WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY BILL

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 274.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Before the luncheon break I moved the first of a package of two amendments, and I indicated that this was one of the very important amendments the Liberal Party is moving. This particular aspect of the amendment is in relation to the approval by the advisory council. It will read as follows:

(2) The minister may only approve, vary or revoke a code of practice under subsection (1) if the minister is acting on the recommendation of the advisory council and that code of practice, variation or revocation was developed by a process that involved consultation between—

(a) the Government of the Commonwealth of each State and Territory; and

(b) unions; and

(c) employer organisations.

It is endeavouring to ensure that there is a voice for business and employers at a critical stage in terms of providing advice to the state minister. There is certainly the concern from industry groups in South Australia that the unreasonable nature of some of these codes of practice already, some draft and as we now know some already endorsed, has been because there has not been sufficient input from employer organisations into that process.

Our advisory council process is well established and, as I indicated before the luncheon break, it involves representation of employers and employees, and this is saying that as a threshold condition the minister needs to get the recommendation of that advisory council, that is, some agreement between employers and employees, in relation to the code of conduct before the minister proceeds to the next step, which I will address in my subsequent amendment.

This is a critical issue for the Liberal Party and for many employer organisations. They are trenchantly opposed to the provisions in some of these codes of practice. Up until recent times, in all the discussions I had with the Hon. Mr Darley, this was the one set of Liberal Party amendments he indicated to me that he would continue to support. So, whilst he reserved his position in the latter period in relation to a number of other amendments the Liberal Party was moving, on a number of occasions he indicated to me that he supported our provisions in relation to the codes of practice.

Given the amendments the Hon. Mr Darley has filed and the public statements made that that support for our amendments has now been withdrawn for the amendments that he is about to move, on behalf of industry and the Liberal Party, I want to express our extreme disappointment at that late change of position from the Hon. Mr Darley in relation to the codes of practice. When he moves his amendment, if we get to that stage, we will express our concerns and reservations about the provisions of the alternative mechanism that the Hon. Mr Darley has arrived at in the deal with the government. With that, we urge members to support this amendment.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The government opposes this legislation.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Legislation?

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: This amendment. Feedback from industry overwhelmingly requests further guidance and information on how to comply with health and safety duties. Codes are often developed by industries themselves and presented to occupational health and safety authorities for ratification for just this purpose. Codes of practice do not impose additional obligations on duty holders; they merely provide practical guidance on how to meet standards of health safety and welfare required under the Work Health and Safety Bill and the model Work Health and Safety Regulations.

In most cases, following an approved code of practice would achieve compliance with health and safety duties in the Work Health and Safety Act. However, compliance may be achieved by following another method if it provides an equivalent or higher standard of work health and safety than that code, so industry is not required to follow codes of practice. As long as they comply with the Work Health and Safety Act, that is all that is required. The codes of practice are there to assist industry. Industries actually play a part in developing these codes of practice and, once again, this has not been a big issue in the negotiations I have had.

It has been an issue in regard to our negotiations with the Hon. Mr Darley and we have agreed to consult all future codes of practice and they will be consulted by the Small Business Commissioner. No doubt, if industry or small businesses have a problem with the codes of practice, there is no doubt they will use the Small Business Commissioner to bring those concerns to the fore. Under the existing act there is no process required other than the advisory committee recommending to the minister that a code be adopted. However, the procedure under the Work Health and Safety Act is much more rigorous.

As outlined on Tuesday for the house, the codes are developed in consultation with all jurisdictions and involve business, industry, unions and the government. These are sent out for public comment, revised, endorsed and then endorsed by Safe Work Australia. They are then endorsed by the select committee of workplace relations and then adopted. This level of consultation is quite significant, so we ask you to ask the chamber to oppose this amendment and allow for the Small Business Commissioner to do their work and allow for the industries to get on with their job of doing what they do best.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I think the Hon. Mr Lucas used the expression 'trenchantly opposed' in his dealings with the industry groups about these particular codes of practice that we are now focussing on. If anything, I think that is an understatement. My dealings with various industry groups, which will come under the banner which will encapsulate those being subject to codes of practice, are that they are strongly opposed to this process and they have expressed that to us in the strongest terms. I would like to place that on record. We will certainly be supporting the Hon. Mr Lucas's amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: In response to the Hon. Rob Lucas's comments, I had indicated that I would support this amendment. However, given that codes are to be used as guides only and that making them subject to disallowance could give them more force than they actually have, I have decided not to support the amendment. My amendment is intended as an alternative.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The issue about disallowance is in the next amendment, but if I could address it quickly, and I will address it later on as well. The issue of disallowance gives them no greater force in terms of whether they are presented to a court or not. That is just an issue in relation to the parliament's powers over the code of practice. The issue of what force they have and when they present it to a court is as a result of other 275—Use of codes of practice in proceedings, and that is the powers there. The issue of whether the parliament has a power to disallow them or not gives no greater or lesser weight to a code of practice in proceedings. So, that argument carries no weight at all.

In relation to the codes of practice issue in this particular amendment, the minister rightly points out that what we are moving here is exactly the existing practice. Let me quote 63(1) of the existing Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act, 'The Minister may, on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee'. That is the existing practice. The minister was saying, 'Okay, that's the existing practice. This is what we are seeking to incorporate into the legislation.' There have been—I forget the number—relatively few codes of practice compared to the mushrooming number of over 40 and, as I said, some over 90 pages in length, that are now being developed under this new regime in the work health safety legislation.

My recollection was there might have been a handful or so, I cannot remember exactly, but it was a much smaller number in terms of the codes of practice. The existing process, and no-one has complained about that process, went through the advisory council with employers and employees on it and the minister, once he or she received the advice, then acted on it. That is all this particular amendment is seeking to—

The Hon. R.P. Wortley: We want more than that. We want a more rigorous process.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Well, you can have more rigorous.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley interjecting:

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: No; you will not. You can have this process and an alternative process which is outlined in the legislation, which is the discussion with governments and other jurisdictions and unions and employer organisations. So, you can have a more rigorous process by having both. You can have the process which was in the proposed bill, we are not opposing that, and you can add to that the more rigorous process of the existing provisions in the existing legislation. How, for the life of me, anyone could oppose an existing provision in existing legislation, which the minister even concedes has worked well, is beyond me.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: The new process recognises that the codes are being developed nationally. The SafeWork SA Advisory Committee will still be involved and retain its function to make recommendations to the minister. I would ask everyone to oppose this amendment.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The process is different because under the existing act the minister acts on the recommendation of the advisory committee. The advisory committee may or may not be consulted under this proposed process, but the minister can ignore the recommendations of the advisory committee under this new proposal.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Majority of 3 for the ayes.

