HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-10-19 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (20:52): I took the opportunity to seek leave to continue my remarks, so I will continue my remarks. It is upsetting that the Minister for Water suggests that I am filibustering about worker safety. It is a pity that as the Minister for Water he could not run a bath and, being the Minister for Water, that is sad. That is why he will not be the Minister for Water after Saturday or Sunday. No doubt he will be moved sideways into another position under the new regime. So we have probably seen the last act of the member for Colton as the Minister for Water.

I was listing for the Treasurer a series of questions given to me by an industry association so that, rather than having to deal with them in the committee stage, we could shorten the debate by allowing the minister to respond to them at the end of the second reading contribution. Rather than trying to lengthen the debate, I am actually trying to shorten the debate. But I do say to the government that it is very hard to coordinate the debate when it contacts the opposition this morning to say that this bill will not be debated this week. We were told this morning that this bill would not be debated this week. So everything was sent away, and then this afternoon we were notified that it was back on. So we had to go and get the information and bring it back. That is the reality of it. I was up to question 18:

The managing director of an accounting firm sends the office junior to the tax office to file documents. This is a regular practice, done day after day. Is it true that under the new laws, the owner of the business must identify the journey/path that the office junior will take and identify any safety risks associated with where the worker is likely to be?

The next questions are:

Every morning the personal assistant to the CEO walks to the local cafe to buy coffees. (This sounds very much like my electorate office.) Is it true that under the new Bill the CEO must determine the path which the personal assistant walks and identify any potential hazards and take the steps to ensure that the personal assistant does not suffer any injury by buying the coffee?

What if the junior takes an unauthorised detour?

Does the government agree that the task of the OHS legislation is to make work safe?

Does the government agree that the safe work is dependent upon behaviours of each person at work every day?

Does the government agree that work safety is the responsibility of everyone at work?

In relation to the workplace, the industry group raised this issue:

The panel recommended in the first report, recommendation 28 (p 67) that domestic premises be excluded from the definition of workplace unless included by regulation. We note that the government did not agree with this recommendation and specifically stated in the WRMC response paper, that OHS inspectors should also have right of entry to domestic premises for OHS purposes (p 8). The right to enter premises used for residential purposes is qualified in clause 170 of the WHS Bill. Further, at clause 176 of the proposed OHS bill, enables an inspector to seize a workplace if an inspector reasonably believes that the workplace is defective or hazardous.

The next questions are:

Would the government please explain how the power to seize an individual's real property, whether it be commercial or residential premises, can be consistent with the rights to exclusive possession under the Real Property Act?

Would the government please explain how a person conducting a business, is going to be able to discharge its duty of care with respect to workers who either travel for work in a private vehicle or otherwise, travel for work on a commercial aircraft, walk on a pedestrian footpath in order to get to one place or another, enter premises owned and operated by another i.e. a library a court or a coffee shop?

Does the government concede that in order to discharge its duty of care in the above examples that a PCBU will be required to conduct a risk assessment of each of the above scenarios to ensure that its worker is not exposed to the risk of injury?

Would the government please explain how a PCBU can get access to a Qantas aircraft so that it can conduct a risk assessment before its workers enter the aircraft for work purposes? Would the government please confirm that a PCBU must undertake a risk assessment of a footpath that a worker walks across, and of a building that a worker enters for work purposes, in order to discharge their duty of care?

In relation to consultation, the second report recommendation 96, page 88, stated that:

[The] model Act should include a broad obligation for the persons conducting the business or undertaking most directly involved in the engagement or direction of the affected workers to consult with those workers (and their representatives) as far as reasonably necessary about matters affecting, or likely to affect, their health and safety.

The WRMC rejected that proposal and stated that:

[The] concept of reasonably necessary should be replaced with reasonably practical (p 23). The consequence of the WRMC's rejection of the recommendation is that all PCBUs are required to consult, even in circumstances where they are not directly involved in the engagement or direction of work. (See clause 46 of the WHS Bill).

The next questions are:

Would the government please explain the reasoning behind their rejection of the Panel's recommendation and provide an explanation as to how in practical terms a PCBU will be in a position to consult over matters for which he or she has no direct influence?

Would the government please provide us with the detail of any cost-benefit analysis it has undertaken which demonstrates that requiring all PCBUs to consult, provides a greater return on safety?

Would the government please explain how this obligation for all PCBUs to consult will not lead to an increase in costs associated with constructing residential buildings?

The industry group raised the right to silence:

Clause 172 of the WHS Bill abrogates an individual's common law right of privilege against self-incrimination. At recommendations 179 and 180 in the Second Report, (p 281), the Panel discussed at length whether an individual's right to exercise a privilege against self incrimination should be removed. The panel suggested that an individual should be compelled to answer questions regarding the enforcement of ongoing safety issues but that an individual should be entitled to rely upon the privilege against self-incrimination in circumstances where an inspector is investigating a suspected breach. The WRMC did not support this recommendation [page 45] and as such, individuals face massive penalties if they refuse to answer questions—despite the fact that the answers to those questions may incriminate them. The consequences of being forced to provide answers to questions may result in an individual facing a gaol term.

The questions are:

Would the government please explain why it can, in all good conscience, remove what has been for hundreds of years one of the fundamental human rights that underpin a democratic society, without having first put this question to the voters?

Would the government please explain by reference to statistical evidence what basis the government has to abolish the right to silence—and how the abolition of that right will result in a greater return on safety?

In the South Australian government's submission to the panel at page 45, it appears to have supported the existing South Australian provisions with respect to powers, functions, protections and accountability which can be found at sections 38, 39 and 40 of the current legislation. It is noted that the current South Australian Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act does not abrogate an individual's right to silence.

Would the government please explain its apparent about face with respect to the right to silence?

In relation to the codes of practice, the industry association makes this point:

The panel in its second report, recommendations 229, 230 and 231, stated that, 'The model act should provide for codes to be developed through a tripartite process, with expert involvement, and approved by the relevant minister.'

Importantly, at recommendation 231, the panel stated that 'The model act should make it clear that a duty holder may achieve and demonstrate compliance with relevant provisions of the act and regulations by ways other than the ways set out by the approved code of practice.'

The government has rejected this recommendation and has drafted clause 275 in this particular bill, which requires a PCBU to demonstrate compliance by reference to a standard that is higher or equivalent to the codes.

The questions are:

Would the government please explain what steps it has taken to engage appropriate experts to develop the codes of practice?

Would the government please explain why the codes of practice have not been finalised before it moves to pass this particular bill?

Would the government please explain how a PCBU will be able to comply with codes of practice, which are so onerously prescriptive, without suffering a dramatic increase in costs associated with running a business?

Would the government please explain how forced compliance with these codes of practice will result in a greater return on safety?

