HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-09-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 19 May 2011.)

Ms CHAPMAN (Bragg) (16:35): I rise to speak on the Work Health and Safety Bill 2011. My understanding is that this is a bill which the government introduced—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry, member for Bragg. I should have asked, and I apologise: are you the lead speaker on this debate?

Ms CHAPMAN: No, I am not.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are not. Thank you.

Ms CHAPMAN: My recollection is that this legislation was introduced in a similar form late last year, in fact, just on the eve of the close of the session. Some consideration was given to the adjournment of aspects of it, given the substantial regulation that needed to be considered or what was proposed by the government to introduce by regulation. The government agreed not to press ahead with the legislation at that point but to consider the opportunity for stakeholders to be fully briefed and fully able to consider its implications.

Because this is a piece of legislation under a COAG agreement for 2008, as I understand it, consistent with the National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless National Economy that had been agreed, other states have also continued to consider this matter, and I understand that debate is continuing in the federal parliament. There is an aspect that is time sensitive to this legislation: as we understand it, it is to be implemented and effective from 1 January 2012. There has been a considerable amount of consultation, and a number of stakeholders, and industry associations in particular, have presented their views in respect of this legislation.

It is always difficult to undo some of the national COAG agreements or even untangle them, but in essence the COAG agreement is to effectively introduce a national arrangement to which each of the state jurisdictions will commit. Each of the states, however, is to maintain, on an operational basis, the new national regime.

It is also my understanding that, notwithstanding other jurisdictions having passed their legislative commitment to this agreement, so far we have quite a diverse set of qualifications or variations on that theme. I suppose this highlights the difficulty in actually achieving a national scheme where there are, of course, different aspects that relate to different states and what I see always as the potential for the lowest common denominator to be absorbed in a large aspect of the proposed national reform.

I will say that the opposition are very concerned about a number of aspects of the bill, including the control test that applies, the right to remain silent, unions' right of entry, health and safety representatives' power to appoint, volunteer associations, and disallowance in respect of codes of practice. The last point is one where the identification of what these codes of practice will be makes it difficult for us to make a clear assessment. The other items that are major areas of concern will be the subject of amendment by the opposition.

There are groups, such as the Law Council of Australia, who have expressed their disquiet—which I think is an understatement—at the right to remain silent aspect of this bill being pummelled. Whilst the Chair of the Law Council has publicly indicated that they will not be opposing the bill and that there are aspects of this bill, of course, that are worthy of endorsement, this is an aspect that remains a concern.

It is always difficult for any stakeholder, when they appreciate that there is a significant benefit in some or part or even most of a piece of legislation that is foreshadowed, to oppose the legislation based on an aspect that they do not agree to. It is important for us as the opposition to identify where those defects apply and where we may be able to remedy that situation, and it is our responsibility to do so.

Even though the government may say, 'The Law Council or the Law Society of South Australia has signed up to this and other Liberal governments have signed up to it,' it does not mean that this house should accept that it has been done on the basis that there is a wholesale agreement with all of the aspects of the bill. What it usually means—and consistently in this instance—is that the stakeholders accept the majority of aspects of the legislation, but there are aspects that they still remain unhappy with.

Are they prepared to let the whole of the legislation lapse because of it? Probably not, and that is where the government is able to apply significant pressure on them to have the benefit of what is about to be a model bill. If South Australia passes this legislation, it will adopt this bill to replace its own legislation. It will remain state legislation if it is passed, which is important. In the meantime, I indicate that, unless there are significant amendments to this legislation, I will be opposing the bill. I am not the lead speaker, but I am sure that the member for Davenport will very clearly set out our position as the lead speaker on this matter.

I think there are a couple of aspects that are facing risk of even inadvertent capture. One is that volunteer organisations, if they employ somebody for a couple of hours per week to operate a bar for fundraisers or that type of thing, could be the subject of this type of legislation, which would be onerous and unacceptable. Another area that certainly concerns me, because women in the workforce often avail themselves of this, is the opportunity to undertake employment from home.

That is sometimes to ensure they have some work-life balance (as is the contemporary phrase), but essentially it means to be able to undertake duties such as child care, the care of an aged person or a person with a disability, to undertake functions, or to support volunteer organisations in the community—activities, children, schools, etc. These are all important aspects for many women in the workforce to be able to juggle. The opportunity, if the employer is agreeable, for them to work from home for all or part of their employment duties is an important one.

