HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-03-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

WORK HEALTH AND SAFETY BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 16 February 2011.)

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (12:11): I rise to speak to the second reading of the Work Health and Safety Bill. This has been a controversial piece of legislation which was first introduced what seems like many years ago but was actually in April last year by the then minister, the then leader of the government, the Hon. Bernard Finnigan. In April last year, or around that time, the government and the minister collectively patted themselves on the back indicating that they were trailblazers, the first of the jurisdictions to introduce the legislation.

They wanted to see the early passage of the bill. As my lengthy contribution today will outline, there has been significant controversy about the legislation before the chamber at the moment. There has been increasing opposition and there remains, of course, strong support for the government's position from a number of stakeholders as well.

The prime reason given for this legislation is that this was part of a supposedly national agreement between all the states and territories and the commonwealth government on the introduction of harmonised legislation; that is, in essence, an agreed national takeover of occupational health and safety or, in this case, work health and safety legislation. At the time, virtually all of the governments were of Labor orientation—not all, but virtually all—and, I guess, it was a touch easier for the governments at that particular stage to reach a unanimous agreement in relation to the proposition for national harmonised legislation.

First, I want to address what the current state of play is in relation to the major reason why there should be harmonised legislation. As we debate this in early 2012, the legislation has passed in the federal parliament, the Queensland parliament, the Northern Territory parliament and the Australian Capital Territory parliament. An amended version of the bill—not the harmonised or model bill—has passed the New South Wales parliament. The Legislative Council in New South Wales moved a series of amendments. Some of those, which everyone acknowledges are union-friendly amendments, were passed ultimately by the New South Wales parliament.

The model bill suffered its first defeat in the New South Wales parliament when it was passed with the union-friendly amendments to the model bill. The bill has still not been introduced into the Victorian parliament, bearing in mind that this was introduced in South Australia in April last year and the agreement was that it was to be up and operational with all the regulations and codes of practice by 1 January 2012. That was what we were told: everyone had agreed and would implement that.

In Victoria, obviously one of the bigger states in the federation, it has not even been introduced into the parliament. The Victorian Liberal government has indicated significant concerns to the model bill. I do not propose in this contribution to go through all of their concerns, but they have indicated significant concerns. They have—and I will address this later—implemented a regulatory impact statement to be undertaken in Victoria, and the final copy of that regulatory impact statement is still not available.

Contrary to some media reports, the Victorian government has not at this stage finalised its position by saying that it is not going to proceed with work health and safety. I think it is fair to say that they will not proceed with the current model bill. The prospects of the model bill passing through Victoria are very slim indeed. It is likely at the very least to be significantly amended in Victoria. There are some people who are suggesting that the Victorian government might not proceed at all but, as I said, contrary to media reports, they have not made that decision as we speak.

Their position, as their minister's office advised me prior to this debate, is that they are awaiting the final copy of the regulatory impact statement and, at that stage, cabinet will consider its position and any possible amendments. However, the model bill will not be passed, in my judgement, in Victoria.

The bill has still not been introduced into the Western Australian parliament. Western Australia is interesting because supposedly we were going to have harmonised legislation, but all of the government and its advocates have always said, 'Right from the word go, we always accepted it was a model bill,' but Western Australia was not going to introduce the model bill. We always acknowledged that in at least four significant areas they were going to move amendments to the model legislation.

Western Australia is in a similar position to Victoria. They are instituting—and I will make some comments later on about the details of this—their own regulatory impact statement and they say that when they have received that they will make final judgements about the number, breadth and depth of the amendments that they would move to the model bill. But there is no prospect at all that there will be a model bill passed in Western Australia.

The bill has been introduced into parliament by the Labor government in Tasmania. There is significant opposition and concern in Tasmania as well. There was an amendment passed in the Legislative Council to delay the introduction of the bill until 1 January 2013 (a 12-month delay). We are told that the debate is going to resume in their House of Assembly (that amendment was moved in the Legislative Council) this month in March 2012. The ultimate position of the Tasmanian parliament is still up in the air in terms of what will or will not occur.

