Legislative Council, Tuesday 10 September 2024

Ms FORREST (Murchison) - Mr President, I will try not to repeat anything I have already said in relation to the previous debate. I want to say at the outset that I support the introduction of this legislation for a number of reasons. One particularly is that some of the bigger companies and organisations in this state operate across jurisdictions and whilst they are not exactly the same provisions in other jurisdictions, surely you would expect the same level of care and duty to worker safety if that organisation is working in Tasmania as if they were working and operating in any other jurisdiction in this country. As we have already said, we are the last jurisdiction to bring something forward.

In terms of how this has come forward, the government has had the opportunity to get on with it. They called the early election. It was not the Labor Party, I might add. Thus everything stopped at that point, but they still had the opportunity to progress it.

The consultation on drafting legislation can go on during that period, as we know. I know the Labor Party made a commitment to introducing this legislation, which did not absolve the government of their responsibility. It should have actually sharpened their focus, one could say. Be that as it may, it did not appear to sharpen anyone's focus, and so here we are with legislation that has been consulted, that has been a work in progress for a long time, that has been informed by the industrial manslaughter-related legislation in other jurisdictions.

The bottom line here is: those doing the right thing have nothing to fear. They already have significant responsibilities that are very serious and if they are not taking those seriously, then they have much to fear - not from this legislation, from the existing legislation. This fills a void in our legislative framework in Tasmania where if someone dies at work as a result of negligence, that should have been avoided by proper systems, processes, all the other mechanisms put in place, then I would wonder what they are really thinking.

I accept that some organisations are smaller and have less capacity to engage all the expert advice, but it does not matter whether you are large or small. Everyone who goes to work deserves to go home safely. Physically safe, mentally safe and, overall, alive.

The member for Rumney made this point in her second reading speech where she said she wanted to make it very clear there were no new health and safety duties imposed with this bill. Rather, we are adding a provision for industrial manslaughter as every other state has. It makes it clear where safety duties are breached and a person dies, then the penalty should be severe.

I go back to the point that those who are doing the right thing have nothing to fear. I mentioned when money gets tight and big corporate owners, perhaps not based in Australia, may start to cut the financial resources to fully implement the safety requirements we expect and demand to protect Tasmanian workers; they need to be held to account. It is pretty basic. We sadly see a lot of foreign ownership of business in our state. We could have local ownership. We have seen that with Saputo just recently - completely off this point - but a matter I will be talking about in other forums, in relation to King Island and the dairy. The vast majority of those businesses - both large and small that I interact with around my electorate; and there are some very big and very small ones and a lot in the middle - take workplace safety very seriously. They have put in place safety management systems and plans and everything that is required of them.

Now, that was not always the case. I cannot remember what year it was - it was after 2005 - when I chaired a committee inquiry into mining regulations. That was a pretty steep learning curve for someone who had never worked in a mine and did not fully understand that. It became apparent, from some of the evidence we heard, that some companies were not taking it all that seriously, and people were afraid to speak up. We do not want that to be the case. We want people to speak up. We want people to feel safe to speak up. More importantly, we want the businesses to put in place proper frameworks to protect their workers. I am pleased to say that I have seen this evolve over time with very clear processes put in place. When I went to one mine site some years ago, we had to do a risk assessment even before we got out of the vehicle. I said it seemed like a little bit of overkill, but they said there could be a rock when you hop out and you could twist your ankle, and I said, 'Oh, okay'. Some might think, 'Before we even do anything, we have to stop and think?' That is a really good idea.

I mentioned some of the matters that TMEC raised. I assume all members got this letter, maybe not, but I deal with them quite a lot. There were some critical points they wanted to make. I did refer to the first one in my previous contribution on the motion to refer to a committee. One point they made is that TMEC is not yet aware of any evidence to reduce the tally rates in states which have adopted the industrial manslaughter amendment. They therefore request that the supporters of this change provide evidence which indicates following other states is based on workplace safety data. As I said in my contribution, some of these laws are very new. It is a bit hard to have any robust data on that. It is hard to measure nothing - well, you can measure nothing. We hope that the result is nothing - no deaths. I accept their concern. I accept that they want to see evidence based legislation, as I do. I acknowledge that concern.

The second one they have raised is if this amendment proceeds despite the absence of evidence, which is that evidence they were seeking in the first point, then TMEC supports 29C(1)(d)(ii) as drafted, and requests the threshold of reckless conduct be retained, and not use broader terms such as 'negligent', which can be construed to mean many things. These people are not lawyers. It might have been prepared by lawyers - no, it was Ray Mostogl who prepared it, but he would have received advice. They see that as an important inclusion. I have talked about this. There has been consultation around that. Some of the provisions in this bill are putting on the feedback received from some industry players. Assuming we get to that part in the bill at a later time, there may be some more discussion around that.

I would like the member for Rumney to address the third point in her reply. I alluded to it in the previous contribution. Section 29B(1)(b)(ii) references a high risk of death, serious injury or illness. Mr Mostogl says:

With clarity as to the purpose of the amendment, this clause be removed, as it could be argued a case of industrial manslaughter could be prosecuted where a high risk of death existed but a fatality did not occur.

I note his concern, but I also note in that provision there is an 'and', which means that there has to be a higher risk of death, serious injury or serious illness with a great falling short of the standard of care. I think maybe they were reading it in isolation. I accept that could be problematic. If the member for Rumney could address her mind to how this will not result in a case for industrial manslaughter, where a high risk of death existed but a fatality did not occur. I hope I have made clear the concern that was raised.

They did give some other informational examples. I wanted to make those couple of points. You said you do not want to drag this out. I support the intent of the legislation. I will listen with interest particularly to the Committee stage, and to whether the Leader on behalf of the government, on behalf of the people who propose the amendments, can make the case and maybe we will have more clarity then about the intent of that. I will read, in summary, what Mr Mostogl wrote. He said:

… this amendment should ensure both the intended and unintended consequences result in a safer workplace and that workplace safety remains the domain of the PCBU workforce and regulator and not in the legal profession.

It would be really good if we did not have to engage the legal profession. It would be really good if we did not have to send these matters to court. It would be really good if it became useless legislation in many respects because no one died. That would be our overall aim and we would then not have families grieving the loss of a loved one who did not come home from work. Whilst I accept the member for Mersey said no legislation is ever going to guarantee that, it should be our aim and goal, because every worker should have that right and expect nothing less - and their family should not have to live with the grief of losing a loved one in such circumstances.

I support the legislation. I will listen with interest to the other contributions and certainly in the Committee stage.