If, in fact, this legislation were to have the effect that there would be an obligation for employers effectively to be responsible for the safety of that employee when they are operating their work duties in their own home, it would have the direct consequence of the employer inevitably having to undertake some assessment about the safe workplace in which that person lived. So, we would have this absurd situation where someone wishes to work from home, and somebody from their place of employment would need to come to that person's home, inspect the premises and make some assessment as to whether that is a safe place for that person to work—that they cannot trip over toys in the house or that there is some aspect that needs to be complied with—to enable them to operate from home.

I do not doubt for one moment that a direct consequence of this is that employers will say to their employees, 'Look, I'm sorry; this is something that we said we cannot afford to do. We don't actually want to do it anyway. We don't want to go into your home, but we have to protect ourselves from the liability of you being at risk in your own home.' It could be anything: the placement of furniture, the electrical cords not being properly checked, whatever the health and safety aspect, that employee working from home may put the employer at risk of liability. They will have to say to the employee, 'I'm sorry; that is not going to be available to you, and therefore you will have to come to work in our premises from which we operate.'

That would be a major impediment to women being able to stay in the workforce in occupations that they currently undertake at a time when we are very keen to promote everyone into the workforce who has the skills. We have clearly got some very significant skills shortages in this state. That would have a monumental impact on the capacity for these people to undertake their employment.

I would urge the government in due course to listen carefully to the arguments on amendments that will be put, including to protect against this absurd situation that may occur as a result of this legislation being imposed without the amendments that will be sought. With those few words, I am very happy for other members to contribute to this debate, which I will listen to carefully.

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (16:48): On 3 July 2008, the South Australian government entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Occupational Health and Safety, which committed all jurisdictions to implementing uniform occupational health and safety legislation, regulations and codes of practice before the end of 2011 to be operational by 1 January 2012.

The South Australian government remains firmly committed to the national harmonisation process, and this bill gives practical effect to that commitment by enacting the national model Work Health and Safety Act in this state. The model Work Health and Safety Act was developed by Safe Work Australia, with representatives from employers, employees and government following an extensive national consultation process.

This bill introduces some key principles which are new to work health and safety law in South Australia and which will significantly benefit work health and safety in this state. Some key features of this bill which are new to South Australia are:

the definition of duty holding individuals and organisations as 'a person conducting a business undertaking' to recognise the diversity of modern working arrangements;

the provision for union officials with appropriate training, permits and safeguards against procedural abuses to enter workplaces and consult with workers and also inquire into suspected contradictions of the act;

the introduction of enforceable undertakings as an alternative to costly prosecution and litigation when there is a breach of the act;

the introduction of a mechanism for the internal review of decisions of inspectors in relation to a range of matters; and

increased penalties for breaches of work health and safety duties.

The definition of the primary work health and safety duty holder in the bill is a 'person conducting a business or undertaking' (PCBU). This definition recognises that modern working relationships do not necessarily always take the form of a contract of employment. As well as this, the definitions of a worker and workplace have been changed to reflect the more contemporary nature of work beyond the traditional employee and employer relationship. This will ensure that protection is provided to workers wherever and however they perform work.

These expanded definitions will provide clarity and certainty for businesses and workers about their rights and obligations under the act. The concept of a person conducting a business or undertaking will provide greater certainty about workplace duties by removing the ambiguity around the responsibilities of different business operations, such as contractors, franchisors and labour hire companies. Importantly, the concept of a PCBU does not extend to a person's private or domestic activities or to volunteer associations as they are defined in the bill.

In relation to volunteers, the bill reduces the legal obligations placed on voluntary organisations and provides greater clarity about their occupational health and safety responsibilities. Under the bill, volunteer organisations will only have duties if they employ workers. Unlike South Australia's existing Occupational Health, Safety and Welfare Act, the bill does not require the appointment or training of a responsible officer.

The bill provides for union officials to have a limited right of entry to workplaces for the purposes of investigating a suspected contravention of the legislation, or for the purposes of consulting workers who are either members of the union or entitled to be members of the union. These particular provisions are new to South Australia; however, the right of union officials to enter workplaces for industrial relations purposes is an established feature of local workplace relations legislation, and right of entry for occupational health and safety purposes is also an established feature in all other mainland states. In particular, unions have a right of entry under both the commonwealth Fair Work Act and the South Australian Fair Work Act 1994.