Amendment thus carried.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Page 115, after line 37—Insert:

(2a) In connection with the operation of subsections (1) and (2)—

(a) the Small Business Commissioner must be consulted before a code of practice is submitted to the Minister under this section so that the Commissioner may assess whether the code of practice would affect small business if implemented and, if so, provide any comments or advice that the Commissioner considers to be appropriate in the circumstances (including that the code be varied); and

(b) if the Small Business Commissioner recommends that a code of practice be varied, the Minister may make such a variation without the need to adopt the process envisaged by subsection (2) (but may undertake such consultation in relation to the matter as the Minister thinks fit).

The amendment relates to the adoption of codes of practice. Clause 274 of the bill provides that the minister may approve, vary or revoke a code of practice if the code of practice variation or revocation was developed by a process that involved consultation between the government of the commonwealth and each state and territory, the unions and employer organisations.

The amendment provides that, before the minister can adopt a code of practice, he or she must first consult with the Small Business Commissioner in order to assess whether the code would affect small business if implemented. The Small Business Commissioner may provide comments or advice in relation to the code, including that it be varied.

If the Small Business Commissioner recommends that a code be varied, the amendment enables the minister to make such a variation without the need to adopt the process envisaged in clause 274(2); that is, it will not be necessary for the minister to take part in the consultation process provided for at the national level.

As I mentioned earlier in the debate in response to the questions of the Hon. Rob Lucas regarding this amendment, my preference would have been for the Small Business Commissioner to undertake an assessment of all existing codes of practice that are set to become operational at the time of the commencement of the bill.

I did make representations to the government on this matter but, as already mentioned, agreement could not be reached on this point. This was made very clear to all industry groups following my discussions with the government. Those groups included representatives from the MBA, the HIA, the MTA, Business SA and the Ai Group.

Other than the obvious resourcing implications that my preferred position would have created, the government was primarily opposed to it on the basis that the 23-odd codes (and I understand it is 23 and not 40 codes) that have been approved by Safe Work Australia were developed as part of the package of harmonised work health and safety laws with input not only from stakeholder groups but also from the SafeWork SA Advisory Committee, which comprises representatives from employer groups, unions, SafeWork SA and the WorkCover Corporation.

That said, the Small Business Commissioner will be in a position to assess any new codes in terms of their impact on small business in the absence of any other sort of state-specific cost-benefit analysis. I have already had preliminary discussions with the Small Business Commissioner about this provision, and I understand he is considering how it would work in practice.

It is open to the Small Business Commissioner to seek assistance where specialist knowledge is required. It is also open to him to determine the appropriate level of consultation with industry regarding the codes. I intend to continue my discussions with the commissioner about these matters. My primary concern with respect to the commissioner's role is that an appropriate balance be reached between increased compliance requirements and cost for business on the one hand and worker safety on the other.

Turning back to the issue of codes for a moment, I would like to address very quickly the earlier comments of the Hon. Rob Lucas insofar as what was agreed to. The fact that pro forma statements already exist, and are likely to be rolled out more generally, is certainly no news to me. What was agreed to was that the pro forma or template document was capable of being drafted and used in such a way as to take into account foreseeable risks that do not necessarily exist at the commencement of a project but that may arise during the course of a project.

For instance, it would be reasonable to foresee a risk created by bad weather and torrential rains or even extreme heat. These are factors that a contractor or principal can take into account at the commencement of a project. It is when an unforeseeable risk arises that a contractor or a principal will have to step back and ask, 'How do we address this?' When they have worked that out, they can amend the existing statement. They will not be required to start from scratch. On that basis, I do not accept the arguments of the Hon. Rob Lucas.

The other point—and I understand that the government will clarify this when we get to the relevant provisions—is that it is not intended that the work at a site will effectively have to come to a stop so that a principal can be chased down in order to sign an amended safe work statement, as has been suggested by some. I urge all honourable members to support this amendment.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: We support the amendment. We support the valuable role the Small Business Commissioner plays in advocating for the small business sector in South Australia and by providing independent advice and recommendations to the government about the needs of small business. We would therefore expect the Small Business Commissioner to participate in the public consultation process relating to the development of new codes of practice. Accordingly, we are happy to support the amendment that provides for the commissioner to continue his important work by providing advice to the government on how a particular code of practice may impact small business.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I never cease to be amazed in these debates, and I thank my very good friends in the Greens for their support for the previous amendment and anticipate their support for the long-held principle of parliamentary accountability implicit in my next amendment, which is the disallowance of codes of practice akin to the regulation process.

As I indicated in earlier debate, I would have very significant concerns about the particular amendment we have here if this were to be the only check and balance for the codes of practice. If there is to be the amendment that I am about to move in relation to disallowance, that does give the ultimate check and balance, that is, parliamentary disallowance, as we can disallow all the regulations, for example, in relation to this legislation as well. That is a parliamentary power we have and jealously protect.

However, if this amendment of the Hon. Mr Darley were to be the only amendment in terms of checks and balances and accountability, my concerns are manyfold. One is (as we have already established) that the more than 20 already endorsed codes of practice would not go through this process with the Small Business Commissioner. That has been conceded. Most of the trenchant opposition—and the Hon. Mr Hood says that that is an understatement—from the industry groups relates to a number of the codes of practice which have already been endorsed, whereas my amendment in relation to approved codes of practice will allow the endorsed codes of practice and any new codes of practice, therefore all 40, to have to go through the disallowance process.

The second concern I have in relation to the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment, if it were to be the only check and balance, is that it does just relate to the Small Business Commissioner. With the greatest of respect, these codes of practice will impact on small businesses—we concede that—but they will also impact on big businesses as well. Big businesses also ought to have an opportunity to put a point of view.