Clearly, there is significant concern in the Legislative Council to the degree that, in essence, they delayed the introduction until 2013. I think they will watch our debate here in South Australia with some interest because with all of this the debate from the governments has been that this is a national agreement and you cannot do anything that is different. If, at some stage, a jurisdiction moves in a different way and stands up and says, 'Hey, we are not going to accept this,' then that may have a ripple effect through other jurisdictions as well.

As members are aware, the bill was introduced in South Australia in April and it was passed by the House of Assembly. Ultimately its debate was adjourned by a majority of the Legislative Council late last year when the government was trying to force it through to be ready for recommencement of debate in February-March 2012.

The foolishness of the government's position late last year when it said, 'Yeah, we're ready to go for 1 January 2012; let's get this bill through in November-December' is quite apparent now. To think, as we look at where we are now having this debate, that this government thought it was in a position to impose this bill (600 or 700 pages of regulations and thousands of pages of codes of practice) on an industry on 1 January 2012 was foolishness in the extreme. So, that is the national position.

In relation to two other matters in terms of summarising the national position, it is correct that in the federal debate my colleagues in the federal Coalition indicated and have subsequently indicated that they support the harmonisation of occupational health and safety laws in Australia. They have noted publicly that the Howard government got the ball rolling in relation to harmonisation.

They have indicated that they sought to move amendments in particular to a couple of the key areas. The control amendment, which I will discuss later, and the right to silence amendment are a couple of areas that they sought to move amendments in. The Labor government, together with the Greens, did not support those and the model bill went through the federal parliament. The Coalition ultimately did not oppose the legislation on the final vote in the federal parliament.

The other point I make in relation to the Liberal Party nationally is that there have been some media reports that the Queensland Liberal National Party that is currently in opposition has indicated that it will repeal the legislation if elected at this month's election. We have spoken to the shadow minister in the area and he has confirmed for the public record, and I place it on the public record, that that is not a correct statement of their current position.

What they have indicated is that there are significant concerns with the legislation. Secondly, if elected, they will review the impact of the legislation in Queensland. Thirdly, subsequent to that, they would reserve the right as to whether they would seek to move amendments or not.

As members know, because Queensland is a unicameral system if the government decides it wants to make some changes to legislation it does not have the safety valve or, as some might see it, the impediment of an upper house to second-guess any decision it takes, so it may or may not have the capacity to amend the model bill.

When you go through it, the main argument for this was a COAG agreement and harmonised legislation (I will talk about the claims of supposed savings later), but these were the major claims for this, and it is clear that that target is unachievable; it will not happen. Irrespective of what we do in this chamber, it will not happen. There is not going to be harmonised legislation as envisaged by COAG and the various governments two or three years ago.

Clearly, an amended bill has passed in New South Wales. Clearly, any bill in Western Australia and Victoria—certainly in Western Australia's case—will also be significantly amended, and in my judgement it is likely to be significantly amended in Victoria, although they have not said that publicly at this stage. It is my judgement that in South Australia whatever the final attitude is at the very least I suspect there will be significant amendment to the legislation.

Tasmania remains up in the air, because there is concern there and the Legislative Council has expressed that so far. In Queensland, if a Liberal National Party government is elected there is the potential for amendment too. So, the notion that there is an agreement for a model bill and harmonised legislation is out the door, out the window, unachievable, and will not happen. However you want to describe it, that is the reality. It was the goal but it is not going to happen, and this debate in this chamber needs to be conducted in the full knowledge of those particular facts.

I want to talk about the claimed benefits of harmonisation. The various governments and the federal Labor government have made many statements in relation to this, and I will refer to just one of those. In a release on 25 November 2011, minister and senator the Hon. Chris Evans issued a statement under the heading 'Landmark model OHS legislation highlights WA and Victorian Governments' failure'. This is the statement:

Australia is a step closer to nationally harmonised OHS laws that will generate productivity improvements of up to $2 billion a year and deliver safer workplaces for millions of Australians and their families.