Rights of entry, Madam Speaker:

Part 7 of the WHS bill entitles a union official to obtain a WHS entry permit and enter a workplace where it does not have any members.

The questions are:

Would the government please explain how granting a union official a right to enter a workplace where they have no members will enable a greater return on safety?

Would the government please explain why it is necessary to have a WHS entry permit holders when inspectors already have such broad powers?

Unions have a vested interest in quashing small business and workplace safety bureaucrats, have a vested interest in creating more regulations to police—

Industry association words, not mine, Madam Speaker—

Does your advice and policy rely on unions and the bureaucrats?

Is this a wolf in sheep's clothing? Is it a pretext for a union membership drive in the guise of workplace safety?

Why is the government choosing to do the bidding of the unions?

What steps will the government take to ensure that the union right of entry is not abused?

If a mum and dad is undertaking an addition to their home and they are self-managing the project [as owner/builders], will the WHS permit holder have a right of entry to their property and dictate what happens on site?

Workplace injury trends. This is a point I made for another group yesterday:

According to the WorkCover SA annual report for the year 2009-10, total claims incurred by the injury year for registered employers has been steadily decreasing since 2001.

Would the government please explain how the introduction of the new laws will enable a further reduction in overall claims?

Cost benefit analysis. The questions are:

Are you aware of recently released SafeWork Australia's latest publication, Decision Regulation Impact Statement for National Harmonisation of Work Health and Safety Regulations and Codes of Practice (12 September, 2011)?

Are you aware that the report contains a community benefit cost assessment of implementing the regulations and codes of practice?

Who have you consulted regarding the report and its contents?

Which government agencies have provided comments on the report?

Has external advice been sought on the cost benefit assessment

Who provided that advice?

Is the national benefit cost conclusion statistically valid, having been based on only 30 completed surveys? (That is 30 for the nation.)

Are the benefits of general workplace management statistically valid, having been based on only 10 completed surveys?

Do you know the details of the 30 companies surveyed? How many of those were in South Australia? Will you please supply the details of the 30 companies surveyed?

Has an independent cost evaluation been undertaken to ensure that there is a positive benefit cost to the South Australian community and economy?

Are you aware that the report itself states that the outcomes of introducing the legislation are not clear, especially for single state businesses?

Given the significant impacts on the community and economy, do you consider that a more comprehensive and statistically valid cost benefit analysis is warranted?

In the light of Australia and South Australia already being better than the world's best-performing countries in terms of safety, is there any evidence that the introduction of this bill will further reduce workplace injuries to the extent claimed in the report?

Do you think a high-risk impost on South Australian businesses should be implemented in the absence of any definitive or demonstrated benefit cost to business and the community?

Has the government undertaken an independent cost analysis of this bill?

Why does the government want a bill when it has no idea how it will impact the housing industry, and South Australians more generally?

How does asking a subcontractor to fill out a form each and every time he or she needs to move a piece of equipment make sites safer? Who will be paying for this paperwork?

The government is continually telling the public it is committed to cutting red tape. This particular bill is at odds with the government's policy and commitment to business, and particularly small business.

I am nearly through all the questions for the association. The next question is:

The housing industry is experiencing one of the worst downturns in recent memory. What measures will be put in place to ensure no builder or subcontractor will be sent to the wall with the increased expenses associated with this bill?

Have you spoken to the residents of the construction industry? Have you spoken and asked subcontractors and workers themselves?

Job losses. Subcontractors will find it difficult to be employers. Where are the government's projections on how many people will lose their jobs, and what measurement will the government put in place to prevent job losses?

Has this more to do with low union membership in the housing construction industry when compared to the commercial sector?

They then raise a couple of examples. Matt the cladder uses a ladder as part of his everyday work—I could nearly do a limerick here—on residential building sites. Is it true that, under the new rules, each and every time he moves the ladder he will need to write a SafeWork method statement?

Brian the handyman is engaged by the Housing Trust to perform repairs to the gutters on Housing Trust accommodation. As Brian is performing the work more than two metres high, he will be performing high risk construction work. Will he be required to use scaffolding to do the work? What will happen to the tenants if the scaffolding prevents entry to and exit from the property? Will the tenants be locked out of their own homes while he performs the work? I suggest the answer to the latter is, obviously: yes.

Lightsview is a joint venture project between the Land Management Corporation and Canberra Investment Corporation. Lightsview estate features Australia's smallest blocks, including 132 square metres, which is 4.8 metres by 27.5 metres. In addition, construction encumbrances require boundary to boundary building. Due to the circumstances on the land, builders are encouraged to build three-storey residential dwellings. The code of practice for working at heights requires complete scaffolding for heavy work such as bricklaying. The questions are:

How does the government propose that the requirement to comply with regulation codes of practice actually make the workplace safer in these circumstances?

How does the government propose that a PCBU will be able to provide workplace facilities as required by the regulations when there is boundary to boundary building?

How does the government propose that a PCBU and workers will be able to work on the development safely if they are required to fence across the front of the property as required by regulation 298?

How does the government propose that a PCBU will be able to secure the site when he is required to build boundary to boundary and will not even have access to the adjoining property to erect a fence?

Falls, Madam Speaker, and I must say that I have had experience in construction falls. I was lucky enough to fall 28 feet off a roof one day when doing some building work, and it is not a pleasant experience.

Mrs Vlahos: That explains it.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: That explains it. Regarding falls, regulation 78 requires the PCBU to manage a work site where a person could fall, yet no height has been prescribed into regulation. This means that a fall of six inches, or 150 millimetres, would need to be controlled. This is to be contrasted with regulation 291 that prescribes that work at heights greater than two metres is a high risk activity. The questions are:

How does the government explain why these regulations are in direct conflict with the Building Code of Australia, which does not require a handrail or balustrade around an opening, land or balcony unless the height exceeds one metre?

How can the government justify requiring protection from falls on building sites at heights of, say, 150 millimetres when there is no requirement for such protection once the house has been completed and possession given to the homeowner?

If a homeowner puts a deck up that is less than 600 millimetres off the ground, or two feet in the old language, you do not actually have to put a balustrade on it at all. The reason I put those questions on notice is so that I do not unduly delay the committee stage of the bill, because that would be regrettable.

One of the government's lines on this particular matter is that we have to harmonise this particular bill because the government will lose $33 million in payments from the federal government. Marie Boland, Director of Policy and Strategy from SafeWork SA, sent an email to Rob Lucas. It states:

The introduction of the national model WHS Act [this bill] is also linked to the National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless National Economy. Under the agreement, South Australia will receive a total of $33.041 million in facilitation payments over 2011-13. This payment is for achieving all 27 deregulation priorities identified by COAG in March 2008. The deregulation priorities include a raft of reform areas including uniform occupational health and safety laws.