Enforceable undertakings will be a new feature in South Australia's occupational health and safety legislation. An enforceable undertaking is an agreement which may be entered into by a person conducting a business or an undertaking and the regulator when the regulator is contemplating prosecuting the PCBU for a breach of the act. However, enforceable undertakings will not be considered for the worst category of offence under the act (a category 1 offence).

In an enforceable undertaking, the person conducting a business or undertaking can agree to take certain specified steps to rectify the alleged breach or improve the occupational health and safety performance in their business or undertaking, or otherwise take action that will be beneficial to occupational health and safety. Enforceable undertakings are an alternative to prosecution. They are seen as a departure from the traditional punitive approach of prosecuting for one-off or unlikely to be repeated events, providing a responsive and timely sanction that can form part of an effective enforcement strategy.

Enforceable undertakings have been used successfully in other jurisdictions as an alternative to costly prosecution of litigation. Importantly, an undertaking made by a person is not an admission of guilt, and it gives the regulator an additional tool to ensure compliance. These undertakings have the potential to alleviate concerns about the impact of legal proceedings on small business, workers and victims' families.

Small businesses, for example, will have the opportunity to suggest that they enter into an enforceable undertaking with the regulator instead of facing the prospect of expensive litigation. Enforceable undertakings will also give victims' families the chance to see justice done more rapidly than undertaking a potentially lengthy proceeding in the judicial system.

Under the bill, penalties for a breach of work health and safety duties are higher than the current penalty regime. Higher penalties are being introduced as part of the national harmonisation process, with the quantum of penalties set in the model legislation developed by Safe Work Australia, following the National Review into Model Occupational Health and Safety Laws and a national public consultation process. The extent of the penalties reflects the importance that this government, as well as other Australian governments, attach to workplace health and safety.

To ensure fairness and accountability in the conduct of the functions and powers of work health and safety inspectors, in another new feature, the bill provides a mechanism for internal review of their decisions in relation to a range of matters. The bill provides for an internal review in relation to a number of prescribed decisions by work health and safety inspectors. Following an internal review, a decision of an inspector is capable of external review by application to the Industrial Relations Court of South Australia. This external review will be conducted by a review committee similar to current practice in South Australia. The capacity for an internal review of an inspector's decision is new for South Australia.

This bill will also be complemented by regulations and codes of practice. These will provide further clarity on how to meet obligations in practice and will ultimately help reduce the cost of workplace injury and illness to businesses and workplaces. I am advised the bill was developed following extensive local consultation with business, employer and union groups. This local consultation occurred through the SafeWork SA Advisory Committee which comprises representatives from key business, employer and employee groups including Business SA and SA Unions. Other employer and business organisations were also kept actively involved at all stages of the drafting process.

It is vital for South Australian businesses and workers that all jurisdictions enact this model legislation to deliver consistent harmonised national work health and safety legislation throughout Australia. It will benefit business, provide strong protection for workers and help reduce even further the tragedy of workplace injury and death, which is an important objective for all South Australians.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (16:56): I rise to speak against this bill. I am not the lead speaker; my friend the member for Davenport will speak on behalf of the opposition, but I want to make a brief contribution. I want to remind the proponents of this bill of the economic climate faced by this state and by this country at present. I want to start by reminding members opposite that the world is going through a global financial crisis which is heading in unforeseen directions. I want to remind them that, as we sit here debating this matter, Europe and the United States burdened by debt may well be on the cusp of another round of bank defaults and credit crises that could spiral out of control very quickly and have rapid consequences for Australia and for our markets. We are in very uncertain financial times globally at present.

Nationally this is flowing through to a wind down in economic activity. The Treasurer would be well aware—and I am sure that Treasury advisers are telling him—that he may be facing decreasing revenues as a result of wind backs in GST revenues and losses through our investments as a result of drops in global markets. This is not a time to be burdening businesses with further red tape and regulation. This is not a time to be pushing up the cost of housing and construction through compliance costs by having to meet a new raft of occupational health and safety changes in the name of 'harmonisation'.

