Work Health and Safety Bill
29/11/2011
The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (16:28): Today, I would like to speak briefly to indicate my support for the second reading of the Work Health and Safety Bill. This bill has been some years in the making. I believe that discussion and consultation rounds with stakeholders from industry, employers and the unions certainly began well before my time in this place, that is, in 2008. I am told by the Roofing Tile Association that action on falls prevention began way back when in 2004. In fact, the minister told me that in 1995 the Productivity Commission first pointed out the complications caused by having nine different jurisdictions for workplace health and safety.
So, here we are today, discussing national harmonisation on workplace safety in the form of this bill. The lobbying on this bill to crossbenchers has certainly been more intense and vigorous than on many other pieces of legislation I have had before me, and I imagine that this is because the opposition had signalled its intent to oppose this bill.
It would seem, not surprisingly, that amongst ardent supporters of this bill are all the unions and many union members. Additionally, the Australian Industry Group, Roofing Tile Association of Australia and the Working Women’s Centre all maintain the need for these reforms. Meanwhile the Housing Industry Association and Business SA are not so keen to see these reforms occur in legislation and have raised a number of concerns, which include the right to silence, union right of entry, penalties and costs of implementation, and I will address some of these concerns shortly. The Master Buildings Association did not oppose the bill outright. It supported the concept of harmonisation, but it was concerned that there was not a division between the commercial and housing construction industries.
I have met with most of the organisations I have listed. I have had about a dozen submissions or delegations urging me to vote for the bill and several delegations and submissions opposing it. By this morning, I had received almost 2,000 emails in support of this bill and a small amount, in comparison, opposing it.
Workplace accidents obviously can cause some tragic deaths. Legislation which seeks to reduce this risk must be seen as a positive measure, in my opinion. In addition to possibly preventable deaths, there is also the issue of both temporary and permanent disability created by workplace accidents and injuries. Of course while I very much enjoy representing people with disabilities in the parliament, I think it is fair to say that I am keen to keep my list of constituents as short as possible. It is far more favourable to see all workers and employers in workplaces view safety and welfare in the workplace as a shared responsibility.
It is something that we all need to be mindful of and practise due diligence, and take reasonable precautions to ensure that work is safe for all, particularly in workplaces that tend to have more inherent risk such as industrial sites, whether they be construction, manufacturing or mining, and so on. Yes, accidents will still of course happen, but let us minimise the number that do occur and ensure that harm is minimised when things do go wrong.
At the SA Unions briefing a month ago I believe the Hon. John Darley raised some apprehension at the practical implementation of these harmonised laws and regulations. On that day I was speaking at a conference in Whyalla so I was not able to attend, but my adviser told me that the honourable member talked of his concerns about the resourcing of this legislation once it came into force, and I certainly believe he has a good point.
I appreciated the briefing that the minister and his staff provided on the bill, and I did query the minister on this exact point. He reassured me that there would be adequate resourcing for this legislation, and that there would be adequate enforcement and training in workplaces. My question to the minister now is: exactly what training and education programs will be implemented in the new year on these reforms?
In addition to the groups and individuals mentioned earlier, I have also been contacted by several asbestos management businesses. They are concerned that air-monitoring measures will be reduced under this legislation and worker safety put in jeopardy. I understand that the minister has made some changes to—or plans to change—this bill to appease the asbestos management industry’s concerns. My question to the minister on this is: will these amendments be in relation to the bill or will this be a regulation change once legislation is enacted? What is the impact of these legislative reforms for the asbestos management industry, and how will they ensure that current protections for asbestos workers do indeed remain?
I go to some of the reservations raised by Business SA and the Housing industry Association (HIA). First, the HIA has talked with me about what it sees as very real concerns on the cost of implementing additional safety measures. Its report suggested that it would cost in excess of $21,000 for every single-storey dwelling constructed. It claims the housing industry in South Australia would be close to collapse on the passing of this bill, but it seems to me that some of its costings are based on an exaggerated state of affairs. For example, a fence is already likely to be erected for security; why would you not have one for safety? Falls prevention is, of course, essential. My brother has previously worked as a labourer on building sites and intends to do so again in future, and I would want to know that his safety is enshrined in law and that, even without reform, worksites would want to have their workers safe when working at heights.