The Hon. Mr Darley will know that we have been lobbied by small and big businesses in relation to this particular issue, and some of the more articulate and vocal opponents would not be characterised as small businesses able to avail themselves of the Small Business Commissioner. So in essence, what we would be saying to them through this amendment, if it were the only check, is that they do not have the entitlement to raise an issue because they are not a small business; they are defined not as a small business but as a big business for the purposes of accessing the services of the Small Business Commissioner.

Another issue is that, in the honourable member's drafting, if the Small Business Commissioner recommends a code of practice be varied, the minister may make such a variation. I assume the clear intention of that is that the minister does not have to; that is, the Small Business Commissioner can recommend a variation but the minister retains the discretion, because it says 'may': 'may make a variation without the need to adopt the process envisaged'. So it says, 'Okay; the Small Business Commissioner makes a recommendation, the minister may make that, and, if he or she does make it, then it does not have to go through the processes envisaged by subsection 2.'

That is my non-lawyer's reading of the member's amendment. If it is different from that I would be pleased to hear it, but that is certainly the plain reading of the words I see before me in the amendment moved by the member. As I said, my concerns would dissipate significantly if the honourable member's amendment were in addition to the amendment I am moving, which allows for disallowance. It is possible that, with the support of the Greens, if that were to occur in terms of supporting the principle of parliamentary accountability in relation to these things, in essence there would be both processes.

That is ultimately a decision for the government. It has obviously committed to the Small Business Commissioner process, and I can understand why. As I said, many of the endorsed codes of practice would not have to go through the Small Business Commissioner route that the honourable member is outlining, and it would appear that the minister has the flexibility to ignore the recommendations of the Small Business Commissioner if the minister so determines.

I think that is an important issue that we need to clarify with the mover and with the minister: does the minister retain that flexibility or discretion to ignore the recommendations of the Small Business Commissioner, and was that the intention of the Hon. Mr Darley when he had the amendment drafted?

The only other point I would make is that I have had a quick consultation with parliamentary counsel, and there is nothing legislatively that prevents both mechanisms existing together; that is, it is workable in terms of both supporting the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment and my amendment. SafeWork SA and the government might not like both processes—it will certainly take longer—but there is nothing legislatively wrong with supporting both the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment and the amendment I am about to move.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS: On a point of order, Mr Acting Chair, and I raised this point last night, these conversations into the outside of the chamber, I think, are certainly unparliamentary and not conducive to the continuation of the committee, and I wish that you would rule on that.

Amendment carried.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I move:

Page 116, after line 17—Insert:

(7) An approved code of practice or the variation of a code of practice is subject to disallowance of Parliament.

(8) The Minister must ensure that each approved code of practice or variation is laid before both Houses of Parliament within 6 sitting days after it is published in the Gazette.

(9) If either House of Parliament passes a resolution disallowing an approved code of practice or the variation of a code of practice, then the code of practice or variation ceases to have effect.

(10) A resolution is not effective for the purposes of subsection (9) unless passed in pursuance of a notice of motion given within 14 sitting days (which need not all fall within the same session of Parliament) after the day on which the code of practice or variation was laid before the House.

The committee has passed two amendments now to the codes of practice provisions. The first one is to ensure a continuing role for the advisory council as it already exists; that has been passed. The second one that has now been passed is the Hon. Mr Darley's amendment, which provides a role, albeit limited, for the Small Business Commissioner. This third one is the one which protects the principle of parliamentary accountability; that is, it gives the role of the parliament in terms of possible disallowance of a code of practice. The process that is being recommended here is exactly the same as the process for a disallowance in relation to regulations.

This parliament has the power, for the 500 or 600 pages of regulations, to disallow all those regulations if we so choose—it would be a big step, but we do have that power—and that will be a decision that this parliament may or may not have to take at some stage in the future. Consistent with that principle of parliamentary accountability, and consistent with my first amendment in relation to the advisory council, we have argued and continue to argue that this parliament, as it can disallow the regulations and vote against the legislation if it so chooses, although it is obviously is not going to, should also have the power to disallow the codes of practice.

I repeat again: this amendment has the advantage over the Small Business Commissioner amendment, which has now passed, in that all the codes of the practice and, in particular, the ones that have been challenged or opposed trenchantly by some members, in particular, of the construction industry, can go through this process. Ultimately, you still need a majority of members in the Legislative Council and the House of Assembly to disallow either the regulations or the codes of practice, so that is the protection for those who do support the codes of practice.

However, if one of these codes of practice is just so destructive to the operations of business and industry in the nation—and, in particular, in South Australia—and if a majority of members in a chamber takes that view, then we should have the power to disallow. Then ultimately of course, as with regulations, the government can come back with a different code of practice for the parliament to consider. I urge members to support this amendment.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: Given the explanation by the Hon. Rob Lucas, especially regarding their force, I will be supporting his amendment.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I was going to wait for the government to put a compelling argument as to why the Hon. Rob Lucas's amendment does not deserve support, but I will not read anything into their silence. I will judge this issue on its merits, as the Greens always do. Looking at clause 274, in relation to approved codes of practice, the bill does set out a level of consultation that is required. Certainly it involves government, it involves unions and it involves employers, and the following clause, 275, talks about the use of these codes of practice in legal proceedings.

So, one of the questions before us is: what is the status of such a code in the hierarchy of law? It is not an act of parliament and in fact it is not a regulation, but it is still a document that has some legal force and a document of which judicial notice will be taken. It can be used in proceedings; it can be used in criminal proceedings in particular. So the question then is: what level of parliamentary oversight is appropriate for documents of that category?

I do not think this is the only situation where similar quasi-legislative documents are subject to parliamentary accountability. I note that the Hon. Rob Lucas's amendment uses, as I see it, the standard form of disallowance methodology involving the tabling of a code of practice within a certain period and a 14 sitting day window of opportunity in which a member can move disallowance.

Putting all those things together, I do not think it is an exceptional level of complication or added bureaucracy. It does in fact make sure that these codes of practice, with the legal force that they possess, will have the support of parliament and they will have that support by their survival in a disallowance motion, so the Greens will be supporting this amendment.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I think this has been thrashed out enough but, just for the record, Family First will be supporting it as well.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Clauses 275 and 276 passed.