Further on in the release it says:

'The harmonised OHS laws reduce red tape saving business $250 million and improving safety in Australia's workplaces,' Senator Evans said.

The rest of the press release goes on to make those various statements. The claimed saving is $250 million a year, if it is completely harmonised, and productivity improvements will be $2 billion a year, if it is completely harmonised. They are based on a regulatory impact statement which is on the SafeWork Australia website dated November 2011, part of which says:

While there will be one-off implementation costs, the quantitative analysis undertaken at the national level for adopting the model WHS Regulations indicates net benefits (i.e. after implementation costs) of around $250 million per annum to the Australian economy over each of the next 10 years. This estimate does not include expected productivity benefits. While noting the difficulties in estimating the productivity benefit, a reasonable conclusion would be that the reforms will provide a positive and meaningful productivity benefit. Specific figures were excluded from the quantitative analysis, largely due to the difficulties in providing a sufficiently robust estimate. Based on a review of the analysis in this RIS, productivity improvements in the order of $1.5 billion to $2 billion per annum over the next 10 years are considered likely. Multi-state businesses are expected to benefit from harmonisation by approximately $80 million per annum.

The first point I will make—and, to be fair, I am going to make this general comment and it will apply to a number of the estimates—is that it is notoriously difficult to estimate, and there are estimates by the government and its supporters and there are estimates by stakeholders who oppose the bill and people who have been employed by them.

It is difficult because, in the end, the consultants have to make assumptions and, let me assure members that you can always pick apart the assumptions and, therefore, the estimations made by consultants employed, all the way round. So, whilst I am going to be critical of these particular claims, I accept that one can apply the same sorts of criticism, potentially, to lots of the estimates that have been made. That is why I think you have then got to look at the detail of the legislation and make judgements as to, on balance, who is more likely to be right, and that is particularly going to be the case when I address some comments to housing affordability costs in South Australia later.

The reality about those claims from the federal government and the ministers such as the Hon. Mr Wortley, and others who are seeking support for the legislation, is they know they cannot and will not be achieved, because all of that analysis was done on the basis of harmonised legislation. All of that analysis was done on a model bill being passed and, therefore, it being easy for multi-state businesses and others to operate across all jurisdictions. As I have highlighted before, that is not going to happen and will not happen and, therefore, the analysis that has been quoted by this minister in this chamber, and others supporting the productivity benefits, needs to be considered in the new light that we are not going to see the model bill passed in all the jurisdictions.

On the other side of this equation a number of the industry groups have commissioned consultancies to look at the impact of the legislation on the economy. Again, reputable consultants Hudson Howells have been commissioned by, I believe, the Housing Industry Association. Their assessment, in letters that the HIA has written to members of parliament, is that if this bill is adopted in South Australia it will lead to up to 12,500 job losses every year, annual economic damage of up to $1.4 billion and the destruction of home affordability for thousands of young South Australians.

Similar claims are being made in other states as well in relation to the impact of the legislation on the state economy and by extension the national economy as well. The Victorian and Western Australian governments' position is obviously important in relation to this. I want to refer to statements from the Hon. Gordon Rich-Phillips, who is the responsible minister in the Victorian government. On 14 September, under the heading 'Important information missing in the Commonwealth Regulation Impact Statement for National Occupational Health and Safety Harmonisation' he said:

The Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) for the proposed National Occupational Health and Safety harmonisation released by the Federal Minister…fails to include critical details on the impacts for Victoria.

Mr Rich-Phillips said:

…the Commonwealth had committed to including impacts in dollar terms for each state and territory.

That is, when they said they would do this regulatory impact statement their commitment was to include impacts in dollar terms for each state and territory. The statement continues:

The RIS released by the Commonwealth falls short of including the vital detail that should have been in the final impact statement. This leaves Victorian businesses in the dark on the potential costs of this proposed scheme. It is also concerning that the final RIS released by the Commonwealth varies considerably from the draft provided to state jurisdictions just one month ago and the projected benefits of the scheme have been significantly reduced. Mr Rich-Phillips said Victoria would now complete further analysis of the final RIS provided by the Commonwealth and consider whether a separate Victorian RIS is required.