I draw the house's attention to the Royal Commission into the Building and Construction Industry 2002 report by Terence Cole where he talks about the misuse of safety issues for industrial purposes. I remind them of this passage on page 97 of his report:

During my meetings with some of the leading participants in the industry, I was told that occupational health and safety is frequently used by unions as an industrial relations tool. Many participants said that abuse of occupational health and safety concerns is a major issue in the industry. Many participants commented that safety matters are frequently raised by union officials whenever an industrial issue arises on a site. When the industrial relations processes have been exhausted in trying to resolve a dispute, safety issues are raised by the union. One reason for this, it was suggested, is that safety stoppages provide paid strike time, whereas industrial strikes do not.

On page 108 of his report, when he attempts to define the issue, he repeats:

Occupational health and safety is often misused by unions as an industrial tool. This trivialises safety, and deflects attention away from real problems. Unions have a legitimate interest in the safety of their members. This should not be altered. However, the scope for misuse of safety must be reduced and if possible eliminated. There must be a proper mechanism for identifying, isolating and safely resolving real questions of safety, preferably co-operatively with the workers and managers directly involved, but if necessary with the aid of a responsible occupational health and safety authority.

This report makes the point that the best way to resolve occupational health and safety is for business and workers—with the assistance of their union, by all means—to work together on reducing safety risks at work. It is not by introducing a new layer of compliance costs through legislation and associated regulation that will burden business down. This is the wrong time to be introducing a new raft of regulatory requirements through which businesses must hurdle.

I have just spent the morning talking to business groups and industry groups, ranging from the construction industry through to the retail industry through to metal prefabrication through to property developers—the lot. They have a simple message: their businesses are all struggling. In country businesses, employment is under stress. Their turnovers, particularly in the last year to two years, are at risk, and almost every one of them talked about having let workers go and having to cut back costs. In particular, they are having trouble competing with emerging economies like China. In particular the steel industry and the prefabrication industry are struggling to compete.

We have just had Göran Roos, the government's Thinker in Residence, reminding us all that we have to change the way we are doing things, and one of the points he makes is that here in Australia our businesses are not only facing much higher labour costs than in emerging economies, they are not only paying far more taxation in many cases than in emerging economies (both state and federal), but they are burdened by overwhelming compliance costs. They are having to comply with burdensome environmental constraints, all of which arguably are necessary.

You can argue until the cows come home about how clean and green you want to be, but the trouble is that, if your competitors are not doing that, you are at a competitive disadvantage. We have already had the remarkable news that apparently—I think it is the new department of the clean and green—the new department of climate change or whatever is ordering its steel or its aluminium from China, from a smelter where there are no environmental constraints because it is cheaper. Hello? The more burdens you put on business, the more they will struggle to survive, and these occupational health and safety compliance costs are yet another example of hurdles over which industry will have to jump.

Sure, you can justify many of these if you look at them in isolation, but they all add up to an equation. I understand—and my friend the member for Davenport will explore this during the committee stage—that one of the consequences of this is that we will be fencing off every individual house as we build, rather than fencing off the estate. That is the concern from industry: that we will need new scaffolding, new fencing, new this, new that.

It is up to the proponents of this bill to argue that it is necessary. It is up to the proponents of this bill to show us how many deaths, how many injuries and how many catastrophes are occurring out there that warrant this sort of burden on industry. You will never eliminate all safety risks from the workplace. You can triple or quadruple the burdens you put on industry with compliance to the point where they just close up shop and go broke, if you want to, in the name of safety. You will never eliminate it totally. It is a matter of striking a balance.

This bill is full of red tape, and I must say that I am startled that it has got as far as it has. Obviously it is being pushed by a federal Labor government with the support of state Labor governments but, sadly, I see it is also being picked up in varying forms by Liberal state governments in one way or another. I must say that I am very surprised that industry groups have not been more forceful in their opposition to this bill. I know some have come out opposed to it lock, stock and barrel; others have come out and sought that it be amended but have basically caved in.

I suggest to them that their members may discover in a few months or a few years from now, when they try to comply with the costs being put upon them in this bill, that they are very unhappy with their industry association for not having more earnestly fought this, because a lot of builders, a lot of people in the construction industry, a lot of people in the manufacturing industry and in other industries who will have to comply with this, because they are family businesses, do not yet understand what this is going to mean for them. Boy, they soon will when it becomes law! They soon will.

