Keith Pitt (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, very much. The cost to the taxpayer is important. The bill deals with a number of different areas, including, for example, changes around serious and wilful misconduct. I do not think that it is reasonable, and I am sure that the people of Australia would not think that it is reasonable, that if you leave your workplace in your lunch hour and you go down the road and perform hang-gliding—or go rock-climbing, go for a run, or play Rugby League—you would expect the employer to cover these things if you are injured. Quite simply, this is a good change and it is something that should be supported.

The responsibility for self is something I think we have lost over some decades. You should be responsible for yourself and the actions that you take. The multiple layers of legislation—whether it in OHS, WorkCover or common law—makes it very, very difficult for people to be self-aware. One of the complaints I get from tradesmen, in particular—older tradesmen who have been around for some time—is that the skill base has been lost by those in the younger generation. The things that they need, to have to be safe and to be able to perform the activities that are required, have been lost. Older tradesmen talk about working at heights as something which they were trained in. Now it is something that you receive a certificate for, which in my view is just unhelpful. Unfortunately, all of these layers of legislation result in reams and reams of paperwork for these organisations.

As someone who has been a lead auditor, accredited with RAB/QSA, to assess construction sites and a whole pile of other activities, I can tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that what this results in is risk-shifting. Quite simply, organisations now try to ensure that they pass audit to be able to get their work done, because if they do not pass audit they quite simply get knocked off the list and no longer win any more construction projects. There are ways that they manage to do this. For instance, as an auditor, you will roll up to the site and in some circumstances there will be no workers there, because on that day they just happen to be unavailable, or the concrete pour was not ready and so they all had the day off. You end up at a site which is literally empty. There is no machinery, no equipment, but there is an office full of paperwork for you to look through. Now, paperwork, unfortunately, does not help in improving OHS risks.

I heard the contribution from the member for Griffith and I agree that 159 deaths or any death in a workplace is unacceptable. However, as someone who has been involved in investigating any number of these things, unfortunately, it is atypical that it is something very simple which causes a fatality. A person steps forward, they step back, they step sideways and they do not look, and that is something which is very difficult to manage and control. It is an absolute tragedy for their families; it is a tragedy for the organisation; it is bad for morale; and it is bad all round for the nation. I agree 100 per cent that we do not want any fatalities in workplaces. The member for Griffith also commented on common law damages in Queensland and how there might be opportunities for these to shift; they are not available under Comcare. Unfortunately, the best benefit out of common law goes to funding lawyers. Lawyers make an enormous amount of money out of common law claims and processes. I think there is a better way to deal with that, and it is something which we should look at in the future.

This bill is all about reducing red tape, and that is something which I support. As I said previously, there are a number of organisations which Comcare already covers for insurance, including Defence and the Public Service. There are systems in place already that are able to deal with enforcement of the act, and of course investigation of that should be warranted.

This is a bill which I support. It allows companies who operate in multiple jurisdictions to reduce some of their costs. One of the great benefits of reducing costs for employers is that it gives them the ability to employ more people, and that is something which we should all be concerned about. Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to make this contribution. I support the bill.

See this speech in context