Ultimately, subsequent to that release, the Victorian government decided that it was so deficient that it needed to go ahead and commission its own regulatory impact statement because the commonwealth one was so deficient in terms of what the impact would be in Victoria. In Western Australia a similar position has been adopted. A statement on their government website answering the question 'When will the model bill and model regulations start?' says:

The Commonwealth Government's Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) for the model WHS regulations is inadequate for Western Australia. As a result, a local RIS including public consultation in relation to the implementation of the model WHS regulations in WA is required. The process, which should take up to six months, has commenced. It is anticipated that the public consultation element of the process will be started around February 2012.

In order to aid its decision-making, this process will provide the Government with information and analysis about the consequences the model WHS regulations would have on workers, businesses, government and the economy if applied to Western Australian workplaces. In view of these circumstances, the date of implementation for the model laws in WA has not been determined and will need to be reassessed.

It is quite clear in Western Australia their process for this RIS is starting in February this year. It is going to take at least six months, which takes us through to round about August of this year before they get the results of that. It will need to be considered by cabinet and then they will have to decide. So the prospects of it even starting in Western Australia by 1 January 2013 are indeed slim.

Certainly, as they have indicated and as I said earlier, there will be significant amendments to the Western Australian legislation, the model bill in Western Australia, when it eventually is introduced, if it is introduced. It is clear then from the federal government's viewpoint they conducted an albeit now inadequate regulatory impact statement. The Victorian and Western Australian governments have conceded that, because of the controversy and the varying claims, they needed to get more information about the impact on their businesses, their economy and their community.

The same requests have been made of the South Australian government, as to whether it now acknowledges that it should have conducted, or should still conduct, its own regulatory impact statement, like Victoria and Western Australia, to see what the impact of this bill would be on the economy, on housing affordability, on small and large businesses, and on workers in South Australia.

Sadly, the minister and the Premier responsible are clearly not going to go down that particular pass. They continue to say to opponents, 'Well, the commonwealth has done a regulatory impact statement.' Even though they know it is inadequate and even though they know it no longer applies, they continue to say, 'Well, there is a national agreement, there has been a national regulatory impact statement. We don't have to better inform ourselves of the impact on the South Australian economy.'

Tied up with all of this has been this COAG process, which has been driving part of it. This is the claim that if the state government does not move down a particular pass the federal government will financially penalise the state, and the earlier statement I referred to from Senator Chris Evans referred to that in relation to Victoria and Western Australia.

The government's advice to all of us is that under the national partnership agreement to achieve a seamless national economy, which was agreed at COAG in 2008, there is a total of $33 million over two years—that is financial year 2011-12, which is this financial year, and next financial year 2012-13—which is available to South Australia subject to it meeting the undertakings in the agreement.

The total payment of $33 million over two years is for achieving all 27 legislative priorities agreed by COAG in March 2011; 27 legislative priorities to get $33 million back over two years. The bill that we are debating is listed as one of the 10 priority items of the 27. In my view any possible loss to the state of South Australia because of not doing what the commonwealth says has been agreed will not be $33 million; it will be some unspecified component of the $33 million.

When that question is put to the government advocates they say that they do not know, and during any committee stage of this bill that will obviously be one of the questions we will need to put to the minister—or I suppose the minister could respond at the end of the second reading in terms of what Treasury advice is here. However the claims, by inference, that the government is making that it will lose $33 million if it does not proceed with this legislation are clearly not based on fact.

As I said, the $33 million is for achieving 27 legislative priorities, and this is one of 10 high priority areas. If you want to pro rata it, it might be somewhere between $1 million and $3 million; if the commonwealth decided that that was an even higher priority of the 10 high priorities it might be more than that, but it ain't gonna be $33 million financial penalty in terms of the impact on the state budget. I think that is important, because that issue is being used as a sledgehammer to beat opponents of the legislation into potential submission.