New clause 277.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY: I move:

Page 117, after line 31—Insert:

Division 4—Reviews

277—Reviews

(1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation of this Act to be conducted as soon as practicable after the expiry of 1 year from its commencement.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must include a specific report on the extent to which inspectors have attended at workplaces under section 117 and an assessment of the operation and effectiveness of the policy established by the Executive Director under that section.

(3) The Minister must then cause a second review of the operation of this Act to be conducted as soon as practicable after the expiry of 3 years from its commencement.

(4) The results of a review under this section must be embodied in a written report.

(5) The Minister must, within 6 sitting days after receiving a report under subsection (4), cause a copy of the report to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

The amendment provides for two separate reviews: the first, as I mentioned earlier, will be conducted one year from the commencement of the act, the second after three years. The amendment makes clear that the review must include a specific report on union right of entry, including the extent to which inspectors have attended workplaces and the effectiveness of the policy established by the executive director.

We have previously seen the benefits that a review of legislation can provide. In this case, we will have three reviews—two at the state level and one at a national level. This should provide ample opportunity for us to assess how the legislation and codes of practice are working, whether they need improving and whether indeed they have led to the sorts of issues that have been raised by those who oppose the bill. I ask all honourable members to support the amendment.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: We support the Darley amendment. The review of the act will allow the examination of the impacts of the laws in a South Australian context and ensure the continued effectiveness of nationally harmonised work health and safety laws within that context. This amendment is consistent with the Council of Australian Governments' request for a national review of the legislation under the auspices of Safe Work Australia by the end of 2014. The findings of the review of the South Australian work health and safety act may be used to inform the national review. Therefore, the government supports this amendment to the bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The Liberal Party will support the amendment. The only comment we would make is that, given the juxtaposition of the timing of this now and an impending state election, I wonder whether it would not have made more sense for the first review to have been conducted 18 months after the commencement of the act because this will commence on 1 January 2013 and 12 months will be 1 January 2014 and there will be a state election 10 weeks later in March 2014.

As a commentary, ultimately it is a decision for the mover and the government to discuss whether it would not be sensible for whoever is fortunate to be elected to government by the people of South Australia in March 2014 to have oversight and carriage of the review. If the member intends to move it in the way it is, generally we have been comfortable with reviews in other pieces of legislation and we are prepared to support these reviews outlined in this amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The Greens will also support this amendment. We question why there would be any difference in regard to the timing of the review starting before or after a state election, and certainly would hope that it would not in fact have any impact on the way this review was undertaken.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Family First supports the amendment.

Amendment carried; new clause inserted.

Schedules 1 and 2 passed.

Schedule 3.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I had a consequential amendment. I will not be moving it.

Schedule passed.

Remaining schedules (4 to 6) and title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (16:06): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The development of this bill and its progress through parliament has been a long but worthwhile battle. Numerous people deserve recognition for their efforts over the years in ensuring the advancement of this important and historic legislative reform.

First and foremost, I thank the committed professionals at SafeWork SA. This agency sometimes cops some flak in the media and in parliament if, for example, an occupational health and safety prosecution has not gone according to plan or if with their limited resources they are unable to foresee every possible injury in the workplace. Those who I have worked with during my time as Minister for Industrial Relations have all shown an intense passion for workplace safety and a commitment to ensuring workers are able to return home to their families healthy after a day's work. Their efforts should be absolutely commended.

I cannot name them all but Ms Marie Boland, Director of Policy, has been instrumental throughout this entire debate. Her knowledge and especially her patience have been exemplary. Mr Bryan Russell, Executive Director of SafeWork SA has been terrific throughout the entire process and he has performed a great service to the government and the people of South Australia. Directors Ms Juanita Lovatt, Mr Robin Scott and Ms Kim Tolotta, as well as policy officer Ms Ashe Bucco and many others, have also provided advice and guidance during the progress of this bill. It is so important to have dedicated public servants who are passionate about the subject matter and really care about how their efforts can positively impact on the community.

My staff have been exceptional, including my Chief of Staff Mr Nick Lombardi, Advisers Mr Noel Paul and Mr Michael Irvine, and lastly Mr Jim Watson whose years of service to the union movement, battling for workers' safety, has proved to be beneficial over the recent months. I also thank the SafeWork SA Advisory Committee, particularly Mr Tom Phillips who provided me with helpful advice, and I look forward to working closely with the advisory committee during the implementation of this legislation. I also thank Ms Lois Boswell, Deputy Chief of Staff to Premier Weatherill. She has been invaluable with her negotiations leading up to this endorsement of this bill.

It has been a pleasure dealing with unionists who were prepared to sacrifice some elements of the existing occupational health and safety legislation for the overall benefit of harmonisation. Again, I am unable to name them all but I will mention Ms Janet Giles from SA Unions, Mr Aaron Cartledge, and Mr Darren Roberts from the CFMEU, along with many other unions and officials whose support made this legislation possible.

I have also been pleased to work closely with business groups that were instrumental in developing this legislation at a national level several years ago. The Australian Industry Group, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and many other business groups have supported the development and progress of this legislation.

We also worked with numerous other employer groups, including the Roof Tilers Association, which wanted this legislation to enhance protections to their members against falls from heights. We also worked with volunteer groups including Volunteering SA/NT, Volunteering Australia and even Scouts Australia which were sensibly able to work through the legislation and see the obvious and inherent benefits.

Finally, I would like to thank my colleagues in this place who looked at this legislation, not solely through a clouded ideological lens, but analysed the legislation sensibly and thoroughly before making informed decisions. The Hon. Ms Franks' particular contribution regarding increases to HSR training will benefit workers all across the state. Her adviser, Ms Yesha Joshi, worked closely with my office and her efforts are noteworthy. The Hon. Ms Vincent looked beyond the obvious fear campaign and made a decision based on the best interests of workers in this state. The Hon. Mr Darley's forensic analysis added some clarification to this legislation. I want to especially mention Ms Connie Bonaros, Mr Darley's legal adviser, who has been a pleasure to work with over the previous year.