So, the question I would like the minister to answer is: how much of the $33 million is at risk for this piece of legislation? How much of the $33 million is at risk for this particular piece of legislation becomes the issue.

I was very disappointed that the Minister for Water savaged me in his contribution about filibustering. On behalf of the asbestos industry, I want to raise their concerns with the bill. I know the asbestos industry is of great interest to the government; it has many members who are associated through the various injury and disease associations that have had an interest in asbestos and the resulting disease.

In fact, I am still waiting for those bureaucrats who might be sitting up at night listening to this speech or reading the Hansard tomorrow with great enthusiasm. I am still waiting for answers to my estimates questions to the minister, and, if the minister is within earshot, it would be good for him to take this on board. I am still waiting for my estimates answers regarding the exposure that workers received at the Inverbrackie detention centre because of the lack of an appropriate plan. I have not yet received an answer to that from the minister or the government or, indeed, SafeWork SA.

This side of the house does take asbestos issues seriously. The asbestos industry has written to the opposition in the last few days—this is on 10 October—saying that there are a number of problems with the proposed code and the regulations for the industry association. In particular, I have received submissions from Adelaide Air Monitoring of Bowden which talks about this particular provision. He writes:

I am writing to you in regard and with concern about the proposed National Harmonization of the Legislature relating to Workplace Health and Safety. In particular: the section of the proposed legislation relating to asbestos products and the documenting, monitoring and safe removal there-of.

My interest in this issue arises because my involvement in the asbestos management industry and also because of a natural and wise concern for the safety of the general populace and workers who regularly come into contact with asbestos products.

These following comments are made as an Asbestos Industry Insider.

I am a partner in an air fibre monitoring business, have personally monitored and inspected several thousand asbestos removal jobs...Mostly in South Australia but also [in a series of other states].

So this guy is experienced. This gentleman raises a number of issues, including that the proposed legislation is a disaster for the South Australian asbestos industry and the citizens of South Australia.

South Australia has the most regulated asbestos industry in Australia, and that industry is arguing strongly and reasonably for improved legislation and not oversight. The legislation relating to asbestos removal that is about to be introduced into the South Australian parliament is a national initiative that will possibly improve safety in some states, but it will definitely lower the bar in South Australia. This is a very important issue which has united the South Australian asbestos industry. They ask with respect that you read the facts presented here and decide the proposed national legislation is unacceptable in its current form and must be modified as is easily achieved through the parliament.

What I will do so that the minister does not accuse me of filibustering is I will touch on the broad topics and then I will give a copy of the submission to the minister because I am sure that his agency would have consulted with the asbestos industry and I would like him to confirm that when he gives his second reading contribution response.

The first problem is asbestos removal and airborne fibre monitoring. Currently New South Wales, the great doyen of 'let's harmonise everything to be like Sydney', does not require air monitoring to be carried out on non-friable or bonded asbestos-containing materials during the removal programs. Rather, this requirement is determined by the removalists through job-by-job assessment. This model is to be replicated across all states.

Legislation has been active in South Australia since 1991, requiring air monitoring for all work. There is also existing regulation dealing with exposure standards 'as measured in accordance with the guidance note on the membrane filter method for estimating airborne asbestos fibres published by NOHSC'. In other words, air monitoring is required to obtain a measurement of whether national exposure levels are exceeded.

The new draft management and control of the asbestos code is set to reiterate this in section 2.5 where it states that a person conducting a business or undertaking must ensure the exposed standard is not exceeded at the workplace. The proposed model regulation undermines this by not requiring air monitoring to determine if asbestos exposure standard is compromised for non-friable work. I am sure the Minister for Water, who is listening, would be very concerned about that.

The problem is with not utilising air monitoring to determine risk. It is that there is no scientific or measurable way of assessing if there are asbestos fibre concentrations above the national exposure standards. Without air monitoring, there is no tangible way to know if asbestos removal is being carried out safely or to assess whether employees, occupants or public are put at risk. So, that is the first issue on behalf of the asbestos industry. He actually goes on and there is another page and a half on that particular problem where he sets out, from an industry's perspective, how this government is planning to weaken the asbestos laws, all in the name of harmonisation.

He then goes across the issue of cross-border licensing. What he illustrates here is how it is so expensive to do business in South Australia compared to other states. He says, 'If you are going to have harmonised laws, then harmonise the fees.' I did not even realise this. This fee difference is quite staggering.

In South Australia, the fee for a class A licence, which is for friable, is $8,105, which is for a two-year licence. The Queensland fee? Take a guess. The Queensland fee for a two-year licence, exactly the same, is $58. So, South Australia is charging $8,105; Queensland is charging $58. Victoria is charging $507. The Northern Territory—

Mrs Geraghty: You've got to compare apples with apples, Iain, and you know that.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The member for Torrens says we should be comparing apples with apples. I just remind the member for Torrens that these are not my figures. These are given to me by a highly respected industry association. They are saying to me that, having surveyed their members Australia-wide, this is the fee structure. These are not the opposition's figures. So, if you want to criticise those who work in the asbestos industry, member for Torrens, go right ahead.

The Northern Territory's figure is $50; Tasmania's is $752. If you go to a class B licence, the non-friable, which is again a two-year licence, the South Australian fee is $1,234. Again, in Queensland it is $58; New South Wales, $100; Northern Territory, $50. So, the simple point is: if you are going to uniform the laws, uniform the fees.

The next problem they raise is that the existing advance notification period prior to a licensed asbestos removal project is two days to advise SafeWork of upcoming removal work. Currently, SafeWork SA also provides approval documentation with this time. Is this a question of bureaucratic red tape over efficiency by introducing a five-day period? They are wondering, if SafeWork have been doing this in two-day notification, why, all of a sudden, we are going to a five-day notification—for what purpose?

The next problem they raise is the asbestos register information and annual inspection update. The point they raise here is that Safe Work Australia recognise a failure for the asbestos register to be utilised properly in the Eastern States. Why would we take on an ineffective model when South Australia already has a far better model working? They are actually saying the model of asbestos registers we are about to pick up under this national scheme is indeed a weaker model than already exists in South Australia.

Then they talk about the gap analysis on training. They set out three pages of information about weaknesses in the gap analysis in training. So, the training regime being proposed will not be as good as currently exists in South Australia.

Another problem they raise is work under 10 square metres for non-friable work. There is a change in the regulations in relation to this. They say that the incidence of asbestos-related disease as a consequence of exposure for builders, carpenters, electricians, labourers and plumbers alike is high. These people have died due to exposure, some of whom, particularly carpenters, have only worked with non-friable material.

