HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-02-10 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

WORKPLACE SAFETY

The Hon. S.G. WADE (15:02): I seek leave to make a brief explanation before asking a question of the Minister for Industrial Relations.

Leave granted.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: As the minister advised the house yesterday, Daniel Nicholas Madeley died in a work accident in June 2004. Six years later SafeWork SA commenced a compliance project to identify the number of horizontal and vertical borers at South Australian workplaces. The project commenced in May 2010, the same month in which the inquest into Mr Madeley's death commenced.

The project found that 78 South Australian workplaces had borers on site but, as at 29 September 2010, only seven of those businesses had been visited. As a result, three prohibition notices and five improvement notices were issued. In September 2010, SafeWork SA gave an undertaking to the Coroner to provide a further update on the outcome of the compliance project.

As at yesterday, the Coroner advises that no further information had been provided to him. The Coroner says in his report:

Given that the project started in May 2010 and is not yet complete in February 2011, it is fair to say that the project is hardly proceeding expeditiously. In my opinion, some greater sense of urgency should be applied to this project.

In light of the Coroner's comments, I ask the minister:

1. Given the failure of SafeWork SA to provide the update on the compliance report to the Coroner that it promised, will the minister now provide an update on the compliance project to this council?

2. When does the minister expect the compliance report will be completed?

3. Given the rate of site visits in the first five months of the compliance project, the visits alone will take a further 3½ years. In that context, does the minister agree with the Coroner that the progress of the compliance report is unacceptably slow and needs to be given some greater level of urgency?

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN (Minister for Industrial Relations, Minister for State/Local Government Relations, Minister for Gambling) (15:04): As I indicated yesterday, the finding of the inquest into the death of the late Mr Madeley was handed down yesterday by the Coroner. As yet I have not had the opportunity to read the entire findings. I have started doing so, but, as I indicated to the house yesterday, I will carefully and thoughtfully consider what is in the findings of the inquest and come back to the house.

When we are talking about the tragic death of a young man and the need to avoid such deaths happening in future, I am not going to be rushed into a precipitate or foolish response without being able to properly consider the findings of the Coroner and the full details of what he has had to say.

I can advise the house of the recommendations that the Coroner makes. He has made a couple of recommendations relating to investigations. He believes the SafeWork SA Advisory Committee, which is established under health and safety legislation, should 'examine the practices of SafeWork SA in the period preceding 5 June 2004 in order to consider the adequacy of the inspection regime that was then in place'.

He similarly recommends that the SafeWork SA Advisory Committee examine the practices 'after 5 June 2004 in order to consider the adequacy of the inspection regime that has been in place since then'. The Coroner has gone on to suggest that 'the Government consider a major reform to the current system'—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: I didn't ask you to read it to the house.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: —'of criminal prosecution for fatal industrial accidents.'

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Just reading it will do.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: The opposition has been saying, 'Why haven't you read it? Why aren't you making an instant response without properly considering what the Coroner's findings have to say?' Here I am, actually referring to the findings of the inquest, and they are being critical.

So, which is it? Should I have flicked through the findings of the inquest and quickly come to a conclusion and said, 'This is what we will do' without thinking about it, without carefully considering it and without taking into account what the Coroner has had to say on the full background and facts of the matter, or should I have ignored it? Apparently, neither is satisfactory to members of the opposition. They have been criticising me for not having had an instant response and here they are saying, 'What are you doing reading it?' So, which is it?

I can advise the house that, as I said, the Coroner has suggested that 'the government consider a major reform of the current system of criminal prosecution for fatal industrial accidents'. He has gone into some detail about that in relation to three points in particular that he thinks consideration should be given to in relation to a reform of the law.

I might advise the shadow attorney-general that it would be quite prudent, I would have thought, in considering significant changes to criminal law, to consult the Attorney-General, the chief law officer of the state. Apparently, the shadow attorney-general thinks that I should just rush like a bull at a gate, within a day and a half of the Coroner's findings being published, and hop up here in the house and tell them that I am going to make significant changes to the criminal law in South Australia.

According to the shadow attorney-general, I should not carefully consider what the Coroner has to say, as I indicated yesterday that I would. As I have indicated, I have started reading the findings of the inquest. As I have indicated, I have started considering the findings of the inquest. However, it would be irresponsible of me to make some sort of instantaneous response to the findings of an inquest. It would be absurd and, as I indicated yesterday in the house, I will carefully consider what the Coroner has to say.

I think it would be quite inappropriate and irresponsible of me, within a day and a half of what the Coroner has had to say being published, for me to be hopping up here and saying I am going to make serious, significant changes to the criminal law without consulting the Attorney-General or the judiciary or the agency that is involved in the administration of health and safety legislation.

Members interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order! Now, the Hon. Mr Wade will come to order and the Hon. Mr Holloway will come to order. Have you completed your answer, minister?

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: No. As I have indicated, it would not be prudent or responsible of me to recommend significant changes to the criminal law within a very short period of time of the findings of the inquest—

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Dawkins will come to order, too.

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: —being published. To suggest that when it comes to a legal judgement it is just a matter of reading it and, from there, you would know exactly what response to make and you would be able to report straight away to the council—I am sorry, but the findings of an inquest by the Coroner is not the Reader's Digest and it would be very irresponsible of me to say that I am making an instantaneous response without thoroughly and properly considering the findings of the inquest. So, that is what I will do: consider it carefully and thoughtfully.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Are you past page 1?

The Hon. B.V. FINNIGAN: I have indeed read the majority of the findings, but I am doing so in a fair and considered fashion. It has probably been a day and a half since the Coroner handed down these findings, so I am sure that I owe it to the people of South Australia to carefully consider what the Coroner has had to say and to make a considered judgement about it. I am not going to make a decision on the fly. I am not going to allow the opposition and their disgraceful politicking about the death of a young man and the recommendations that the Coroner believes flow from that make it seem that I should make some sort of instant response. I will carefully consider what the Coroner has had to say, look at those recommendations and seek further advice, particularly in relation to the suggestions that the Coroner has made about the criminal law, and I will report to the council when I have done that.

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