What I found interesting—and as members will know I am new to the area of having responsibility for work health and safety legislation—is that in this debate the driver, which has constantly been referred to, is economic reform, cost savings to business and improvements and productivity gains to the national economy. Interestingly, as I said, the driver for the reform is not improved worker safety, and I want to address some comments in relation to that.

After all, surely the driver for harmonisation ought to be some evidence and argument that, by harmonising the laws, we will actually improve worker safety in South Australian workplaces. We could then make judgements as to whether this model bill, harmonised or not, is actually better for worker safety. Of course, there are judgements about better for business and better for the economy as well which need to be considered, but it should not be just the economic and business drivers that are pre-eminent in relation to consideration of the legislation.

I want to look at South Australia's record on work safety and, as I said, I am new to this area. I note that the former minister, the Hon. Bernard Finnigan, on 2 March last year issued a press statement, titled 'South Australia leads the way in reducing workplace injuries'. The Hon. Bernard Finnigan said:

South Australia leads the way in meeting nationally agreed targets to reduce workplace harm.

Industrial Relations Minister Bernard Finnigan says South Australia has been recognised as the best jurisdiction for reducing injury claims. 'While we strive towards zero harm, and one injury is one too many, the published results are a pleasing outcome in terms of comparative performance,' Mr Finnigan said. 'All states and territories are working towards a 40 per cent reduction in injury claims across the 10 years to 2012, as agreed under the National OHS Strategy 2002-12. 'Only two jurisdictions met the required rate of improvement to the end of 2008-09—

At that stage, that was 28 per cent—

and South Australia leads the way with a 36.5pc improvement.' The figures are contained in the 12th edition of the Comparative Performance Monitoring (CPM) Report.

That was the position in March of last year, as released by the former minister, prior to this debate about changes to the work health and safety legislation. For the benefit of this debate, I have updated the figures from the Hon. Bernard Finnigan. I seek leave to have incorporated into Hansard without my reading it a purely statistical table on work safety figures.

Leave granted.

Indicator 2—Incidence rates (claims per 1,000 employees) and percentage improvement of serious* compensated injury and musculoskeletal claims by jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction Base period 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10Preliminary 2009-10 projected Percentage improvement (%)**
South Australia 18.3 14.6 12.4 11.4 10.7 11.2 38.8
New South Wales 17.1 12.6 12.6 12.4 11.8 12.2 28.7
Victoria 11.3 9.5 9.0 8.6 7.9. 8.1 28.3
Australian Government 8.8 6.9 5.5 6.7 5.9 6.4 27.3
Queensland 16.6 15.9 16.3 15.0 13.6 13.8 16.9
Tasmania 16.2 15.7 14.7 14.8 13.4 13.7 12.3
Western Australia 12.5 12.3 12.3 11.7 10.5 11.0 12.0
Northern Territory 12.4 11.4 12.1 11.0 10.7 11.2 9.7
Australian Capital Territory 11.4 11.6 11.5 11.9 11.9 12.2 -7.0
Seacare 36.3 27.1 26.8 34.3 36.6 36.6 -0.8
Australia 14.8 12.4 12.1 11.6 10.8 11.1 25.0


* Includes accepted workers' compensation claims for temporary incapacity involving one or more weeks compensation plus all claims for fatality and permanent incapacity.

** Percentage improvement from base period (2000-01 to 2002-03) to 2009-10 projected.

Source: Comparative Performance Monitoring Report 13th Edition—SafeWork Australia

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This table comes from the Comparative Performance Monitoring Report, edition 13, whereas the Hon. Mr Finnigan referred to the Comparative Performance Monitoring Report 12th edition. This shows, and let me quote:

Indicator 2—Incidence rates (serious claims per 1,000 employees) and percentage improvement of serious* compensated injury and musculoskeletal claims by jurisdiction.