The third wave of disease is predicted to affect this exact group of people, plus the do-it-yourself renovators, when disturbing asbestos-containing material in existing buildings. There is increasing evidence of a low dose exposure causing asbestos-related disease and they set out some areas where the government can go and get some statistics on that.

They then set out a whole range of concerns about the notification of whether you have to notify above or below an area of 10 square metres. They are saying the system being proposed actually weakens the system that exists in South Australia. So, I raise that on behalf of the asbestos industry because I know that that is a very serious issue for those who are concerned about people's safety.

The other issue I raise is at what point do the new laws kick in? I want the minister to explain this to me. I think the house is well aware that one of my family members is a plumber, and they are already tendering on work that will take them past 1 January 2012. The start date for this legislation is 1 January 2012. The new obligations will kick in on 1 January 2012, if you believe the government's rhetoric.

If a contract is signed now (say, the last week of October), is it the intention of the government that the new laws will apply to the existing contract even though it was signed before the commencement date? In other words, halfway through the project, will there be a totally different set of rules applied to occupational health and safety? If that is to occur, a whole range of people—little tradesmen in particular—have absolutely no idea about these laws, and they are out tendering on projects. If the new laws do come in halfway through, they are going to inherit all that cost, and there is no way to claim that back.

There has been a total lack of communication to anything outside of the main industry groups in relation to this legislation. All of these little electricians, painters, plasterers, bricklayers and roofers will all be hit with new height restrictions and scaffolding requirements, and if they have not put that in their tenders—which they will not have, because no-one has seen them, and the codes are not even finished as they are only draft codes—they are going to be ambushed by a claim that they will not be able to claim as a variation under the standard MBA or HIA contract. They are going to be ambushed. The government should have been out there promoting a qualification on tenders so that those little blokes do not actually get caught by this.

At what point does the legislation apply to contracts that are already in place and halfway through? That is a key point for the Housing Industry Association, the Plumbing Industry Association, the air conditioning association, the Master Painters Association, and a whole range of other associations.

Last night I was speaking about a consultant's report out of Queensland that raised a whole range of issues in relation to volunteers, etc. I declare an interest here, Madam Speaker: my family, through my partner—my good wife—occasionally brings cleaners in to assist with the house. I am just interested—

Mr Sibbons interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I missed that.

Mr Sibbons: How many times?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Ah, the member for Mitchell asks, 'How many times?' Regularly.

Mrs Geraghty: Weekly?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Weekly, and this becomes the issue. I am glad the member for Mitchell raises the same concerns.

Mrs Geraghty: Don't be naughty.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Sorry?

Mrs Geraghty: Don't be naughty; he doesn't know if he has raised the same concerns.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Yes, the member for Mitchell and I are on the same page for this one, because—

Mrs Geraghty: You don't know that.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: To all those people out there who have gardeners and cleaners coming into your home, has this government got a deal for you! This law is about to place some extra liabilities on those people who are lucky enough, or need to bring in, regular cleaners or gardeners to their property, because they will be deemed employees, and they will be deemed to be doing an undertaking.

I will be interested to tease this out in the committee stage. There is a new concept being introduced to South Australia: if you are running a business or an undertaking—what is an undertaking? If someone comes in and does cleaning in my house, are they undertaking anything? Are they doing an undertaking? The problem is that there is no test. This has not been in South Australia; there is no test. So what you are going to see is a whole range of mums and dads exposed to issues that they have not been exposed to before.

They will have to decide whether they think the person they have got coming into their home is conducting business or an undertaking. At what point do you become a one-off contractor, come in to cut down one tree and go? At what point you become an employee, a cleaner who comes in every Wednesday, or a gardener who comes in once every two months on a regular basis?

I have a brother who is a plumber who has contracts to clean out septic tanks in the Hills during the winter on a regular basis. At what point does the householder become responsible for individuals or entities that attend their property and undertake activity on a regular basis? I look forward to someone explaining that to me in very simple English so that I can let people know in my electorate whether or not they are at greater risk.

It is not necessarily the liability that changes in the sense of the occupational health and safety liability about the risk; it is all the other things they have to do if they are undertaking a business or activity, so the owner having to warrant that they have a safe work site, having work plans and safety plans for your own house. What happens? I will explore this in the community—and the member for Torrens laughs; that's fine—

Mrs GERAGHTY: Point of order—

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Oh, sorry, she was smiling. The member for Torrens is obviously enjoying the speech, Madam Speaker. The issue becomes that there are people who now work at home. You have got all these people running one-person businesses working from home. Does that become a workplace? Under this legislation does that then inherit a different set of rules, a different set of obligations, than currently exist?

I will be interested to hear what the committee stage actually develops. I think they will ultimately—and I am sure the government is going to deny it does not—inherit any other new risk. I am sure that we will find as the time goes on that in actual fact they will.

I spoke at length yesterday on behalf of the housing industry and the building industry generally. The Australian Hotels Association wrote to us saying they did not want it. Business SA wrote to us asking us to amend it significantly. The Motor Trade Association also has raised significant concerns about the bill. Actually, I am not quite sure which industry association is saying pass the bill unamended. Other than the union movement, who, of course, get right of entry under this, I cannot find an industry association that says, 'Just whack it through because we love it.'

Only a month ago, on 13 September, the Motor Trade Association wrote to Mr Lucas, who is handling this bill in another place, and they say thank you for consulting us. They essentially say there has been consultation and discussion with other organisations revealing a number of commonly held industry concerns and the following matters are of particular interest to them: that in the event the bill is passed on 1 January 2012, the date of operation be delayed to 1 January 2013. They want it put off for a year. An absolute compromise would be 1 July 2012. This would enable stakeholders to address unintended consequences, drafting errors, impractical application of the regulations and codes of practice. The letter continues:

2. That Parliament recognise the 'right to silence' by amending the bill to disallow self-incrimination provisions which prevent the right to refuse to answer questions or provide information prior to the ability to seek leave or other advice.

3. That Parliament recognise the primary role of prohibition and improvement notices as the key preventative and correction measure used by Safe Work SA. Infringement notices should be enshrined within legislation as a secondary measure and their issue restricted to 14 days subsequent to the issue of a prohibition order or improvement notice.

4. That s 68(2)—

the member for Torrens' favourite section of the bill—

be amended to redefine 'any person' such that it be confined to personnel with specific safety, health or inspectoral background, with the power to call them in restricted situations of 'imminent danger'. The import of this amendment is that a Health and Safety representative may only call in such personnel as opposed to media and other personnel.

5. Restriction of the proposed right of entry to union personnel with a minimum certificate of three levels of recognised Health and Safety qualifications.

6. The amendment of the enforceable undertakings provision, ss 216-222, such that it is fair and equitable in the application to employers and regulators, such that it binds Safe Work SA with the same three-month period imposed upon employers.

