Scissor Lifts

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (14:52): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before addressing a question to the Treasurer on the topic of SafeWork SA consultations on elevating work platforms, aka scissor lifts.

Leave granted.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: On 29 May 2019, an email was sent from the review and reform section of SafeWork SA regarding and entitled 'A discussion session'. This email was inviting organisations and individuals to attend a discussion session regarding elevating work platform safety and the state Coroner's recommendations contained within the inquest findings in relation to the death of Mr Jorge Castillo-Riffo. That email noted:

In late 2018, SafeWork SA wrote to industry groups, unions and training organisations seeking views on how the recommendations made by the State Coroner may impact operating practices and potential health and safety implications on worksites.

It went on to state:

A discussion session is now being held to gain further insight from your organisation on the recommendations.

Importantly, the email noted further:

The session will be attended by the Hon. Rob Lucas MLC, Treasurer.

That discussion session was duly held on the morning of Friday 5 July this year in the office of the Hon. Rob Lucas MLC, Treasurer, at the State Administration Centre. My questions to the Treasurer are:

1. Who was invited to this meeting, be they union bosses, bosses' bosses or others?

2. Were any invitees such as the CFMEU, now known as the CFMMEU, subsequently disinvited from that meeting? If so, at whose behest was this done and on what reasoning?

3. Of those in attendance on the day, how many organisations and individuals stated that the implementation of the Coroner's recommendations would save lives?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (14:54): Mr President, I seek your guidance: we actually have a bill before the house in relation to this particular issue and whether, under the standing orders, I am permitted to answer questions in relation to a bill that is currently before the house.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Point of order: my question was specifically on a meeting.

The PRESIDENT: To the extent that it relates to a meeting, I will allow it, but you don't need to answer in relation to the bill or the contents of the bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Given your ruling, Mr President, in relation to whether or not people were disinvited, I would need to take advice. The range of people who attended the meeting ranged from employer representatives; people with a direct interest; the Elevating Work Platform Association; SA Unions; another individual union, but I would need to check, I think it was the CEPU; together with SafeWork SA officers and staff from my office. I am happy to take on notice in relation to the exact names—I am sure they wouldn't object—and organisations that they represented.

In relation to the specific question as to whether someone had been disinvited—if that's the word the honourable member used—I can check that. It was organised through SafeWork SA. The only one that I know who had been invited but who declined to attend was the Master Builders Association, but they weren't disinvited, they declined the invitation. In relation to whether or not anyone had been disinvited who had previously been invited, I would need to take advice, but if that decision was taken I suspect it must have been taken at some level within SafeWork SA.

In relation to the consultation, I think each of those individuals—once I have identified them and their organisations I think it will be quite clear, when their names and organisations are present, what their positions are because they have publicly expressed them on any number of occasions, other than maybe the Elevating Work Platform Association. I am not sure, they may or may not have expressed their view publicly. I think I would leave it to the individuals to indicate the nature of their responses.

But as I said, it won't surprise the honourable member that the majority of people expressed the views in that meeting that they have expressed publicly in relation to the bill. But again, if I get into that area I am traversing something which I understand, from the President's ruling, I shouldn't.