By then it will be in place and it will be too late. When the unions come knocking, demanding right of access, and when some of the more punitive issues in this bill hit home, it will very much be bought home to them that there is a bill to pay. Let me just point out to the house some of the comments that have been made about this measure. Let me talk about the view of the Housing Industry Association. They are very concerned about it. They argue:

The proposed legislation will be dire for South Australia. It will increase red tape and reduce housing affordability. It will not improve safety.

Now, this is the association representing the industry sector. Is anybody listening to them? We have been told that there has been exhaustive consultation. They say:

It will hurt South Australian businesses and undermine the state economy at a time when business activity is decreasing, and unemployment is increasing.

Is anybody listening? They say:

History shows that the state economy generally grows when the construction industry is vibrant. The industry employs approximately 50,000 people in this state alone and accounts for over $4.4 billion of economic activity.

The Housing Industry Association advises that:

This bill will hurt homeowners and exacerbate South Australia's worsening housing affordability crisis. Preliminary estimates show that this legislation will increase a single-storey home by $14,250, and $20,900 for a double-storey home.

So what the government is doing by introducing this bill is condemning home-owners to an additional cost of up to $21,000 for the construction of their home. I bet they argue that the housing industry has it wrong—'They don't know how to add up. What would they know? They are just the industry body representing the builders. We'll just dismiss that.' Well I put it to you, Madam Speaker, that the Housing Industry Association's dire predictions will be delivered by this bill. The industry says:

The government has still not provided all the codes of practice (there are 23 still to be released). Therefore it makes no sense to consider the bill without knowing the entire picture and ramifications for all South Australians.

I must say that I agree with them. Has anyone spoken to the Australian Hotels Association? They are very concerned about this legislation, and I am sure the member for Davenport, as the lead speaker on this bill, will go through the reasons why when he puts forward the amendments. They consider the bill:

...will be a significant impost on Small Businesses which constitute approximately 70 per cent of venues covered by the AHA, i.e., less than 50 employees.

We believe the offence and penalty provisions, as contained in the act, and linked by the regulations, will be burdensome. Of particular concern, there are significant increases in the penalties to be applied to an officer—a person conducting a business or undertaking—and a body corporate, for each of the three categories of offences.

The implementation of the model Work Health and Safety Legislation will require a significant information and education campaign...

The establishment of the Federal Modern Award system in the Industrial Relations Jurisdiction, bringing over 4,400 Awards into 122, had been introduced with a five-year transition period...yet this bill does not provide for such a transition period.

Let's talk about the Independent Contractors of Australia; they, again, are very concerned about the bill. Now the industry acknowledges there are some advantages in the bill. They state:

For example, it:

Ties work safety responsibilities to what is 'reasonable and practicable'.

Ensure the presumption of innocence.

Gives power of prosecution only to SafeWork SA (the designated regulator) or an inspector authorised to do so, with a fall-back advisory role for the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Has a layered worker and union consultation process with checks and balances.

Has a layered approach to compliance, starting with cooperation and building to enforcement.

However, the [model] bill fails significantly in that it will diminish both safety and criminal justice in South Australia.

Safety because it:

Creates confusion over who controls workplaces and hence who has safety responsibilities. This is because of the introduction of the previously unknown concept within the OHS legislation—namely, 'a person conducting a business or undertaking'.

Business SA makes the same observation. Has anyone spoken to them? I hope so. It continues:

This new, non-defined concept supersedes 'control' as the central identifier of who is responsible in workplaces as currently exists in South Australia. The behavioural consequence will be that people at work will be unsure about responsibilities—potentially weakening the focus on safety. This is a risk that should not be taken.

[The bill] waters down the importance of codes of practice when compared with the current South Australian Act.

[The bill also lets the community down on] criminal justice because it:

Removes the right to silence and protection from self-incrimination—key rights under criminal law currently available in the South Australian OHS Act.

Enables OHS authorities to seize businesses and the property without due process—something that is not a feature of the current South Australian Act.

The contractors identify four flaws:

Flaw number One: The Bill introduces and applies a previously unknown concept…[that is] a person conducting a business or undertaking

A significant point.