The current provision forces the employer to assess its position in the very short time, to propose a potentially costly agreement whilst at the same time providing the regulator with a period of up to two years to accept, reject or return the terms of the agreement.

7. A primary focus on the new concept, Persons Controlling the Business Unit and not a return to the broad control test. A focus on the latter could result in the shifting of responsibility of the site manager to a more remote chairman or managing director whose primary role may be strategic management.

So, they are essentially arguing for the control test to remain. In the second reading contribution of the minister, there is an explanation of clauses, which is standard practice, and I want to raise this issue. I talked about volunteers yesterday—

Ms Chapman: You like volunteers.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I do like volunteers. They say that the term 'volunteer' is defined to mean a person who acts on a voluntary basis irrespective of whether the person received out of pocket expenses. Whether an individual is a volunteer for the purpose of the act, is a question of fact that will depend on the circumstances of the case. Then it goes on to define 'out of pocket expenses', and this is interesting from my point of view:

Out of pocket expenses are not defined but should be read to cover expenses an individual incurs directly in carrying out volunteer work; e.g. reimbursement for direct outlays of cash for travel, meals and incidentals, but not any loss of remuneration.

Now, this is the important bit:

Any payment over and above this amount.

So, any payment over and above reimbursement for direct outlays would mean that the person was not a volunteer for the purposes of the act. Now, that is clear.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I will not respond to the member for Torrens' interjection, because I think it is unreasonable, and let me explain why. There are lots of volunteer organisations that pay an honorarium.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: This does not say that the payment has to be once a year, six months a year, three months a year or weekly. This says that you are not a volunteer if you get any payment over and above expenses—the community hall committee that says to Mrs Jones, 'We'll give you $300 a year honorarium.' She has not expended a damn thing.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: It could be $2,000.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No, it says that if you receive any money over and above direct expenses, you are not a volunteer. Some smart lawyer will go in and argue, 'Okay, Mrs Jones, you got a $5,000 honorarium to be the secretary of the local footy club, so, how much of that was direct expenses?' Answer, 'None. They paid the postage, they paid the mail, they gave me the car to run.' I know football clubs are given free cars as part of the sponsorship deal.

Mr Sibbons interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: Absolutely. They gave her a $2,000 honorarium. All of a sudden she is not a volunteer. Really? I am not sure about that. The issue of honorariums becomes a live issue, because I can tell you that, all through the country community, there are little groups that pay honorariums that are over and above expenses.

Mrs Geraghty: They are about $200, $300.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No, there are some bigger honorariums than that. You should get involved in more volunteer groups, member for Torrens. There are a lot more honorariums than that.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I can come out and introduce you to some, if you want. There are lots more honorarium groups than that. I could speak a lot longer on this, but I will not.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: No. I know that the other side knows that they are going to get this legislation through this house unamended, but just as there have been unintended consequences with the nationalisation of industrial relations laws, do not worry, there will be South Australian businesses done over by this legislation—absolutely, there will be South Australian businesses done over by this legislation.

I will just reinforce the point I made yesterday. The reality is that this government has not done an assessment of the cost of this legislation on the single state business. It certainly has not done that particular assessment of the costs. They are the businesses that are going to pay the penalty, because this introduces a whole range of different obligations on a whole range of different people who are simply not ready for it.

The opposition is going to move a number of amendments and, essentially, the principle is that, on these five or six key issues, we want to take the legislation back to where it currently is, which we might recall is the government's legislation from when the member for Lee was the minister and we had the debate about SafeWork and all those laws.

The government cannot really complain about the amendments because they have been in place for a long period and it is the government's own model. We are saying, 'Take it back in these five or six key areas to what it currently is,' that is, on the issue to do with volunteers, on the issue of right to entry, on the issue of the health and safety reps being restricted as they currently are rather than just being just anyone, the issue of self-incrimination, the issue of codes of practice (which I think may be a new issue) being disallowable and the issue of control. That is all about the person who inherits the liability who has the control. It is far broader than that in this current legislation.

I know the minister might want to adjourn the debate to answer all those questions I raised on behalf of the industry groups, because I do want the answers, and I am quite happy to go into committee if the minister wants but, if he wants to adjourn it until tomorrow, there are only five principal amendments to be dealt with and we can quite easily deal with it tomorrow afternoon if he so wishes. I do have a fair few questions in the committee stage.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (21:46): It is a pleasure to follow the exceptionally thorough work of the member for Davenport and I, too, am sure that I will get a smile from the member for Torrens because I will be very brief. I will be very brief because so many issues have been covered so capably by the member for Davenport.

I would just like to put on the record my concern and desire for clarification in one main area, and that is how this legislation would affect volunteer organisations. The member for Davenport touched on that just a minute ago, and he also touched on it yesterday just before he finished the first part of his contribution.

As I understand it, the implications of this legislation would affect any organisation or person conducting a business or undertaking. We do not expect that to be volunteer organisations. However, I believe that it would affect any volunteer organisation that employs a person even just for a very short period of time. I thank the Hon. Rob Lucas in the other place for the work that he has done investigating this, and I believe that parliamentary counsel have confirmed that this fear is justified.

It is fair to say also that the Hon. Russell Wortley, the minister in the other place, is on record as having said that he does not think it is justified. Therefore, my main purpose is to ask that that be made very clear one way or the other, because we have a minister with one opinion and parliamentary counsel with another.

My concern is that if a legitimate volunteer organisation—and, as this house knows, there are far too many to count in the electorate of Stuart—employs somebody (and that might be employing somebody as a player, umpire, coach, barman, cleaner, cook, waiter or waitress, as a seamstress, potentially, for a calisthenics organisation, or something like that, as a bus driver, potentially, and the list goes on) would that organisation, even though they might just pay somebody for a few hours from time to time, and everything that that organisation does, come under this legislation?

I do not ask this question because I want any loopholes for these small groups but I know that there are small volunteer organisations in my electorate—and all over the state, city and country—who have operated very safely for decades and will continue to do absolutely everything they possibly can to do so. To burden them with an enormous amount of extra red tape I do not think is going to make them operate more safely but it is very likely to discourage their volunteers from wanting to continue or discourage more volunteers from coming on board.

Everybody in this house, regardless of what part of the state they represent, knows that it is harder and harder to get volunteers to come on board. There was an article in The Advertiser earlier this week saying that young people do want to volunteer but they do not want to do it in a structured committed way. Whether these are sporting groups, exercise groups, play groups, drama groups, any type of organisation, they do need volunteers in a structured way. We need people to get involved; we need people to commit their time, and we need younger people to get involved. They are already under pressure; they are already doing too much, and they are not going to get other people to come and lighten the load if the red tape is going to grow.

