Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to make some comments, though fairly brief ones, today on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011. Providing a safe workplace is an obligation on an employer, and no-one can deny that this responsibility is one of the paramount obligations of employers and their managers. Naturally it is also in the best interests of the employer to do so. Good, hard-working and committed employees are what every organisation wants. Apart from doing the morally right thing and making sure that accidents are avoided, the costs of replacing or retraining staff and the overall costs in so many ways make sure that there are a range of reasons beyond the legal obligations to make workplaces as safe as possible. It really is a common-sense matter, and everybody agrees on this.

This bill, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011, offers a number of amendments. It is not my intention to speak on the Amendment of the Occupational Health and Safety (Maritime Industry) Act 1993 element, as these are purely technical amendments relating to new arrangements and terminology introduced some years ago. In the same way, given the technical nature of amendments to the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992, excessive comments on those will also not add any great value. Instead, I will speak of matters relating to the amendments to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, where amendments are proposed for sections 6, 36, 37, 50, 61, 62, 90 and 92.

I began my contribution to this debate by speaking of the responsibilities of the employers, whilst also speaking of the clear benefits to those employers of offering a safe workplace. As I said, it really is common sense. Certainly much has been said in the last 30 years in this country about safety hazards. Whether it is providing safety equipment and ensuring that it is worn, or installing safety equipment and guards around machinery, or even fixing trip hazards, not doing these things can result in injuries that benefit neither the employer nor the employee, obviously. It is certainly the case that a negligent employer may be liable for very large penalties that could even result in the closure of the business itself; therefore, the losses may extend beyond the employer and the injured employee. I therefore make the point that it is certainly in the interests of the employer to examine the physical environment in their workplace. They should also look at the detailed processes of the workplace to again ensure that the risks are dealt with. The training and vocational knowledge of the employee, or the lack thereof, would also represent a possible weakness that the employer is obliged to assess and act upon.

Clearly, being an employer involves not only actually running a business or organisation but also meeting the full range of legal and moral safety responsibilities. It is not easy, and anyone who says it is obviously has never run an organisation. As I have said, from the time the employee enters the land that the business is established upon, the safety risks must be assessed and addressed. The complications are significant. Sometimes employees must be watched closely; sometimes their work must be prescribed in some detail. Yet in all cases what happens in that work environment must be risk-assessed and addressed. It is very complicated, yet also, obviously, very necessary.

The problem is that this bill has loaded the burden onto employers to an even greater extent, because of what is proposed for paragraph 6(1)(b). This paragraph currently reads, before this amendment:

(1) Without limiting the circumstances in which an injury to an employee may be treated as having arisen out of, or in the course of, his or her employment, an injury shall, for the purposes of this Act, be treated as having so arisen if it was sustained:

…   …   …

(a) while the employee was at the employee's place of work, including during an ordinary recess, for the purposes of that employment …

So that is what this paragraph currently says. But what the government proposes for subparagraph (b) is this:

(b) while the employee was at the employee's place of work, for the purposes of that employment, or was temporarily absent from that place during an ordinary recess in that employment …

This change means that the employer will now be made responsible for the actions of the employee beyond the business or organisation. In the area that he or she does not control and cannot hope to control, he or she will become responsible for the employee. As has previously been said by the shadow minister, when employees have to cross a dangerous road, rather than at an intersection, that is a risk that will be placed upon the employer, even though the employee undertakes the action. I wonder whether employers in business organisations that are covered by Comcare around the country may want to supervise how their employees move to the lunch bars. Clearly the liability of the employers, the managers and the organisations is expanded under this proposed change, but the degree of safety compliance by the employee is, of course, completely up to the employee themselves.

The Productivity Commission undertook an inquiry back in 2004 that covered such matters. It found that the employer's ability to exert control over workplace recess breaks and social activities is actually a relevant consideration. The commission recom­mended that coverage for recess breaks and work related events be restricted, on the basis of employer control, to those undertaken at workplaces and at employer-sanctioned events.

The last speaker implied that this was in some way a unilateral action by the Howard government. While the Howard government did undertake this action, and stood by it, the decision was absolutely based on the view of the experts, the Productivity Commission. This is a very important issue. It is certainly the coalition's view that it is unreasonable for an employer to be responsible for employees when they leave the workplace, and that is why we propose an amendment to this section of the bill.

This really does go to one of the key principles that divides the coalition from those opposite. We on this side of the House believe in personal responsibility, that we have to accept the consequences of the decisions we make as individuals. But it appears that there is a belief on the other side of the House that, whatever happens and wherever it happens, someone else is always responsible. I would make the further point that, should we be unsuccessful in amending the government's changes under section 6(1)(b), it will be interesting to see by what figure the number of claims for injuries or incidents outside the work place rises. Given the amount of insurance frauds that already take place in Australia each year, I suspect that some—hopefully very few—will seek to take advantage of the changes that the government has brought before the House today.

In summary, it is the intention of the coalition to make an amendment to address what we consider to be a retrograde step. Beyond that, there are no great concerns with this bill. As a member of the coalition, I support good and effective workplace safety laws that provide for the fulfilment of responsibilities. I emphasise that, while there is employer responsibility, at no time should the personal responsibility of the employee ever be set aside. I worry that, while such a philosophy may be an article of faith with some in this place, it does not serve the best interests of any person in this country, particularly the employees of Australia.

See this speech in context