Flaw number Two: the Bill waters down the importance of codes of practice…

Flaw number Three, the Model Bill removes the right to silence and protection from self-incrimination—key human rights under the criminal law…

Flaw number four: the Model Bill enables OHS authorities to seize businesses and their property without court oversight.

Has anybody spoken to the Master Builders Association of South Australia? Okay, so they are enthusiastic about the bill and cannot wait for it to be introduced, I gather. I see staff nodding from the sidelines. Well, that is not quite what they have told other MPs in this place. They are very concerned about a host of matters to do with the bill. Again, I am just startled that the opposition to the bill has not been even more strident.

There are major areas that need addressing in this bill: the control test, the right to remain silent, the issue of a union's right of entry, health and safety representatives' power to appoint, how it will affect volunteer associations, and what it means for codes of practice. My friend, when he speaks as the lead speaker, will pick up those issues and the opposition will move amendments, and I will leave him to talk about those issues. I simply want to begin to wrap up by saying that the timing of this is wrong, given the current global national and state economic position.

This is not a time to be burdening business with new regulatory imposts and new costs of compliance which, as the house has just heard, risk putting up the cost of housing by up to $21,000 for a double-storey dwelling. It is the wrong time to do this. Second, I think it is another piece of Labor legislation that has been made without a full understanding of the needs of small business and family business, without a clear understanding of the pressure those businesses are experiencing at the present and how this sort of thing burdens them down.

These sorts of pieces of legislation are just a breeze for government officers to dream up; they really are. They are just a dream for union officials to dream up. They are just a dream for ministerial advisors to tinker with—those who are on secure incomes from their union or from the government doing what, in many respects, seems principled and well worthwhile. But, I can tell you, as someone who ran a small business, who had six business sites in two states and 120 staff, you get into the habit of going to the mailbox and, if it is not a cheque, you put it in the pending tray.

When you are filling out your superannuation returns and sending off cheques for that; when you are filling out your WorkCover forms and sending that off; when you are paying your bills; when you are dealing with your payroll; when you are dealing with your customers and trying to keep them happy; and when you are dealing with hiring and firing and the many employment issues—things that most people in the Labor Party have never heard of because they have never, ever had to do it—some have, but very few. They have spent their whole lives characterising business people as evil people who go around ripping people off, and killing and injuring workers. What a load of rot. A lot of this sort of legislation typifies that twisted thinking.

It may shock them to know that the vast majority of employers want their employees to benefit from their hard work and successful business as well, that the vast majority of employers want to reward them and pay them well for productivity improvement. The vast majority of employers want to run a happy and safe work place and want to deal with all the potential risks to health and safety in a cooperative way and they can do so generally without the interference of the union, which may surprise and shock union members. There are very many happy worksites where the union just gets in the way.

That is not to diminish unions. I am not an enemy of unions. In many respects, they perform a valued role and in many worksites their role is important and critical. However, this will empower unions that do not need to be empowered, create new levels of bureaucracy that are not needed and create new compliance costs that small businesses at this particular point do not need—with some tangible benefits but very few when you look at the costs and imposts that this bill will prescribe. I am not a fan of this bill.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (17:16): I indicate that I am the lead speaker on this particular bill, and I thank my colleagues the members for Waite and Bragg for their contributions. I want to indicate that the opposition has a number of amendments that will be dealt with during the committee stage and, if the amendments are not successful, we will be dealing with the legislation in the other place and seeking to amend it in the other place or, indeed, defeat the legislation.

I come to this legislation in a rather unique position. I think I am the only person who comes from the building industry within this chamber, with a degree in building, with a brother who is a plumber and another who is a carpenter, and a nephew who is a carpenter. I ran my own building business, with my family, prior to entering this place, so I think I have a reasonable understanding of the impact of occupational health and safety and, indeed, the importance of occupational health and safety laws on industry, and particularly that industry. I also ran a small business in relation to retailing, and there are different issues about occupational health and safety in that area.

However, there is one thing that is absolutely crystal clear with this legislation: this legislation is going to put up the cost of housing in South Australia. There is nothing surer than that. The problem the government has in relation to this legislation is it simply has not made a case as to how this legislation actually makes the workplace safer and reduces occupational health and safety injury.