The house knows very well from the brief comments I made earlier today with regard to the 2010-11 annual report of the Parliamentary Committee on Occupational Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation that I take workplace safety—whether for volunteers or professional people—extremely seriously. However, again, I do not want volunteer organisations to be lumbered with all this extra red tape, certainly not ones that are already operating safely and have done so for decades. So, I ask the minister handling this legislation here to perhaps confer with the minister from the other place and clarify this, because I see the minister and parliamentary counsel having two completely contrary views on this particular issue, and I think it is very important that it is clarified.


[Sitting extended beyond 22:00 on motion of Hon. J.J. Snelling]


Mr VENNING (Schubert) (21:51): I think this bill will certainly cause a fair bit of angst on our side of the house, particularly amongst the business sector, and more so than we thought when we first looked at it. I want to congratulate very much the member for Davenport on his fine contribution. It was long. I do not know how long he was on his feet.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: An hour.

Mr VENNING: At least an hour; but it was not a long, ranting, boring speech because I listened to most of it and I was pretty—

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: Yes, it was.

Mr VENNING: No, honestly, the member for Davenport speaks with some experience on matters like this because he comes from the small business sector and is actually a practitioner. As we know, this bill relates to the COAG decision to harmonise work safety laws across the country. We will generally support the concept and the intention, but there are many aspects of this bill, like I said, that we will seek to have amended. This bill will allow the unions a right of entry to a worksite—same old chestnut. We have heard this before; it goes on and on. When are we ever going to learn? Why should unions have the right of entry to a worksite? I ask: what evidence is there that union involvement will improve workplace safety?

Mrs Vlahos interjecting:

The SPEAKER: Order! Do you need the protection of the chair, member for Schubert?

Mr VENNING: I stand in silence before you, Madam Speaker, when the member for Taylor laughs. Can I say that most workplaces are safety conscious and, where it is reasonable, all reasonable measures will be made, because businesses are lost without their employees. If you have a claim, if somebody gets hurt, and you are seen to have not done the right thing, you will get in trouble. So, most businesses do the right thing.

Another extremely concerning aspect of this bill relates to volunteer organisations. Volunteer organisations—service clubs, sporting organisations (as the member for Davenport has said, too) community associations, environmental groups, any volunteer organisations—will face a hugely increased risk of fines and penalties under this bill.

I have first-hand information. A few days ago I attended at the Crystal Brook Community Progress Association—not in my electorate, in the member for Frome's electorate. They were very concerned that the Crystal Brook Caravan Park has had a rebirth. It was making a loss and they were going to shut it down. They decided to put volunteers in charge of it and, in the last two years, it has been trading beautifully and making a profit. They have upgraded it and it is all good. Now this has come along and they are all very concerned. As volunteers, if they hire a tradesman to come in and do a job in the ablutions block, they are all responsible. All of a sudden, nobody wants to be involved. Have you thought this through, minister? You are going to clean out all your volunteers and you wonder why things are going so badly. You wonder why we cannot compete in the world trading place. It is just ridiculous.

I was sitting there in this meeting with about 25 people present, and they said, 'Is this true?' I said, 'There must be an explanation for this.' But as the member for Davenport has just told you, there is not. You are saying that any organisation (volunteer or otherwise) that employs a tradesperson is responsible. They take on the full responsibility of this.

Do you think you are going to stay there as a volunteer? Of course, you are not. So, who is going to run it? We will shut the caravan park. That is what you want; that is what you will get, and there will not be one. Is this a story you have heard before? Of course, you have. It has happened right across. It has happened to St John Ambulance. All those volunteer organisations are the same. Crystal Brook St John Ambulance used to have a huge brigade; now they are not there. Gone. Now the same thing is happening in the Barossa Valley. We cannot get St John to rock up to the football matches on a Saturday afternoon because the volunteers are not there because they are being held responsible. The maximum penalties can be as high as $600,000 or five years' imprisonment or both. You have got to be kidding.

In the past I have been a bit critical of the upper house, but all I can say is I hope they can fix this up because it could have huge ramifications if they do not. It really gets up my nose. If a volunteer organisation employs one person for a few hours to assist with some paperwork, running the bar at a sporting club, anything, the organisation will no longer be classified as a volunteer organisation under this bill. This is true. The minister when he stands up in a minute and closes this bill down, can he answer this? If he is, he is living in cuckoo land, if he cannot refute this argument.

This bill contains 600 regulations. How is any volunteer organisation going to manage compliance? This will significantly increase the responsibilities of volunteer organisations' management committees, usually unpaid volunteers—well, they are all unpaid—to ensure their part-time employees are complying.

Some of the maximum penalties in this bill are proposed to be $600,000, as I said, or five years' imprisonment or both. The legal responsibility this bill seeks to implement for volunteers does not currently exist. If enacted in this bill, it will increase the possibility the hardworking volunteer committee members who give their time and expect nothing in return facing litigation if a fellow volunteer is injured.

As I said, the Crystal Brook Caravan Park is just one example. Surely, any sound thinking, half smart person would oppose this. This is totally out of control, worse than a nanny state—and that is what it is. People are just sick of this; they cannot believe it. When you cannot use a step ladder to change a light bulb over two metres from the floor and you have to go and get a scaffold, there is only one word for that, and it is not parliamentary: it is bullshit.

The SPEAKER: Order, member for Schubert!

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: Have you been on the sherbets, mate?

Mr VENNING: No.

The Hon. J.J. Snelling: Are you sure?

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr VENNING: It really annoys me. I retract the statement, Madam Speaker. I just despair.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: It is beef excrement.

Mr VENNING: Beef excrement, thank you, member for Davenport. I just despair. You must hear this; as I go around, I hear this. I get it in the neck. I cannot stand in this house and accept a bill like this. Fancy having to go and get a scaffold to change a light bulb seven feet from the floor (two metres). It is a load of shingles really. These measures are going right across everything that we do.

Harvest started this evening, two hours ago. We are now reaping our grain here and, if you go near the silo, you have got to have the hard hat, the vest and the glasses on and a certificate saying you have been trained in safety. Sorry, Madam Speaker, I am inclined to say that same word again but I can't and I won't. This is ridiculous. Everybody is paranoid about being liable, so they go to these ridiculous extremes and this is what we are getting. It is just adding huge costs to everything we do.

I just want to comment briefly on the member for Davenport's contribution because I listened intently to it. I just say, look, why does the government not release the figures about the businesses that trade within one state? Why? Fancy bringing in legislation like this without these figures already there. How can you bring in legislation without knowing this? It is critical.

The extra cost of $30,000 is just ridiculous and what will those extra costs be? All the small businesses, already burdened by the highest taxes in Australia, will cop this and they will not know, until 2015, how it will affect them. Why does the government not have the capacity now to bring these figures forward?