The base period is 2006-07. The most recent figures are now updated to 2009-10. What this report says, under the heading of Jurisdictional Progress, is 'only South Australia exceeded the required rate of improvement to meet the target'. That is, of all the jurisdictions, only South Australia exceeded the required rate of improvement.

This table I have just incorporated shows that South Australia's improvement figure was 38.8 per cent. In New South Wales, it was 28.7 per cent; in Victoria, 28.3 per cent; the Australian government, 27.3 per cent; Queensland, 16.9 per cent; Tasmania, 12.3 per cent; Western Australia, 12.0 per cent, the Northern Territory, 9.7 per cent; the Australian Capital Territory, negative 7.0 per cent; Seacare, negative 0.8 per cent; and then the Australian figure was 25.0 per cent.

Again, what that shows, on the most updated figures—and that was released in October of 2011—is that, under our existing occupational health and safety legislation, we continue (as boasted by the former minister) to lead all the jurisdictions in terms of work health and safety performance. The Hon. Mr Finnigan boasted proudly, back in March, of that improvement and performance. Similarly, we—not that we individually have anything to do with it, but businesses and workers working together under the existing law—still lead all jurisdictions in terms of our improvement: a 38.8 per cent improvement in the measured period compared to all of those other jurisdictions. Further on in the same report, under the heading of 'Serious claims', it states:

Indicator 5 shows that the Australian incidence rate for serious claims has steadily declined over the past four years, decreasing 9% from 14.9 to 13.5 claims per 1000 employees between 2005-06 and 2008-09. Preliminary data for 2009-10 indicates an incidence rate of 12.6 claims per 1000 employees. While it is expected that this rate will rise when updated data are available, the preliminary data indicate a continuing improvement in incidence rates.

Substantial falls in incidence rates from 2005-06 to 2008-09 were recorded by South Australia (down 30%), the Australian Government (down 20%), Northern Territory (down 15%), Victoria (down 14%), Tasmania (down 7%), Western Australia (down 6%) and New South Wales (down 5%).

There are a lot of other details in that report. I am not going to go through that report. Members can go to it if they want to inform themselves about our comparative performance. What it is showing is that, whatever is occurring in South Australia under our existing legislation, Labor ministers were patting themselves on the back about it, businesses and workers should pat themselves on the back about it and we ought to be informed, as we approach this particular bill, as to making a judgement: does it actually improve worker safety or does it have the potential to, in essence, reduce our comparative performance in South Australia and do more harm for worker safety than what exists under the current legislation?

Certainly, those who are making the claim that we should support the legislation need to indicate, because they are the ones advocating change, where in the legislation worker safety specifically will be improved as a result of the changes they want us to implement. The second broad area of evidence is in relation to the WorkCover Annual Report. We have the most recent one of 2010-11, and I seek leave to have incorporated into Hansard, without my reading it, a purely statistical table on some WorkCover figures.

Leave granted.

Graph 5: Total claims incurred by injury year for register employers

Year Number of Claims
2000-01 28,123
2001-02 26,514
2002-03 25,110
2003-04 25,482
2004-05 24,746
2005-06 23,119
2006-07 22,105
2007-08 20,873
2008-09 19,166
2009-10 18,315
2010-11 18,634


*Source: WorkCover Annual Report 2010-11

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: This is an annual production of figures which is on claim numbers for registered employers. It is on total claim numbers that WorkCover records, which is a reasonable indicator, obviously, of worker safety in the state.

What we see there is that, back in 2000-01, just on 10 years ago, the total claims incurred by injury year for registered employers in South Australia by WorkCover was 28,123. The most recent figure for 2010-11 in the WorkCover Annual Report is a very significant decline to 18,634. So, in the space of those 10 years, under the existing occupational health and safety legislation, we have almost 10,000 fewer claims off a base of 28,000 claims.

Now, that is a very significant improvement in worker safety. That is a very significant number in terms of what WorkCover, as the agency recording these things, has recorded. I think it was the Hon. Mr Finnigan who said that one claim is one too many. We accept that, but, under the existing legislation, we have seen, and continue to see, massive, significant improvement in terms of the recorded figures.

