Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to talk about a very disturbing series of incidents here in Canberra. A worker fell through a fifth-storey penetration on a Thiess Pty Ltd building site in the ACT on Wednesday, 8 February, at approximately 1 pm. The worker fell onto air-conditioning ducting being installed. This broke his fall and saved him from falling a further six to nine metres. Had the ducting not stopped him, the incident may well have been fatal. Thankfully, the worker in this case was not seriously injured. However, it is not yet 12 months since another ACT worker from another site, a family man Mr Nic Spasovski, was tragically killed by falling through a penetration on another ACT building site.

Thiess has, through company lawyers, denied any responsibility for any workers injured on their construction sites, claiming instead that employees are the responsibility of the subcontractor they employ. This is an indictment on what seems to be emerging as the preferred practice of large construction companies to change the culture of their traditional responsibility and general duty of care under the relevant legislation to a culture that tries to shift that responsibility onto subcontractors on the building sites. It advocates a culture of reaping the gains of the boom in the construction industry but not accepting any of the risks associated with potentially dangerous industries such as building and construction. I have to say that I am surprised and disappointed at what can only be described as a lack of concern by the company Thiess. I think that their attitude on this occasion has been quite high-handed and morally questionable. This is an example of how the federal government’s Work Choices legislation has had an impact on reducing the ability—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is a very long bow.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald says that it is a long bow, but my personal experience on building and construction sites is that the safer sites are where you have the strongest union presence. One of the issues that has been made very clear to me is that as the unions’ role on building sites has been diminished under this government’s legislation, so safety on site has suffered.

This is the first example I have been given an insight into which starts to provide a very tangible expression of the change of culture that appears to be occurring. I would like to refer to the federal government’s own code of conduct. This code theoretically requires head contractors to ensure that their site is safe and that their subcontractors obey the law. That is my understanding of the law. I think we are all familiar with the Building and Construction Commission prosecuting unions, and yet they tend to be a tad idle when an employer fails to abide by the law. Thiess again demonstrated a remarkable lack of concern for the workers when, following this latest incident—which, just for Senator Macdonald’s benefit, is the one that occurred in February this year—

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You said the same thing happened a year ago, long before Work Choices.

Kate Lundy (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Local Government) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, a similar incident happened over a year ago when a worker was killed. That is correct. But the issue I am talking about is the near miss that occurred in February this year. Following this incident, Thiess sacked the first aid officer on the site for apparently allowing the injured worker to leave the site to seek medical attention before notifying the foreman. Initially, on 9 February, the first aid officer was issued with a formal warning by management on site. This was later withdrawn by management following representations by fellow employees.

Then on 15 February—about a week later—the first aid officer, Mr Steve Willetts, was sacked by Thiess. I am advised by the union, the CFMEU, that this kind of behaviour has become more prevalent. I am advised by the CFMEU that there is a culture of covering up incidents and it is not uncommon with this company. The union has heard that Thiess may be forcing injured workers back on the job before they have fully recovered, sometimes for just an hour a day so they do not have to lodge lost time injury reports with ACT WorkCover. I have been given two specific examples where this has occurred.

On advice from the union I learned that in December 2006 a young worker had his finger amputated after a workplace accident. Thiess apparently required this worker to attend work just long enough for them not to have to comply with the WorkCover rules, otherwise the incident would have qualified for a lost time due to injury reporting requirement. In another incident, for which I do not have the date, a worker apparently injured his back while working. Thiess paid for taxis to and from work so that he could attend for the minimum amount of time so that they did not have to put a lost time injury report to ACT WorkCover.

My understanding is that these things are being investigated. Clearly there is a great deal of frustration from the union that they are not being investigated or pursued in the appropriate way by the relevant federal authorities. For the record, if this behaviour is occurring, it is quite reprehensible and a clear indication of how much the occupational health and safety of workers has been allowed to slip, and the Work Choices legislation has contributed to this substantially.

Thiess have an injury management policy which states that all workers must attend a medical centre nominated by them, with a supervisor, in the case of any accident requiring medical attention. Requiring a supervisor to attend the appointment with the doctor not only jeopardises the injured worker’s right to privacy but constitutes another breach by Thiess. Requiring workers to attend the company’s preferred doctor is a breach of the Workers Compensation Act. It was Mr Willetts’s alleged failure to comply with what I think are illegal provisions of the company’s policy that ultimately led to his sacking. Despite the obvious claim now of unfair dismissal and despite my Liberal colleague Senator Humphries’s enthusiasm for leaping to the defence of workers on some previous occasions, I note that he has been unwilling and unavailable to stand up for Mr Willetts.

On the question of the unfair dismissal, the Office of Workplace Services has indicated that it is powerless to assist this worker in seeking justice as it is not an unfair dismissal but an unlawful termination. This means that Mr Willetts has no choice but to take his case to the Federal Court. So much for the protection of this kind of worker in this situation; what a joke! There is no independent umpire, and Steve Willetts is left to pursue the matter through the court system at a likely personal cost of some $30,000.

It is very clear to me that there is little protection for these workers in this environment. This is a case of unfair dismissal with identified breaches of the company’s policy that show it does not abide by the law, yet the Office of Workplace Services appears to be incapable of taking on this issue and representing Mr Willetts in an unfair dismissal case. That is very disappointing. (Time expired)