I am not the Hon. Mr Gunn, the ex-member for Stuart, but like him I am just a common person. I am an ordinary laid-back person. This is common-sense stuff. This is not Rhodes scholar information. Why is this information not available? Minister, I will be very interested to hear what your response is to that. How does Australia having a set of work health and safety laws across all states make it better? Why do we have to have the 'harmonisation', which is the word that is used in this bill? How is that going to benefit single-state businesses? This is legislation we do not really need or want.

Business in South Australia is under severe stress. I do not believe that is under any question at all. You only need to go into Bunnings and buy a few articles. You can buy a sack truck with rubber tyres and tubes for $25. How do you think any Australian manufacturer is going to keep up with that, when you go and buy the tube for one of the wheels for about $18?

So, what are we up against here? How business can exist, survive, stay viable, I do not know. This is just yet another impost you are going to put in their way. How do they compete against the overseas imports where nothing like this would exist?

It is about time we woke up. The nanny state is certainly alive and well. I had a lunch with a business person just last week. Twenty years ago, 30 per cent of South Australians were involved with manufacturing. Today it is 6 per cent and falling. Why, you ask? It is laws and imposts like this. Are we going to legislate to protect people from any risk they take? We have heard the nanny-state criticism over many years. Well, this is right on the money. This really is nanny-state legislation.

One of the first comments I made when I came here 20-odd years ago is a thing I had about legislation for the sake of legislation. I have not made the comment much since, but can I say that I believe this is totally unwarranted, useless legislation. Why are we doing this? Purely because we have been told we have got to harmonise with every other state—what a lot of rubbish. More bureaucracy, more regulation, more red tape—how can you survive in this business environment?

Houses are already unaffordable, as the member for Davenport has said, to most people. What will this do? For those on the edge, their own home will now be more and more out of reach. Put this on top of our grossly inefficient WorkCover regime—and we heard about that today—which also puts costs on business. Our record here in South Australia is also the worst in Australia. Top that up with our unemployment which is the worst in Australia as well. It is not good, and so we bring this out and put it on top.

Health and safety laws are not working in South Australia, so what will this do? All I can say is that I look forward to what the minister will have to say in a few moments. I cannot believe we are sucked in by saying we have got to harmonise this with every other state. If it is blatantly wrong, and it is, it is high time we said, 'Hang on, enough of this nonsense.' The people out there just will not accept it.

They want to go back to common sense. If they want to get a light bulb that is three metres from the floor and they fall off the ladder, it is their fault. If you have a rickety ladder and it breaks, it is your fault. Who has a scaffold at home to change a light bulb? The member opposite raises her hand. You must have a handyman to be able to put it together, because it would be difficult to get it through the door.

Mrs Vlahos: It collapses.

Mr VENNING: It collapses. Anyway, enough from me. I again congratulate the member for Davenport and look forward to what the minister has to say. I will rely on my good friends in the Legislative Council to tidy this up.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Treasurer, Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education, Minister for Workers Rehabilitation) (22:05): I would like to thank members for their wide-ranging contributions on this bill. I will cover as many of the matters raised by honourable members as I can, and I will deal with any other matters in the third reading debate.

This bill gives effect to South Australia's commitment to the national agreement to enact consistent occupational health and safety laws across all Australian jurisdictions to be operational by 1 July 2012. The bill adopts the model Work Health and Safety Act, which has been developed nationally through extensive public consultation and endorsed by the Workplace Relations Ministers' Council and SafeWork Australia.

National harmonisation of occupational health and safety laws has been on the agenda of successive governments for over 20 years. The bill represents the culmination of many years of multilateral and tripartite engagement and discussion between the commonwealth, state and territory governments, business, union and employer groups.

Compromises were made by all parties involved to ensure the overall objective of enacting harmonised laws by 2012 could be achieved. The government developed the bill over the past three years through the productive working relationship it has with South Australian employer and employee groups and the advisory committee, who have been actively involved in each stage of the harmonisation process.

I would like to thank everyone who participated in the consultation process, which further highlights the importance of a collaborative approach in the development of work health and safety legislation. I would also like to address some of the concerns that have been raised in the course of the debate of the bill so far.

The member for Davenport would like us to think this is not nationally harmonised legislation, but in fact it is. Every state and territory has consistently supported and maintained the substantive principles of the model legislation to ensure that the same progressive standards of safety apply to all workers and businesses in Australia.

The member for Davenport suggests that no other state is going to be commencing the model legislation on 1 January 2012. I assure members that the majority of jurisdictions remain committed to the 1 January 2012 commencement date, as does the South Australian government.

The member for Bragg suggests that this legislation will add a burdensome requirement for employers to take responsibility for the condition of their employees' home environments when they are working in their home. This criticism of the bill is completely unjustified. The provisions of the bill on this matter are exactly the same as those of the current Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act 1986 which has been in operation, obviously, for many years.

The member for Waite questioned the timing and introduction of this bill, given that the establishment of the federal modern awards system in the industrial relations jurisdiction was introduced over a five-year period. In contrast to the award modernisation process, which created a completely new national award system, the proposed bill is largely consistent with our current legislation.

This means that businesses that currently comply with occupational health and safety requirements will continue to comply after the passage of the bill. Where particular aspects of the bill do justify transitional provisions, they are specified in schedule 6, part 9 of the bill. The model regulations will also contain appropriate transitional arrangements.

The model Work Health and Safety Bill 2011 is legislation that is, for the most part, directly compatible with our current legislation. If a business is complying with the current occupational health and safety requirements, it will comply with the requirements of this piece of legislation.

Most of the other concerns raised by members are largely irrelevant to the harmonisation process—only a few minor parts—as they relate to matters that are currently regulated or available under our current health and safety legislation. Concerns regarding regulatory authorities being able to seize business and property in the process of investigation and prosecution, for example, fail to consider that this already the case under existing laws. The opposition is somewhat grasping at straws in its resistance to this legislation.

A fair reading of the bill would note that the provisions on seizure (which occurs in situations where evidence is required relating to a breach of the act) contained in the bill provide improved legislative protections for businesses that have items seized for evidence. Legislative protections for provision of receipts for seized items, return, access to, and compensation are provided by the bill where they do not currently exist.

The member for Davenport in his contribution made many statements about the costs that would be imposed on the community by the bill. All these comments are rejected by the government as being completely without foundation. In particular, the member for Davenport raised concerns about the cost impact on the housing industry. While the matters raised by the member relate to the regulations and not to this bill, it is relevant to address the cost issue now.

