different equipment, through different practices, etc. Again, I would conclude by saying that this government is really clear that unions play a crucial role in upholding work health and safety in workplaces and right across industries.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (9 to 24) passed.

Mr Teague interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): Sorry? Twenty-four, yes.

Mr Teague interjecting:

The ACTING CHAIR (Mr Brown): There are 24 clauses. We got that right.

Schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. K.A. HILDYARD (Reynell—Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women and the Prevention of Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence, Minister for Recreation, Sport and Racing) (17:55): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.