There is not one report that has been supplied to the opposition that indicates that there will be guaranteed fewer workplace injuries, or even an indication of fewer workplace injuries. There has been modelling done at the federal level, which I will come to, which talks about a regulatory impact statement and possible savings due to reduction in duplication.

I will come to that in a second, because the reality is the intention here of the Labor government to harmonise these laws has become quite farcical because the one certain thing out of all of this is there will be a different set of laws in every state. There will be a different set of laws in every state regardless of the government's intention to harmonise the legislation.

Queensland has adopted the legislation. A single house of parliament, of course, whacked it through, no doubt with a lesser level of scrutiny than this bill is about to get in this chamber. New South Wales amended the bill to make it more union friendly, so there is a different set of clauses in the New South Wales bill from what is in this bill. The Western Australian government has basically parked the bill for a few months. They want to do some more work and their own modelling on exactly what it is going to do. The Victorian government have parked it; they are doing a similar thing to Western Australia.

So, this is an attempt to harmonise the laws, but there are two things that are guaranteed to come out of this, in my view. One is it will be more expensive to conduct a business in South Australia after these laws are in than before these laws were in. Secondly, the laws will not be the same in every state. They will not be harmonised in every state. It has been a long process since, I think, the middle of 2008. It has been a long process to achieve non-harmonised laws.

The issue about the cost saving, I think, is a very relevant one. I pick up the point the member for Waite makes in relation to the costs of business. At some point, the parliament has to stand back and say what level of red tape and what level of compliance costs we are putting on industry and how we actually expect them to deliver a cost-affordable product to the consumer when there is this level of compliance.

I come from the housing industry, so I will talk a little bit about the housing industry because I have some intimate knowledge of that particular industry. Let me make it clear that our business started with three people—three brothers in one car. So, we were a microbusiness. We started as a microbusiness. The cost and responsibility on that style of business through this legislation would be prohibitive. The codes of conduct that the industries are asked to look at and apply by are interesting.

Mrs Geraghty: Are you displaying something, Iain?

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: I am not displaying it. I am just getting out the codes of conduct, ready to speak to them, member for Torrens. I think it is important that the house realises exactly what the burden is that they are putting on business. There are codes of conduct that industry are going to be required to comply with. There are going to be codes of conduct that businesses are going to be required to comply with.

For the government to stand up and parrot that it has consulted the industry about these particular issues is a nonsense. It is a nonsense. The reality is that there has been some consultation on the issue of the legislation proper. There are 600 pages of regulation that are sight unseen—600 pages of regulation. Then, there are over 5,000 pages of codes.

I had a family function the other night and I asked my brother, who is a plumber and has four or five people who work for him, 'Are you aware of this? It comes in in 10 weeks.' Now, he has only been in the industry for 35 years, so he is pretty well connected to the industry. He knew nothing about it.

My great concern is not for those industries that are large enough to be involved in the industry associations because they have at least had some contact, I suspect, through their industry associations. The real concern is for those micro and small businesses that are not involved with those industry associations. They are going to get ambushed. They are going to get ambushed by an increased cost, they are going to get ambushed by increased regulations, they are going to get ambushed by increased liabilities, they are going to get ambushed by increased penalties and they are going to get ambushed by 5,000 to 6,000 pages of codes, 600 pages of regulations and a brand-new law—all in the great hope that the laws can be harmonised Australia-wide.

Let me talk about harmonising laws Australia-wide for a second. I think the parliaments need to start thinking about exactly what they are doing to the unsuspecting public out there in the great call for harmonisation. Let us have a look at what has happened in the great call for harmonisation. There was the harmonisation of industrial relations laws, which has resulted in the penalty rates for the catering and retail sectors to go up to 250 per cent. As a result, businesses simply are not opening when those penalty rates apply.

So, there has been an increased cost to businesses or a restriction of their trade as a result of that particular element. Apparently it was very important that the barber shop in Bundaberg has the same rules that the barber shop in Bunbury or Blackwood has. However, the increased cost is massive on the single-state operator business. Other legislation that is currently before the house is the new education and childcare regulations, which will put up the cost of childcare fees 25 per cent as a result of national harmonisation. Again, it is an extra cost burden.