Based on the Housing Industry Association's cost estimates, he suggests that the cost of domestic dwellings will increase by over $15,000 for a single-storey dwelling and $21,000 for a double-storey dwelling. These cost estimates are grossly exaggerated. HIA have included costs for control measures that are already required under the current legislation. Independent costing provided by Bryan Bottomley and Associates indicates a fraction of the costs announced by the HIA—approximately $1,000 for volume builders, perhaps rising to $2,000 for small builders. The independent costing was further reviewed by Paul Ogden, formerly of Housing SA. This second review confirmed that the HIA costings were inaccurate.

The measures opposed by the HIA are already in place in all other states and territories. The HIA has expressed concerns about implementing measures to prevent falls from heights. This position is rejected by the Roof Tilers Association, which has long argued for improved safety standards in South Australia. The HIA claims about fencing construction sites are misplaced. Good builders install fencing now; this is as much about protecting the site as it is about managing risks. Furthermore, the proposed regulations provide flexibility on controlling unauthorised access to construction sites. The HIA is regrettably out of touch with this requirement.

Support for the HIA position is support for lower standards of safety in South Australia compared with every other state in the country. Claims of a cost blowout are a smokescreen which places dollars ahead of improving safety. This legislation is about improving safety, not preserving financial advantage.

However, what was most interesting was the member for Davenport's view of the South Australian economy. It appears to be the member's view that should a modern updated health and safety bill be passed, it will undermine the ability of South Australia to compete with other states and we will lose competitive advantage. The government has a different view on how competitive advantage should be achieved. It should be achieved by striving for the best, and striving for innovation in our economy. Harmonised health and safety legislation that applies the same protections to all workers across Australia and imposes the same duties on all employers across Australia, including in South Australia, provides a sound foundation for such a dynamic economy.

The member for Davenport raised issues in relation to the regulatory impact statement prepared by the federal government. I presume he is referring to the RIS for the model WHS regulations and not the RIS for the model WHS act. I can confirm that the information used to develop the RIS involved an online questionnaire and focus groups. Two focus groups were held in Adelaide in February 2011.

The employer/industry focus group involved representatives from the SafeWork SA Advisory Committee, Business SA, the Housing Industry Association, the SA Wine Industry Association, the Australian Hotels Association, the Civil Contractors Association, the Australian Industry Group, the Master Builders Association, and the Motor Trade Association, as well as SAPOL, the Department of Health, and the Department of Education and Children's Services. The second focus group involved employee associations.

The RIS indicates that a range of changes were made to the draft regulations as a result of these focus groups, comment received during the public comment phase of the process, and the responses to the internet survey. The RIS also drew on regulatory impact statements and reviews conducted over the past 10 years for specific matters.

In relation to the member for Davenport's rather selective quotes from the RIS executive summary in relation to the impact of the model legislation on single state business, I would like to turn his attention to page two of the executive summary, which confirms that 'on balance the outcome is probably neutral for single state firms'. The member for Davenport requested I provide details about whether there was a single national SIG meeting to provide an exemption from the new national regime for the residential building sector. I can confirm that the last meeting of SIG was held on 25 August 2011. There was no discussion at this meeting to remove the residential construction sector from the new work health and safety system. I can also confirm that I am advised that no such discussion took place at meetings in June, July or August.

In response to concerns raised about volunteer associations, I am confident that when volunteer associations look at the model WHS act it will be clear that it is a genuine improvement over current legislation and that there is no reason for anxiety. In summary, the critical points are: firstly, the model WHS act only applies if a volunteer association employs a worker; secondly, the current confusing responsible office provisions will no longer exist; and, thirdly, if a volunteer organisation employs a worker and is brought within the scope of the act, a volunteer officer of that association will not be liable for prosecution under any of the officer offence provisions.

The member for Davenport referred to correspondence in raising a number of issues, particularly around the issues of control and PCBUs. These issues have continuously being addressed through direct consultation with stakeholders. The concept of a PCBU is important in that it recognises the changing nature of employment relationships in modern workplaces. To achieve the highest safety standards possible, it is critical that any business or undertaking that influences how work is carried out has a duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that work is carried out safely.

In response to issues raised regarding union right of entry, I draw members' attention to the already existing right of entry available to unions under current industrial relations legislation. This bill includes protections for any misuse of a right of entry permit, but I have been advised that this provision has operated successfully in several other states for many years with no major concerns. An additional source of advice on occupational health and safety issues in our workplaces will only benefit South Australians.

The member for Davenport expressed concern about the removal of the right to silence in this bill. This is a matter of balancing the public good against the individual's right to silence, and similar provisions exist in other acts. The bill adequately provides for use immunity to ensure that information an individual may provide to the regulator is not admissible against that individual as evidence in civil or criminal proceedings. The only intention of this provision is to ensure that the regulator has access to any information needed to investigate breaches of occupational health and safety legislation so as to ensure the safety of workplaces.

Members have raised concerns about the definition of any person in regard to the kind of person who a health and safety representative may look to for assistance in carrying out their obligations. This provision should be read in the context of the other specific provisions relating to the powers and functions of health and safety representatives which ensure that access to a workplace is not given to inappropriate persons, such as a journalist.

The members of Davenport mentioned some of the advantages that South Australia has, including our lower cost of living and industrial relations record. These will continue and will be built on. What the people of South Australia do not deserve is to have their workplace health and safety protections eroded, to have their health and the welfare of their families endangered in a retrograde drive to sell South Australia as a low cost state where you can ignore the safety rules apply in other states.

This bill will be supplemented by nationally harmonised regulations and codes of practice. The model work health and safety regulations (the model regulations) and codes of practice are close to finalisation and are expected to be formally endorsed by workplace relations ministers soon. Although it would not be evident from the comments of members opposite, the current bill is part of the national effort to harmonise health and safety legislation so that businesses that operate across state boundaries will only have to operate with one set of laws. Achieving this is important for our national and South Australian economy.

Members of the opposition spoke freely about their meetings with employer organisations. Representatives from the same employer organisations have sat at the negotiating table with union and jurisdictional representatives where everyone in good faith made compromises in the spirit of achieving a nationally harmonised occupational health and safety system. All of these representatives, including the employer representatives, signed up to the provisions of this bill two years ago. All the other parties to this agreement have kept their side of the bargain. South Australian employer organisations, with the assistance of the members of the opposition, now want to renege on that bargain and set the cause of a single set of occupational health and safety laws potentially back for years.

South Australia should be proud of the fact that it has reduced workplace injury compared to other states. This bill will allow us to continue to build on that impressive safety record by including progressive provisions that will continue to reduce the occurrence and seriousness of workplace injuries and fatalities. This is an opportunity for historic reform and I commend the bill to the house. If there are other matters raised by members that I have missed, I will cover them in the third reading speech.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1 passed.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.


At 22:20 the house adjourned until Thursday 20 October 2011 at 10:30.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT