Ivan Dean, Speeches Index

Wednesday 11 November 2009

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT BILL 2009

Mr DEAN ( Windermere ) - Madam President, I will be making a fairly brief contribution. I do not intend to go over what has already been said, although I may well touch on one or two issues and repeat them.

Is there a demonstrated need for this type of intervention in the workplace? I am not too sure and I cannot really be satisfied at this stage that there is, but I will listen to the rest of the debate and see whether or not I can be swayed.

Madam President, there certainly are issues in the workplace. One issue yesterday came to my attention and I happened to be in the House at the time this issue arose. On Monday it was 34 degrees or thereabouts and two people arrived at my mother-in-law's home to put the insulation in her ceiling. I saw these two fellows in the house and perspiration was absolutely pouring off them. They got out of the ceiling and they said to me, 'Get up and just see what the temperature is like up there', and I said, 'I'm not getting up there'. You only had to put your hand there to see just what the temperature was like. It was absolutely terrible and I said to them, 'You can't work in those conditions'. In fact, they took my advice and they rang their boss and the boss accepted their position and said, 'No, this is not a safe or a reasonable workplace for you to work in. You need to do another job', and he just sent them off the job.

So there are issues but I think the point of that is that there are opportunities and avenues out there today for the employee to be able to have changes made. Most employers today are very conscious of the need to support and look after their employees. Some employers are better than others, as will always be the case, but the fact is that employers will listen to people.

Tonight I happened to be sitting next to a gentleman at the dinner table. He said I could use his name and I will do - it was Mr John Brierley who owns the business, Brierley Hose & Handling. He has two parts to that business, and has 13 employees. He wanted to know what legislation we were talking about tonight and we went into this in a bit of detail and his comment was that we just do not need it. We just do not need more legislation to get control of these situations. We already have the legislation there, it works well and he described it as excellent on two or three occasions.

Mr Parkinson - Did you run by him the death and accident stats that were given in the briefing?

Mr DEAN - That is interesting because if you look at the deaths, I think we have had five deaths in the last year. I did not go into all five of them but I think one was in a car accident so could that really be said to be a workplace safety issue in the workplace? I suspect the car was a safe car but I do not know, so I do not think that you could say that this type of intervention is going to fix that or have any impact on it. Another one, as I understand it, was a drowning of a carer and once again I do not know whether that could be so classified. It certainly was not an incident happening in a workplace as such, in a building, so I would have some concerns as to whether or not this legislation could fix that sort of a situation. The one that I am aware of was at the aquaculture centre and I think that is still a coronial issue and I do not think that has been determined yet. There may well be issues there but I do not know. I am not too sure of the situation with regard to the other deaths.

Mr Parkinson - And the 1 000-plus injuries?

Mr DEAN - You can go into the injuries as well but there is a huge decline, is there not, in the number of injuries and things that are happening. Let me quote from the Unions Tasmania document that was handed to us this morning, Madam President:

'1. In 2008 there were 10,017 injuries reported. This is the third consecutive increase in injury numbers and is 144 more injuries than reported in 2007, or a 1.5% increase. Overall, since 1994, the total number of injuries has fallen by 49.3%.'

That is a massive drop in that period - almost half. It is a significant drop.

I will quote again from this document:

'2. Since 1994, as the number of injuries has been falling so too has the frequency rate. In 1994 the frequency rate was 80.5 injuries per million hours worked, but has since fallen to 33.0 injuries per million hours worked in 2008 - a reduction of 59.0%. However, between 2007 and 2008, for the first time in 15 years, the frequency rate increased by 1.5%.'

When you look at those figures we are doing well, but of course we should never be satisfied until we can get close to zero; but we are never going to get to zero, it does not matter what we do. There will always be accidents. If you look at the number of injuries in the workplace there could be a number of reasons for it and there may be many of them. As I think the member for Launceston by way of interjection to the member for Mersey was saying, a lot of these are accidents and you are not going to be able to prevent accidents occurring.

Ms Thorp - Through you, Madam President - there was a significant drop in the number of car fatalities with the introduction of compulsory seatbelts. There was another significant drop when drink-driving levels were dropped down. So every time you put a significant measure in place that works towards safety you get another drop and that surely should be reason enough.

Mr DEAN - What is happening this year with the fatalities? They are almost double what they were last year.

Ms Thorp - But you do not deny that when safety issues are put in place you get a significant drop? You only have to look at the stats.

Mr DEAN - Sometimes you do but it is not only for that reason.

Ms Thorp - You can graph it. I would have thought you of all people would be aware of that.

Mr DEAN - With the greatest respect to you, at the same time that these programs are being put into place, cars are becoming safer, roads are becoming better. There is a combination of things -

Ms Thorp - So nothing to do with compulsory seatbelts?

Mr DEAN - Yes, I agree, seatbelts. I think there is clear evidence out there to say that seatbelts have made a difference and saved lives.

Ms Thorp - That is what I am saying. You make a legislative change to increase safety and you get a better result.

Mr DEAN - I am not so sure. You are right and I do not disagree with that. But there are other reasons also connected to those decreases.

