Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Liability of Volunteers) Bill 2008

Debate resumed from 8 May 2008.

The Hon. MICHAEL VEITCH [11.41 a.m.]: The Government opposes this proposal. The issue of the liability of volunteer officers on boards, community trusts and other such entities in New South Wales was canvassed in the Government's review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. Numerous representations were made to the Government on this matter during 2005 and 2006 either by or on behalf of these volunteers. In each case the Government explained that there have been no prosecutions of volunteer officers since modern workplace safety legislation was adopted in New South Wales in 1983—that means none during the governments of Wran, Unsworth, Carr and Iemma, and none during the Greiner and Fahey governments. It must be remembered that prosecutions for breaches of workplace safety laws are made only as a last resort—that is, when all advice and assistance has failed and where there is a clear public interest to be served.

In moving this motion, the Hon. Rick Colless is attempting to engineer a crisis where no such crisis exists. Volunteers make an invaluable contribution to a wide range of boards, community trusts and other government entities; they should not be misled into a state of paranoia or exploited for cheap political points. The Government has listened to the concerns of volunteer board members; I believe that future legislative changes will address these concerns. However, this is but one component of an extremely important and sensitive legislative process. The Government has said that it will not sell the success of current workplace safety laws down the river before consensus can be achieved on some of its most difficult points. These laws have led directly to vastly improved workplace safety outcomes.

The WorkCover Statistical Bulletin for the year 2005-06 showed that the number of serious workplace injuries in New South Wales fell by 13 per cent on the previous year, and total workplace injuries were down 12 per cent. The incidence rate for workplace fatalities has more than halved since the WorkCover scheme commenced in 1987. Traditionally high-risk areas such as manufacturing, agriculture, construction and mining have experienced significant reductions in incidence rates for injury and fatality. The reforms have also led directly to an annual saving of more than $5.5 billion to the State's economy and a boost in productivity that will add well over $600 million in gross State product every year. This Government is not prepared to jeopardise these advances. On the contrary, proposed amended workplace safety legislation will build on these outcomes. As I said earlier, the Government opposes this proposal.

The Hon. CHRISTINE ROBERTSON [11.44 a.m.]: The Government opposes this proposal, as already stated. The Government is mindful and appreciative of the valuable work provided by community-based corporations, trusts and organisations—and, of course, I am wearing my special scarf today. It should be noted that no volunteer director has been prosecuted since modern occupational health and safety legislation was first introduced in New South Wales in 1983. The House will be aware that the statutory review of the State's workplace safety laws has been a major focus of the Government over the past year. Members will recall also that the initial draft amendment bill proposed that the Act be amended to exclude volunteers from prosecution; however, the Government has been unable to achieve consensus among key stakeholders on other aspects of the draft legislation. This has delayed the progress of all proposed amendments, including the exclusion of volunteers from prosecution.

The Government is doing all it can to get agreement to the solution from both sides. I am confident that future legislation will address the concerns of volunteer officers. On workplace safety laws the Opposition is trapped in a fiction of its own creation. Its understanding of the role of WorkCover ignores entirely the agency's role in providing advice and assistance to employers and workers in New South Wales. The Opposition chooses instead to believe that WorkCover's sole purpose is to prosecute; it is this misguided belief that motivates the Hon. Rick Colless to move this motion. This motivation just does not support the facts. WorkCover's latest statistical bulletin indicates that there were approximately 110,000 workplace injuries during the 2005-06 period, as well as around 140 work-related fatalities.

Yet over the past year WorkCover has undertaken only around 200 prosecutions, most of which involved serious injuries and fatalities. In fact, employers are 20 times more likely to receive advice from a WorkCover inspector than any form of penalty—that is a much more positive way to move forward. The Iemma Government is committed to ensuring that New South Wales is served by world's best practice workplace safety legislation, and this is what we will deliver to this Parliament in good time. We will benefit also from the new spirit of cooperation between the Commonwealth and the States and will be active in pursuing a harmonised approach to workplace safety across Australia. At the February meeting of the Workplace Relations Ministers Council, the New South Wales Government made it clear that it is committed to working with the Commonwealth and other jurisdictions to harmonise workplace safety laws. The New South Wales Government wants to see consistent legislation across the country sooner, rather than later—not a knee-jerk response to a crisis that does not exist. It is for these reasons that the Government cannot support this proposal.

The Hon. LYNDA VOLTZ [11.47 a.m.]: More than 700 Crown reserves across the State are managed by community trust boards. The volunteers who sit on these boards provide an important service to their local communities and the Government is grateful for their continuing involvement and support in managing these important State assets. These volunteers are not left to interpret their occupational health and safety obligations without guidance. They are not waiting and fearing the day that WorkCover will come knocking on their door to prosecute them for making a mistake, as the Opposition would have this House believe.

