Legislative Council Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1) 52 1 Parliament of South Australia Legislative Council published Question Time O'neil, Mr Allen O'NEIL, MR ALLEN The Hon. J.A. DARLEY Legislative Council O'NEIL, MR ALLEN The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (15:17): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking the Minister for Industrial Relations questions relating to the death of Mr Allen O'Neil, who prior to his death was employed as a steel fixer on the desalination transfer pipeline project. Leave granted. The Hon. J.A. DARLEY Legislative Council The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Ms Andrea Madeley, founder and president of Voice of Industrial Death, is assisting Mr O'Neil's father, who is obviously extremely distressed, in obtaining answers regarding his son's death. On Monday 30 August 2010, Today Tonight screened a program relating to the Adelaide desalination plant. During that program it was claimed that there had been more than one death linked to the desalination project, including that of Mr O'Neil. In response to that program, SA Water issued a written statement addressing the claims made by Today Tonight that included the following: On 15 February 2010, a 31-year-old steel fixer employed on the desalination transfer pipeline project died in hospital as a result of aspirating diesel at the Meyer Road, Lonsdale, work site on December 12, 2009. Following a thorough investigation, SafeWork SA determined that the fatal injury did not occur as a result of a work activity and that the employer had relevant procedures and systems in place. SafeWork SA will not be pursuing the matter any further. As I understand it, SafeWork SA have confirmed that their investigation into this incident commenced five days after it actually occurred, whilst Mr O'Neil was in a coma. On 1 September, The Advertiser reported that a SafeWork SA spokeswoman had said that: ...occupational health and safety regulations require notification of incidents where people are hospitalised "as soon as practicable" and there can be a penalty for breaching that regulation. However, in this instance: SafeWork SA would not be in a position now to prosecute the employer for that five-day delay because our investigation found it was not a work-related accident. I am advised that, prior to SafeWork SA's investigation commencing, the worksite where the incident happened had been cleared and vital physical evidence, including the vehicle driven by Mr O'Neil and a generator, had been removed from the site. My questions are: 1.	Has the minister been briefed in relation to this matter and, if so, what information was provided? 2.	Is the minister or SafeWork SA aware of allegations regarding the removal of evidence from the site? 3.	How was SafeWork SA able to conclude that Mr O'Neil's death was not work-related, given that the investigation itself did not commence for five days after the incident? 4.	How can SafeWork SA claim to have thoroughly investigated the incident if vital physical evidence had been removed from the site? 5.	Does the minister intend to pursue this matter further in the light of these allegations? The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY Legislative Council Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management The Hon. P. HOLLOWAY (Minister for Mineral Resources Development, Minister for Urban Development and Planning, Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister Assisting the Premier in Public Sector Management) (15:21): I have been briefed in relation to this unfortunate death and was satisfied on the information provided to me by SafeWork that this was not a workplace-related injury. That really answers the question asked by the honourable member as to whether or not this particular incident was required to be reported. As I understand it, Mr O'Neil was not officially at work. Whereas he was at the workplace, he was not officially at work at the time. This matter has been investigated by SafeWork SA and they have reached their conclusion. I have no reason to doubt that. I think I was asked a question about this matter in this place earlier this year and I put some information on the record then. I do not have the reports with me now, because it is a matter that I was briefed on several months ago, but there is a possibility, I guess, that there could be a Coroner's investigation into this matter. That is why I have been very careful about what I have said in relation to this matter. It is probably appropriate, if there is to be an investigation, that all the facts of this case should come out in that particular hearing. I can just say that it is not a straightforward case; there are a number of highly unusual circumstances related to this matter. If there is to be some investigation, that is the appropriate vehicle for that to happen. Certainly, on the information that has been provided to me by SafeWork SA, I have no reason to doubt that SafeWork SA has reached the correct conclusion in that this was not a workplace accident, given the information that is available to them. But if there is any further evidence that would change the circumstances, then I guess that matter could be investigated. It is probably most appropriate to see whether any further investigation will be undertaken by the Coroner.