In a couple of months, South Australia will be able to set aside a piece of legislation that has served us well for 26 years, but was in obvious need of updating. The new law reflects modern employment relationships and moves beyond the traditional, but dated, employer/employee relationship. This is incredibly important, as many workers are not actually employees but still deserve workplace protections.

The transitional arrangements will serve businesses well, so they can spend the next year fully preparing for some specific legislative changes. Union right of entry for occupational health and safety purposes makes sense and has been in place in all other jurisdictions across the country for years. Another set of eyes looking out for health and safety can only be a good thing. So, I encourage all stakeholders, including employees, employers, unions and government, to implement the new laws with a sense of collaboration and cooperation for the benefit of all South Australian workplaces.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (16:11): I would like to make a few brief comments in response to some of the issues that have been raised throughout this debate. There is no question that this bill has been floating around for far too long and that, ideally, we should have completed debating it months ago. However, I make no apology for taking the time that I did to get to the position we are at today.

A lot has been said about the package that was agreed to with the government and whether anything was really gained from that, other than my support for the bill. I remain committed to the fact that concessions that were of huge concern to industry; that is, concessions which industry itself asked for and which would not have otherwise been addressed, were able to be agreed to. Each and every time I have met with industry I have made it clear that the amendments and the commitments I have negotiated with the government in good faith must be viewed as a package. In their entirety, they make a difference. They may not be as much as I had initially hoped for but that is the nature of compromise: each side gives a little in order to gain something else.

The change in falls from heights from two metres to three metres was a direct result of representations made to me by the construction industry. That same industry also expressed concern that pro forma safe work method statements would not be acceptable and that a new statement would be required each time there is a change in circumstances. The government has confirmed that this is not the intent of the legislation.

Another concern that was raised with me and addressed by way of a commitment by the government includes the $250,000 threshold assigned to construction projects. Other issues I agreed to raise were addressed by way of clarification of the intent of relevant clauses. It was made clear on the record that the intent of clause 273 was not to interfere with any commercial arrangements that may exist between PCBUs and subcontractors relating to the contracting of projects and the supply of, for instance, personal protective equipment.

It was made clear that union right of entry provisions were not to be used as industrial relations tools and that breaches of permits will be dealt with accordingly. This legislation does not simply pay lip service to breaches by union officials, it imposes hefty penalties and provides a scheme under which permits can be revoked. I, for one, expect this matter to be taken very seriously by the responsible authority. Most importantly, the government is committed to reviewing this legislation with a view to addressing any issues that may arise. Those reviews happen to also coincide very closely with the next election. If there is still opposition to this bill at that time I am sure it will be addressed accordingly. These are all matters which I have spent hour upon hour addressing with industry.

I would also like to make a couple of further comments in relation to the Salvemini case. To be clear, there is no question in my mind that SafeWork SA did not handle that investigation well from the beginning. I am not talking about the Crown's handling of the case and whether or not the correct charges were laid against the skipper because I trust that at that time there were what appeared to be adequate grounds to proceed on that basis. Nor is there any question that culpability for the incident lay predominantly with the company. Generally speaking, however, the fact that one party happens to be more culpable than another does not excuse the other party for failing to exercise any duties that may apply to them, irrespective of their working arrangements.

I do agree with the Hon. Rob Lucas that SafeWork SA's investigation into Jack's death was far from acceptable. I know that Jack's family certainly were not happy with the investigation into their son's death. The fact that we are coming up to the seventh anniversary of Jack's death and this family is still having to endure ongoing legal argument is hard enough. To think that the matter was not given the attention it deserved and handled in the best possible manner just adds insult to injury.

I have made no secret of the fact that I am far from impressed with the way the agency operates. I make the point again that there needs to be a significant culture shift if this legislation is to succeed in its objectives. More importantly, there needs to be a shift in mentality from one of prosecution to prevention. SafeWork SA needs to be out there on the ground, educating businesses and workers about their responsibilities and ensuring that everything is being done to prevent accidents from occurring in the first place. The government needs to take a proactive approach and ensure that this occurs.

Many, including some honourable members, are opposed to this bill because of concerns relating to the cost impact on business. I want to make it very clear for the record that this has been one of my primary concerns as well. Do I care about small businesses in this state? Of course I do. Do I care about subcontractors going out of business? Again, yes; that is why I pushed so hard for the introduction of the Small Business Commissioner legislation.

Am I concerned about further pressures being imposed on businesses, particularly in today's economic climate? Without a doubt. Have I listened to the concerns of all industry groups and tried to address the concerns they have raised? Yes. But does supporting this bill in any way suggest that I do not care about these matters? I do not think so. All these considerations need to be carefully weighed against the need for increased worker safety.

As I have said before, since coming to this place, my office has advocated for a number of families who have lost loved ones in workplace accidents. Indeed, Andrea Madeley, founder of Voice of Industrial Death, and Lee and Carol Salvemini are some of the first constituents I met after becoming a member. Since then, my office has continued to advocate for and support these families through the many legal processes they have had to deal with over the years, and I have given a commitment that I will continue to do so in the future.

Again, as I have said before, Andrea provides invaluable support to families who have lost loved ones in workplace accidents. She knows only too well the devastation these families are confronted with, having lost her own son, Daniel, in a workplace accident at the tender age of 18, yet she continues to push for tougher compliance and enforcement of health and safety measures in the workplace. She continues to advocate for and provide support to the Salvemini family, the O'Neil family, the Posnakidis family and the mother of Brett Fritsch, amongst others. These are all families who have lost loved ones in workplace accidents. The VOID website is dedicated to the memory of victims of industrial death.

None of us wants another family to go through that pain—to lose a husband, a wife, a brother, a sister or, perhaps most unimaginable of all, a child in such tragic circumstances. It is for this reason, and this reason alone, that I have supported this bill. I am not under any false illusion; I acknowledge that accidents will still occur and that workers will still be injured and even killed as a result.

I accept that even with this bill, accidents such as the one that claimed Daniel Madeley's life or Jack Salvemini's life may not be prevented. This is an unfortunate fact of life, but we as lawmakers have a responsibility to do our utmost to implement laws that address these matters, whether it be by ensuring more accountability, more awareness, more compliance and even tougher penalties for those who show a flagrant disregard for the safety of workers.