Ms Thorp - No-one is denying that. But the stats show, don't they?

Mr DEAN - I think we both agree. I think we know where we are going on that. But in this instance, I do not know that this would improve the position much, if at all.

Ms Thorp - But there were probably sceptics who said the same thing about compulsory seatbelts.

Mr DEAN - What?

Ms Thorp - That they would not make any difference.

Mr DEAN - There are always those people out there who make those sorts of statements.

Ms Thorp - Don't you be one of them.

Ms Forrest - There are still some people out there who say -

Madam PRESIDENT - Order. This is a second reading debate, not a three-way discussion on the Floor of the House.

Mr DEAN - That is not what I said. What I said was that there were other reasons for these decreases as well but, yes, seatbelts made a difference. There is no doubt about that. It is like the drink-driving laws; they made a difference and perhaps this could make a difference.

But one of the issues I have - and I raised it during the briefing and I think I made it fairly clear - is that Workplace Standards have a function. Their function is safety in the work force and I raised this issue earlier this year as well, that they were hit early in the year with two positions that they lost as a result of the expected decreases in salaries that the Government were asking for. I just wonder how many other positions in Workplace Standards have also been lost as a result of that. Perhaps the Leader will answer that shortly - whether there have been any other losses to Workplace Standards? What has been the growth in Workplace Standards over the last few years? There is no doubt that they have a responsibility in relation to workplace safety. So, if this legislation is for the purposes of supplementing the functions and the duties of Workplace Standards then I think that leaves a bit to be desired.

I do have issues with the other matters that have been raised, such as the right of entry for a person with the right credentials to enter the workplace unannounced. To me, that is a significant issue and I understand an amendment might well be made in regard to that. I look forward to that amendment coming before the House.

Mr Parkinson - You will have to support the second reading to see the amendment.

Mr DEAN - Not necessarily. If it gets to that stage, I -

Mr Parkinson - You look forward to it if it gets to that stage?

Mr DEAN - If it gets to that stage, then I might support that amendment. But, as I said, at this stage I have not made up my mind. I could well be swayed.

Ms Thorp - We are getting a flavour.

Mr DEAN - The honourable Leader might well be able to sway me, who knows?

Mr Parkinson - Don't get up yet.

Mr Finch - Don't hold your breath.

Mr DEAN - No, you are right.

I want to go through some of the issues raised during the briefings that we were given. Interestingly, talking about injuries in the workplace, I went to the opening of the Aurora power station at Bell Bay about three or four weeks ago and one of the first things that we were told when we arrived was that there were 800 000 to 900 000 hours of work on that plant to complete it. We were also told there was not one loss by work injury on that development - not one - in that large number of hours of employment on that site. That, to me, was an incredible feat. When you look at the plant and when you look at the design, the style, the heights and everything else about it, one would expect some injury accident on that site, but it was not the case. I think the reason for that is that employers are now very conscious of the need to look after their employees. In fact, a lot now go overboard to ensure their safety. Very clearly, that must be the case because I have no doubt, in that plant, if that had been built say 15 or 20 years ago, we would have seen some accidents and some injuries, unfortunately. That is how things have changed; that is how things have gone ahead since those times.

I think very clearly it comes out that the catalysts for this legislation were the issues that arose in the mining industry and the Beaconsfield disaster was one of the reasons for this legislation coming before us. If that is the case, if the mining side of things has problems and issues, then let them fix those problems. I do not think we need to bring in legislation simply because of that fact to impact on every other business in this State.

The other comment I wanted to make, Madam President, is just because they have this legislation in every other State, with the exception of South Australia at this stage, does that necessarily make it good or right for Tasmania?

Ms Thorp - Tasmanian workers do not have the same needs or rights as other States?

Mr DEAN - Workers in this State are certainly entitled to those same rights - of course they are. It is silly to suggest that they do not. The fact is the conditions and positions in Tasmania are not always the same as they are in other States. Things change. Things are different. It is interesting to talk about this. My nephew left this State and went across to Western Australia and the very first job he went for was as an aluminium welder. As soon as he said he was a Tasmanian they said, 'You are hired.' That was without even looking at his credentials. 'You are hired' and what were the reasons for that? They said, 'We like Tasmanians - we like their work ethic, we like their attitude to work' and a number of other things. That was about 10 to12 years ago and he is still employed. The Tasmanian employee certainly has a lot of credibility within the country and that is good for us. It is good for Tasmanians.

Madam President, I am not going to go into too much more. I just wanted to refer to the Tasmanian Small Business Council. They have put forward a number of reasons that this legislation is not good legislation in the way it is written and we have all seen their document. We have all had a copy of their document. They simply dot point the issues that they have and I do not need to go through all of them for you, other than the fact that they identified about eight good reasons for not supporting this legislation. But then, if you look at the other side - the union side - I guess they can point out the same number of reasons for supporting it. So it is a matter of the unions versus the employers in this instance. That is what it is all about.

I do have some concerns about it. I am not satisfied at this stage that I should be supporting it, but who knows, I may well be swayed in listening to other members. I will not repeat the other issues at this time.

Return To Main Page.

Return To Speeches.