Then there is this legislation. In the interests of national harmonisation, we are going to see in the case of my industry, according to the Housing Industry Association, the cost of housing put up $20,000 for a single-storey house and closer to $30,000 for a double-storey house. There is not anything different in the house, just increased cost compliance, all in the great hope that we can harmonise the legislation. To what end benefit?

Surely, if you are going to change the law, particularly about occupational health and safety, it should be about either increasing compliance, reducing costs or improving safety. Nowhere in 5,000 to 6,000 pages of codes, 600 pages of regulations, the legislation, the regulatory impact statement put out by the commonwealth government or any document given to the opposition does it meet those three tests.

We are now in 2011. This started in 2008. I think it actually went back further than that. They signed off in 2008. I think there were press releases around in 2007 or 2006. The state government has had at least three years to do its own economic modelling of what this would do to the price of housing, the employment impact and all those things. There is not a document that the parliament can be given to show what the impact will be on employment, cost compliance or worker safety outcomes, but we have to vote for it, if you believe the government, because it will harmonise laws. There has to be a better argument for a change than to simply say, 'We are going to make the laws harmonious.'

There is an issue for South Australia, and South Australia in particular. That is, if we continually go down the path of trying to make ourselves the same as the rest of Australia, we are going to lose our competitive advantage. I can remember as minister for industry and trade that, in the glory years, many decades ago, we used to go to the eastern states, plunder their business and try to attract them to South Australia, based on our lower cost of living, our better industrial relations record and our better workplace safety record, and businesses would come and invest in South Australia.

What is happening in the chase of the great white hope of harmonisation is that we are trying to make ourselves the same as the rest of Australia. That ultimately narrows our competitive base and the tools of competition, which is to our disadvantage. If the cost structure and the occupational health and safety structure—the tools of competitiveness—are essentially the same in every state then businesses are more likely to locate next to their biggest market, and we are not the biggest market for most industries.

We are undermining our competitiveness long term. We are undermining our competitiveness long term in the great hope of harmonisation, and that is what we are doing—that is exactly what we are doing. The reality is that the push for harmonisation is, ultimately, slowly but surely undermining South Australia's competitive position going forward.

Let me talk a little bit about the housing industry. If people want to know why the cost of housing is going up, go straight to the words of cost compliance and regulation. The issues that have been put onto the housing industry over the last two or three years are adding significantly to the cost of housing, but is there a measure of that within this bill? Is there a document looking at that to ask what this will actually do to the first home owner or to the person seeking social housing? There has not been an analysis of it.

Look at the housing industry. First of all, state Treasury, under treasurer Foley, has started to apply (I think the number is circular 34, which is to do with payroll tax and contractors) in a very aggressive manner. I raised it with the Treasurer, saying, 'You do realise that some builders have actually stopped trading as a result of the approach of Treasury. Some builders are actually getting fined more than $300,000 as a result of this. There needs to be some clarity around the interpretation of this particular circular, so can we have a look at it?' The response was, 'Bad luck; if they are dodging tax they deserve to have the penalty.'

I then went to the Economic and Finance Committee and said, 'There is a problem here. You're putting builders out of work.' The reality was that in the Economic and Finance Committee my colleagues from the other side said they had no complaints and that they were not going to deal with it. There is a cost compliance issue in relation to the treatment of contractors and payroll tax.

Then you go to the federal government: it has just informed the building industry that they are going to make things even more difficult for the building industry. They have introduced a new provision that goes to the whole issue of these costs and OH&S. The proposed new government policy on independent contractors threatens the livelihood of the industry. What they are going to do is ask that every single contractor who makes a payment to another contractor has to notify the Australian Taxation Office. Think about that—every contractor in the building industry, and there are a couple of them.

The Australian housing market is built on the subcontracting system. That is why Australia has had, up until recent times at least, a relatively cheap housing system. What they are doing federally now is asking every contractor to notify the tax office—and you will be penalised if you do not—of every single contracting payment. So, they have got the payroll tax issue at the state level, they have got the contracting issue at the federal level and then, just to help them out, this government and, indeed, the federal government and governments all around Australia are considering bringing in 5,000 pages of codes, 600 pages of regulation, and a new bill that will push up the price of housing by $20,000 for a new house and $28,000 for a two-storey house. I know that my colleague needs to speak to another bill, so I have an agreement with the government that I will pause my contribution and seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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