I will put a question to the minister, and he will obviously answer it at the second reading stage. I note that that particular table, when one compares the actual numbers in the 2010-11 report, is actually different from the 2009-10 report. When you look at the numbers for 2000-01 right through to 2008-09, the actual numbers in last year's report for those years are different from the numbers in the WorkCover report. I do not expect the minister to know why that is the case, but certainly WorkCover should know.

Whilst the Hon. Mr Snelling is responsible for WorkCover, my question is to the minister, as he is in charge of the Work Health and Safety Bill: can he explain why the numbers are actually different? The trend is the same. Under the old numbers from last year's report, the decline is from 26,610 down to 19,700 whereas, under the most recent report, the decline is from 28,123 down to 18,634. So, there has obviously been some re-calculation of 10 year's worth of figures. The trend is the same, but the numbers are different, and I seek an answer from the minister as to the reasons for that.

In summarising those numbers, it was, as I said, surprising to me—being new to this debate—that most of this debate was about the economy, business and all those sorts of things, which are important. Clearly, if we are debating work health and safety, we ought to be looking at the impact on work health and safety, what has and has not been working in the existing laws and what has been our performance relative to other jurisdictions, and that ought to better inform us as to whether or not we should throw everything out by supporting the model legislation.

In summary, I think you can say that, from the figures from the comparative report and from WorkCover, we actually have a pretty good record in South Australia relative to the other jurisdictions under our existing legislation. The pressure is now back on the government, in my view, to say, 'You now have to make the case as to why and how this model bill will actually improve work safety performance? There are other issues to be considered as well, but you explain to us how this bill will improve work safety performance'.

Members will have to make judgements, as we all will, on the impact on housing affordability, the cost of doing business and the impact on the economy. They are important issues as well. This government and this minister need to say to us, 'Okay; this is how this bill will actually improve work safety' compared to the very significant improvements we are already achieving under the existing law.

The next topic I want to turn to is the critical issue of the impact on housing affordability in South Australia. All members know that housing affordability is a critical issue in South Australia. We have families struggling to continue to hold their homes or to purchase new homes. The ability to be able to purchase a new home is a dream for many—not all—young South Australians. I think every member would have to agree that, in recent years, housing affordability has been made harder and harder for many young, struggling couples and families in South Australia.

Those of us in this chamber who are generally older look at our children or our grandchildren and try to work out how on earth they can afford mortgages of $300,000 or so (which appears to be about the average these days) to get into first homes. It is beyond comprehension. In many cases, of course, parents and grandparents, and others, assist with trying to get them into a first home. The issue of this bill in terms of its impact on housing affordability has to be prominent and it has to be closely considered.

Local industry groups, such as the Housing Industry Association (HIA), have informed our debate and our understanding of this bill by commissioning research and doing their own analysis in terms of the impact on affordability. The Housing Industry Association's position is that they did their own analysis of the impact of the bill and the regulations and codes of practice on housing affordability in South Australia. Their estimate was that it would increase costs in South Australia by $20,690 for a single storey dwelling and $29,335 for a double storey dwelling in South Australia.

They then went to a nationally and internationally reputable firm of quantity surveyors, Rider Levett Bucknall. I am sure the minister and the state government will not criticise Rider Levett Bucknall because they have used Rider Levett Bucknall to do their cost estimates on any number of projects in South Australia, most recently on the Adelaide Oval project. I have seen some free and easy criticism by the minister and the government about the consultants' work in relation to these issues. The minister needs to bear in mind that he and his government have commissioned these international quantity surveyors on any number of occasions and proudly used their cost estimates to justify their case on projects such as Adelaide Oval and others.

The international quantity surveyors Rider Levett Bucknall have confirmed the estimates of the HIA in a report to the HIA, with their own estimates being slightly different—that is, an increase to the cost of a single storey dwelling of $20,088 and an increase in cost of a double storey dwelling of $28,450. For all intents and purposes, they are virtually the same. I seek leave to conclude my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.


[Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 14:18]


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