I do think the figures provided by the HIA and its consultant, Rider Levitt Bucknall, are not an accurate reflection of the real costs. If it does indeed cost that amount to set up a site safely, that suggests to me that they do not currently employ adequate safety measures on their sites anyway. I do not expect the housing industry to collapse on the back of this bill. Instead, the minister assures me that their modelling gives a more realistic figure of an additional $2,000 at the very most.
Safety mainly takes common sense but does sometimes mean spending money, and I do not think preventing injury or saving lives is something we can very easily put a monetary figure on. At the very least, a lifetime disability that takes someone out of work when they are, say, in their 20s is likely to cost the state some millions of dollars.
The HIA also say that the number of laws and regulations they must abide by are ridiculously onerous. They have showed me photographs of the mountains of paperwork their workers will be required to comply with. They also have concerns about the imminence of the introduction on 1 January 2012. However, the minister informs me that, of the 600 pages of legislation, only 32 apply to the construction industry and there will be a 12-month grace period granted to allow for educational processes and compliance.
The HIA have said that they believe theirs is a safe industry and that their workers do not need to be told how to be safe. Mr Tony Tanner from the Roofing Tile Association tells a different story, however. He said that significant falls occur within housing construction. Both roof tilers and roof plumbers are often not unionised and are subcontractors or sole traders. Falls are under-reported as these people often self-insure and take time off work when falls and injuries do occur. Tony has had more than 40 years of experience in the industry and says housing construction is not as safe as it claims to be. Despite the likely under-reporting, there are still more than 90 reportable injuries a year in the roof tiling industry in Australia and, unfortunately, some of those have indeed resulted in deaths.
On the issue of union right of entry, the HIA is concerned that private residences may be entered by unions seeking to resolve workplace safety concerns. I do not believe this is going to occur. I do not believe that Black Hawk helicopters will appear above houses, with union officials rappelling down to invade your average home renovator in their own house. I also do not believe union entry into industrial work sites will be abused by the union, and research provided to me by Dr Kevin Purse certainly supports this assertion. Unions in South Australia do not generally have a reputation for aggressive or bullyboy tactics and I do not expect them to take this on in the future.
On the matter of self-incrimination, as a civil libertarian, I was initially concerned that the right to silence and not to self-incriminate was not adequately covered by this bill. However, following advice from the unions and further legal opinion from crown law, I am now satisfied that this is a reasonable measure, particularly where serious workplace injuries or death occur and the culture of not dobbing in your mates may prevent accurate reporting of events. I can see that the need for workplace safety and community good sits above the rights of the individual in this circumstance.
Evidence given under these provisions cannot be used to prosecute in courts and already exist in the Local Government Act and the Environment Protection Act. I would hope that, where these provisions are invoked, it is to ensure ongoing work health and safety and not for other reasons.
I have a final question to the minister on this point: will an investor or resident who renovates a house on weekends, to the extent that the renovation is worth more than $250,000, be required to have a safety inspector on site? This is a matter the Master Builders Association raised with me and I wondered if it was an accurate concern. I therefore would like to pose that question to the minister.
In summary, I am supportive of amendments that seek to harmonise laws across the country, although I acknowledge that this will not necessarily occur in the fashion that we originally hoped for, due to interstate amendments. However, I think we should plough on to make this the best legislation we can. I think that this legislation acknowledges the modern workplace, instead of previous typical workplaces, where we had employers and employee.
We now recognise that there are employers, contractors, subcontractors, sole traders and so on, and there are persons conducting a business or undertaking. All these people on a worksite will be held to account and need to provide a safe environment. I am also in the process of considering the amendments tabled by the Hon. Ms Franks and I believe that they have some merit. With those words I indicate my support for the second reading of the bill at this point