The Department of Lands maintains comprehensive guidelines and operating instructions in the handbook "A Trust Handbook—A Handbook for Trusts Managing Crown Land Reserves and Commons, and Trustees of Schools of Arts" to guide these community trust boards and other Crown reserve trust managers. The handbook provides reserve trusts with clear and comprehensive guidelines and operating instructions on occupational health and safety including, particularly, trusts' obligations; instructions on developing and implementing an occupational health and safety management system; occupational health and safety training; hazard, incident and injury recording and reporting; formal notification procedures for incidents; investigating accidents and near misses; and injury and claim management.

The reserve trust handbook also provides community trust boards with the tools they need to manage occupational health and safety within the Crown reserves they care for on behalf of the people of New South Wales. Community trust boards can use these tools to get on and do the job they do so well for their communities. The first objective of the Occupational Health and Safety Act clearly states that the Act's intention is "to secure and promote the health, safety and welfare of people at work". There have been no prosecutions of volunteer officers since modern workplace safety legislation was adopted in New South Wales in 1983. WorkCover has a key role providing advice and assistance. Prosecutions for breaches of workplace safety laws are made only as a last resort where that advice and assistance has failed and there is a clear public interest to be served. The New South Wales Government supports and values its volunteers.

The Government is committed, as my colleague has already pointed out, to ensuring that New South Wales is served by world's-best workplace safety legislation. And that is what we plan to deliver—a comprehensive package that addresses all occupational health and safety issues at once, not a series of knee-jerk reactions or a piece-meal approach, as the Opposition proposes. The Government opposes the motion and I urge all members to vote against it.

The Hon. MATTHEW MASON-COX [11.50 a.m.]: I support the comments of my colleague the Hon. Rick Colless on the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Liability of Volunteers) Bill 2008. I will address some of the nonsense that has flown from the Government benches in regard to the wider aspects of occupational health and safety. It is important that the record show that the Government is being incredibly hypocritical on this matter and is at a loss to understand the impact of its legislation on volunteers who perform a very valuable service in their communities. The Hon. Lynda Voltz and the Hon. Michael Veitch commented on the occupational health and safety statutory review and the changes that have been worked through the system. It has become patently clear to the Opposition that real reform in occupational health and safety is probably beyond the Government. There is clear evidence in that regard in the conduct of the Government over time.

Members would be aware that the Government has an occupational health and safety bill ready to roll, but it has refused to introduce it. Indeed, that proposed bill has gone through a very wide consultation process. It has widespread community and business support for the changes that it proposes, yet the hurdle that the Government seeks to overcome is in its own backyard—that is, getting union consent to some changes which, in the past, caused a lot of severe hardship for business. Similar to dealing with the problem that the Government faces with electricity privatisation, the Government is in a back room trying to work out how to deal with occupational health and safety to ensure that the union power base is not eroded.

I now refer to a couple of particular aspects in the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2007, in particular the strict liability regime that applies for occupational health and safety in New South Wales. It is a dire problem for a lot of businesses that, should they be subjected to a claim in respect of occupational health and safety, they have no natural justice rights. Under the current scheme no appeal rights are available. The liability is more or less a strict liability regime, given the burden of evidence. The access of unions to workplaces to prosecute claims is an ongoing concern to businesses. It is worth noting that if a union accesses a workplace and decides to bring a claim for an occupational health and safety matter, the union is entitled to do that under current legislation, and is also entitled to share in the proceeds of that court action.

The shame of that matter is that the proceeds of court actions in a strict liability regime is really at the heart and soul of the business concerned. A number of businesses have been bankrupted as a result, causing dire financial hardship; and a number of businesses have been sent very close to the wall. It is that situation that the proposed occupational health and safety bill sought to address. The business community was very strongly supportive of it. Given the Government's failure to make any progress on this matter, the Leader of the Opposition in the other House took it in hand and introduced a bill to deal with it. However, the Government derailed that process and sought to, again, retire to the back room to continue discussions with unions. A lack of consultation and willingness to act without the unions on board is paralysing the State. Indeed, consider electricity privatisation and the paralysis of that gridlock becomes very clear.

I return to the tenet of the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Liability of Volunteers) Bill 2008. I commend the Hon. Rick Colless for identifying a very significant problem for volunteers on community boards. They provide a valuable service to their communities and should not be at risk of liability under the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000. I note that in his contribution to the debate he has outlined a range of submissions that he has received from people serving on those boards who are very fearful of the potential liability to which they may be exposed under current conditions. The reality is that the Government is out of touch. It does not understand the valuable contributions made by volunteers. In future, people will be less inclined to give their valuable time and as a result the communities will miss out. I certainly commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. PENNY SHARPE (Parliamentary Secretary) [11.56 a.m.]: As already outlined, the Government supports in principle the Occupational Health and Safety (Liability of Volunteers) Bill 2008, but has some issues with the timing of its introduction. The Minister is to hold further discussions in relation to the bill. Therefore, I seek to adjourn further debate until the next sitting day on which private members' business takes precedence.

Debate adjourned on motion by the Hon. Penny Sharpe and set down as an order of the day for a future day.