I, for one, cannot look Andrea in the eye and tell her that I could not support measures which may have saved her son's life and that ensuring the highest level of safety at a workplace was going to come at too much of a cost. I am not suggesting by any means that any other honourable member would, and I know that they share my concerns. I recognise the reasons other members have given for not supporting this bill. The confronting reality for people in Andrea's shoes is that their loved one is dead; they are never coming home again—it is that simple.

Finding an appropriate balance between costs on the one hand and a person's life on the other is an impossible task and one that none of us should ever have to grapple with. This bill is not seeking to achieve the impossible at any cost; it is merely seeking what is reasonable. I hope that all industry groups can appreciate that it was not an easy position that I found myself in and that I endeavoured, so far as was reasonably practicable, to achieve a fair outcome.

In conclusion, I would like to thank all those individuals who have given up so much of their time to meet with me over and over again throughout this debate. I would like to thank all members and their staff for all their hard work. I am sure we will be equally relieved at the conclusion of this debate. I would also like to give special thanks to parliamentary counsel and, in particular, Richard Dennis and Richard Ewart for their hard work and especially for their patience through this debate.

Last of all, I would like to make special mention of the work done by my legal and policy adviser, Connie Bonaros, who has worked tirelessly through this exercise, and also to Jenny Low who has filled in when Connie has not been available. Just this afternoon I received a copy of a letter from Andrea Madeley, the chairperson and founder of VOID, and I table the letter.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:22): I rise to speak to the third reading of this bill—approximately a year after I spoke to the second reading of this bill and I gather approximately 19 months after we first had this bill in front of us. As we know, it all comes down to numbers, and the bill before us appears to have the numbers to pass today, some 19 months later. Along the way I think it is worthy to note that the debates on this bill were not fought in this chamber: they were fought on talkback radio and in the tabloids; they were fought on hyperbolic fearmongering misinformation, by and large.

I would like to touch on some of the issues fought in this bill. In one case it was in this chamber where, only a few nights ago, we first heard the 'nannies' issue. That referred to a discussion that had been held on FIVEaa originally with the minister and a member of the Public Service. It was put forward by the Hon. Rob Lucas that mums and dads employing nannies would be expected to have some sort of occupational health and safety audit. That was put to this chamber and it was also put on ABC 891 the next morning.

I happy to be corrected on this, but as somebody who is possibly one of the few here who has had to employ a nanny, and certainly had to do so with the crash of the ABC childcare centres where my child lost her place because we have a privatised childcare industry—which should never have been allowed to happen—I was well aware that there are actually quite a lot of things that you have to go through if you are going to employ a nanny.

I went back through my previous records and went to CareforKids.com.au where there is an enormous reference service and where I had to list my need for a nanny for some six weeks before I was finally able to secure one in order to retain my job. In the meantime, I was allowed by a very generous employer to work from home because I could not find anywhere else to care for my child.

There is certainly a range of things you do to be eligible for childcare benefits, and there is a lot of paperwork to fill in. I employed a nanny who was a member of an agency, and with that there are eligibility requirements to qualify for childcare benefits: your child has to be immunised, and you have to provide proof; you also have to be working or studying and satisfy a test there; you have to set down the salary, which of course has to be according to the award; you have to set hours of work; you have to set conditions of work; you have to have agreed duties and parenting philosophies; you are given draft paperwork to follow; and, of course, if they are ongoing, they have leave entitlements.

There is a whole range of things to do with payroll and so on, and they also can come with domestic WorkCover insurance. In fact, that is usually the easiest way, that is, to make sure that the nanny is covered by their own insurance. You do have to provide a safe work environment if that work environment is your own home. That was the case when my child was 18 months old and that is what the case will be when we pass this bill and in a week's time when some other poor parent has to struggle to find a nanny to keep their job.

Yet we heard that we are going to have these new and onerous conditions put upon us. I certainly found the nanny argument quite spurious. While it does lead to jokes about a nanny state and poor parents having to do occupational health and safety audits of their home, the reality is that in real day-to-day life it is simply no different from what currently exists. Common sense will prevail long after the sideshow of the polemics has passed.

The other debate we heard, which came from the government and which I did want to call to account, was that of the Telstra employee Dale Hargreaves and that this bill before us would have significant implications for those workers who work from home. We heard about this particular decision, and I use the words of the Hon. Rob Lucas from the Hansard of Tuesday night, with regard to this Telstra employee:

She fell down the stairs twice while on a break at home. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal found in June that Hargreaves' injuries had occurred in the course of employment and she was, therefore, eligible for compensation.

He went on to say:

The Telstra decision is a pretty frightening one for employers. The line between personal and work has really become quite blurred...20 years ago it was quite clear, when you were at work you were at work. The lines didn't overlap like they do now.

That caused me to look up that particular case. While the headlines at the time seemed to indicate that this poor woman had fallen twice down the stairs while at her home—once while she was in her socks and getting cough medicine, I understand, and once while she was securing the screen door, which she had actually been ordered to do by her work following a burglary of her home—it was portrayed as if she were simply doing a few things from home, or that she was sick that day and had decided to work from home, and that had led to her having the compensation awarded.

If you go to the actual details, from 2005 the woman had, in fact, had an arrangement with her employer that she would work from home two days per week and in the city office three days per week. The employer had arranged for her to be provided with all the necessary equipment—laptop computer, cabling, mobile phone, internet, and access to the respondent's computer system at its own expense. The nature of her work was that she could work from any location, although the contact with stakeholders was when she was required to go into the city office. Her supervisor was actually located in Melbourne, in a different state from this woman. This arrangement had been deemed satisfactory because of the availability of technology for meetings and communications.

In respect of the first fall, the tribunal was told that at the time she was enjoying her role as campaign manager and that her duties required long working hours from home or in the city office. She was becoming tired because of the workload, strict deadlines and lack of support staff. She had also been suffering from respiratory problems for several months and been receiving treatment from her GP. In fact, it goes on to note that, at the time of the first fall that she had logged on to the respondent's computer system and, indeed, was in the course of working—not on a day off, not on a sick day off, not taking a day off from working from home. This was a regular occurrence that had been completely and properly set up and was completely authorised by Telstra as the employer.

It goes on to detail those injuries. It also goes on to note that it was the lack of adequate response from her employer that exacerbated not only her physical injuries but also her psychological injuries as a result of these injuries sustained at work. That is a very different story from the one that ran on talkback radio and in the tabloids—that all employers who let their employees work from home will now be facing these terrible penalties. It is a very different story when you actually read the judgement of what happened in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

We also heard, with respect to this debate, that South Australia is the only remaining state or territory that does not have occupational health and safety right of entry provisions for unions, and we will be facing some significant and serious consequences. It was put by the Hon. Rob Lucas that, in fact, Tasmania and possibly some other states do not have these provisions. Well, we are the only state or territory jurisdiction in this country that does not currently have entry rights in relation to occupational health and safety.

If every other state and territory can do this and the sky has not fallen in, I am pretty sure that we are going to be fine. I am pretty sure that the review will show that, in fact, it is better when you have occupational health and safety taken seriously. The belief that the royal commission under Howard found that occupational health and safety was to be used as an industrial tool by unions to beat employers over the head I think is spurious at best and certainly should not have been entertained in this place. The Greens are disappointed that the opportunities in relation to the right to silence in this bill have been lost. We note that—

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Despite the interjections, I want on the record the right of Ark Tribe not to go before what in fact is a bit of a Star Chamber and give evidence with regard to an occupational health and safety meeting held at his worksite; there were no raised voices in defence of his right to silence in this case. Certainly, the right of Ark Tribe to attend that safety meeting at a construction site here in our own state of South Australia should be something that is paramount for all members here. I would hope that, should a similar occurrence happen in the future, those who are so vociferous today in the defence of the right to silence will similarly stand beside and behind and support people like Ark Tribe.

Going back to numbers, it was not lost on me last night—and I am sure that it was not lost on you, Mr President—that we debated this bill finally when Billy Bragg was in town and appearing at the Adelaide Town Hall. I see from Twitter that the Premier was there and that the Premier and his wife had their picture taken with Billy Bragg, and I must admit that I was incredibly jealous. The Hon. Rob Lucas did tweet that perhaps that was going to sing The Internationale while we were here working hard on the Work Health and Safety Bill.

My favourite Billy Bragg song, although I prefer the Kirsty MacColl version, was always A New England. The lines that resonate with me now when we are talking about numbers is, 'I was 21 when I was wrote this song, I'm 22 now but I won't be for long.' Well, I was 42 years old when we started debating this bill. I am 44 years old now and, if I serve out this current term, I will be 50. But there are those who are affected by this bill who will not see another birthday.

Daniel Madeley will always be the age of 18; his mother will always remember him as her 18 year old son. Charles Hiscock will always be 45. His mother, Hazel, his wife, Stacey, his son Dylan, his daughters Bianca and Danielle and the other members of his family will always remember him as the age of 45. He was killed as a result of a three-metre trench collapse. He was a supervisor and he had in fact been complaining of the unrealistic time constraints of the project he was working on at the time.

Brian Murphy will always be aged 33 to his partner, Cynthia, and Shaun, Brenton and John, his loved ones. He was a truck driver and he was killed when a load of steel that he was delivering became unstable as the forklift was unloading it. Max Logan will always be 52 to his wife, Edith, and his son, Keith. Karl Eibl will always be 34 to his father, Bob, his mother Nanette, his brother, John, and John's wife, Sharyn, and their children, Shaun and Kyle.

Stuart Munzberg will always be 34 to his partner, Elizabeth. Stuart died when a travelator he was working inside suddenly became activated. Gregory Sleep's age is unknown according to the VOID website but he will be that age forever to his wife, Neecy, his son, Sam, his daughter Kimberly, his brother, Colin, and his sister, Pam.

Similarly, to his wife, Jane, and his son, Michael, Dean Robinson will always be the age that he was when he was killed while working in the ports of Port Adelaide when an unstable load of steel trapped him. Matthew Keeley will always be 22 to his partner, Carly, and his son, Ethan, and his devastated family and friends. Damian Harris will always be 30 as he was when he died alongside Matthew Keeley. He will be remembered as the age of 30 by his father, Gary, his mother, Bev, and his partner, Leanne.

Darren Millington will always be 45 and remembered that way by his wife, Judy, his sons, Rhys and Koby, and daughter, Bailey. Craig McAlister will always be 39 to his wife, Sue, and his children, Ben and Dylan. Andrew Baulderstone will be the age of 37 to his loved ones, his fiancée, Debra, and his son, Ashley. Doug Jackman will always be 31 to his son, Paul. Desmond Jaensch will be 42 to his wife, Colleen, and his children, Vanessa and Ashley.

Jack Salvemini will always be 36 to his father, Lee, and his mother, Carol. Of course, Jack warranted quite a few mentions in the debate that we undertook this week and certainly, on that note, I do think it was a missed opportunity not to enable union-led prosecutions with regard to workplace deaths.

I also want to thank a few people: my staff member, Yesha Joshi, in particular; advice from Janet Giles and Kevin Purse and dozens of others, and parliamentary counsel. This has been, as I say, a bill that has taken 19 months to get to this stage. In that time, there have been 16 notifiable fatalities in this state, 10 of which in fact occurred in this last financial year.

That has all happened while we have seen the polemics waged and the debate on this issue in the tabloids and on talkback radio. This bill will probably pass by one vote, but more important is the one person who comes home alive as a result of the occupational health and safety conditions that we enjoy in this country. With that, I commend this bill to the council.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (16:39): At the outset, can I say on behalf of Liberal members in this chamber that I am sure all members in this chamber and all in the community are committed to worker safety. No member of parliament wants to see a family devastated in the way many families have been devastated over the years due to either death or serious injury. The differences lay in what is the best way of achieving appropriate occupational health and safety or work health and safety legislation.

I say at the outset that we reject completely those who seek to appropriate the moral high ground to themselves as being the custodians and the only people interested in worker safety in South Australia. They know who they are, and we reject completely that notion that in some way, because members adopt a different approach in terms of occupational health and safety, they are lesser beings, uninterested in worker safety.

On behalf of members, I thank Richard Dennis as parliamentary counsel. He has been mentioned by the Hon. John Darley. He has spent countless hours patiently working with us and I know all other members and obviously the government in the first instance.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: He's been here longer than you, he tells me.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: He doesn't have as many grey hairs as I do, so he obviously does not worry as much. He has been patient and meticulous and has fairly worked through all the competing views. One can only imagine the challenges of drafting amendments for someone like the Hon. Russell Wortley and the Hon. Tammy Franks, and on the other hand drafting amendments for myself and the Hon. John Darley. It is a challenge and he certainly met that challenge all the way through.

This has been particularly challenging for him because on this occasion, unlike many others, he has through the various industry associations, received high-powered legal advice right through to the levels of Dick Whitington QC and various other prominent legal identities, putting their views, some which coincided and some which did not on occasions with parliamentary counsel's interpretation of the impact of various amendments.

Nevertheless, with good humour and with considerable capacity he has worked his way through that process, and everyone who worked with him, given that we came from every direction around the compass, were satisfied that he fairly reflected the views in the amendments we were seeking to move. There are many others to thank, but I will not take the time of the council this afternoon. I want to summarise our position in relation to this bill.

We reject completely the self-serving summary the Hon. Tammy Franks just gave on a number of issues in relation to matters that were raised over the last two or three days. We see this bill as a bad bill, even with the amendments, and as a full frontal assault on the subcontracting industry in South Australia. The Hon. Ann Bressington already highlighted evidence from within her extended family of the early impacts in Queensland, and we believe we will see the same impacts over the coming years (it will not happen straight away) as a result of court decisions here in South Australia.

As I indicated in the second reading, there were varying estimates about the impact on costs of housing in particular and on jobs in the community. At one end you had the consultants employed by the industry associations, who I repeat have also been employed by the government on a number of their own projects and who estimated significant increases in costs. On the other hand, we had the minister, who said there would be no increase in costs at all or insignificant increase in costs in relation to housing.

As I said in the second reading, my estimation of this is that there will be a significant increase in costs. It will certainly not be insignificant in relation to what the minister has claimed, but it will probably be, as they always are, somewhere in between what the minister said, which was nothing or insignificant, and the level estimated by the consultants employed by the industry. When one looks the codes of practice, the regulations and the legislation, there is no doubt there will be cost impacts.

These are issues this house has to address as well. Worker safety is important, but jobs in South Australia will be important and the costs for first home owners will also be important as more and more young South Australian families struggle to purchase their first home. It is too easily dismissed by the government and its cheer-chasing supporters to forget the challenges confronted by struggling South Australian families as they seek to purchase their first home. There is no doubt we will also see a significant increase in union power in South Australia. That will be welcomed by the government; it is certainly not something the opposition would welcome.

There will also be a very significant impact on small businesses in South Australia. We saw again a further example of that yesterday where the previous special position of small businesses in South Australia in relation to training costs for health and safety representatives has been ripped away by the government and their supporters in this bill. Contrary to what the minister said last night that no-one had ever protested about this, as I highlighted earlier today, the MBA indicated that that particular statement was not true, that the MBA had opposed these particular changes in relation to the costs of training for small businesses in South Australia.

It is easy to dismiss, as the Hon. Tammy Franks has sought to do today, the genuine concerns of people in relation to what they hear from SafeWork SA in relation to the issue of mums and dads becoming PCBUs, as the minister has conceded in this chamber, under the legislation and the requirements that they will have in terms of ordinary functions such as employing a nanny. Let me say to the Hon. Tammy Franks, long before she experienced the joys of employing a nanny to have assistance in raising a family, my wife and I had been through that experience and road and, perhaps unlike the Hon. Tammy Franks, we did not go down the agency path that the Hon. Tammy Franks outlined.

There would be many South Australian families who would have adopted the alternative approach to the one that the Hon. Tammy Franks has outlined she had adopted in relation to the use of an agency for these issues. In many cases they are arrangements entered into with families or they are arrangements entered into through word of mouth through the recommendation of friends and acquaintances of people who have successfully conducted the enterprise or business of being a nanny or a babysitter for children. I reject completely the Hon. Tammy Franks's suggestions in relation to that.

This issue was raised by Marie Boland on FIVEaa, not an issue first raised by the Liberal Party. It was raised when the minister and that officer were answering questions on talkback on FIVEaa. Just because people on talkback raise issues, we certainly do not accept the view of the Hon. Tammy Franks that this is an example of the polemic nature of the debate because someone genuinely raises an issue with the minister and with the SafeWork SA officer and that in some way that is inappropriate or outrageous or a beat-up. These are the genuine concerns of real people out there in the community and I advise the Hon. Tammy Franks on occasions to listen to some of them.

As I said, we reject completely the self-serving contribution of the Hon. Tammy Franks in relation to that particular issue. Similarly we reject completely the inferences she gave in relation to the issue of people who work from home and the Telstra case. Some of the quotes that she attributed to me were quotes that I took from prominent national legal firms Freehills, Allens Arthur Robinson and a number of other prominent national occupational health and safety consultants. Some of the quotes she attributed to me were me quoting from the advice that people more expert in the legislation let me assure you than I am, or indeed in my humble opinion the Hon. Tammy Franks is, in relation to these particular issues.

These are the people who will be arguing the cases, who are already arguing the cases in the Eastern States, in relation to these issues, and they are the ones who are advising people in relation to employers that if you do have someone working from home, you will have to ensure that you have an occupational health and safety audit either conducted by a consultant or conducted by a employee of your company or you have the employee who is working from home in relation to a checklist of occupational health and safety issues.

There are new elements in this, which will be, as we have discussed before and I will not repeat now, the persons conducting a business or undertaking (the PCBUs as they are). As we have said over the past two days, the full implications of the legislation will not become apparent for a number of years. It will be five and 10 years down the track as courts, tribunals and other judicial bodies make judgements in relation to appeals and decisions that will ultimately determine the full implications of the legislation before us today.

It will be in that period of time when we will be able to look back and make a judgement about who was right in relation to this particular legislation, those who raised the concerns or those who sought to reject those concerns as scaremongering by people unconcerned about the safety of workers in South Australia. With that, the Liberal Party's position is that this, even with the amendments, remains a bad bill and we will be opposing it at the third reading.

The council divided on the third reading:

Majority of 1 for the ayes.

Third reading thus passed.