Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 3426 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

... our experience with labour hire companies is that they do not train people. They advertise for what we call skilled labour. They do not do any inductions or on-site training because they are not actually based on site; they just respond to an employer ringing up requiring casual or permanent part-time for whatever the contract period is. They supply little, if any, safety equipment and, in our experience, their track record on rehabilitation is virtually non-existent.

... If someone gets injured at work, their attitude is, "Give us a call once you are fit and healthy again and we may be able to find you some work". That is all putting stress and pressure on the scheme, because we need to ensure that employers do act responsibly with workers if and when they get injured. Rehabilitation is a very important fact and also is induction.

Mr Speaker, during an inquiry by the Estimates Committee the Urban Services Department was asked about their labour hire operations. I think at the time there were something like 130 workers taken on by urban services from labour hire companies. We asked them what happened when a worker got injured. The minister may recall this. Essentially what they said was: "Well, we need another one. Send us another one." In other words, this one's broke; we need another one. What happens to the worker? Well, they go back to the labour hire company and the labour hire company says, "Come back and see us when you are ready for work. We haven't got a job for you."

This is a sorry state of affairs with recent developments out there in the work force. Labour hire companies have become more and more a part of employment arrangements out there in the workplace. More and more, as the evidence shows us, employers are using them as a risk minimisation affair, using labour hire employees instead of their own.

Further information from the CFMEU was as follows:

So if one of these workers is injured the employer does not bear the responsibility for increased premiums as a result of a bad accident record. Somebody else does, but not the employer. I say it is the employer's responsibility to look after his or her own workers.

ACT WorkCover, again contributing to the committee, relayed a story about a tragic death on a New South Wales work site. A person was killed when a bulldozer rolled onto him. WorkCover noted that a contributory factor in the accident was the fact that the worker, a labour hire contractor, did not have the faintest clue what they were doing. They were not licensed to be handling the machinery. The union argued that there should have been a 25 per cent premium applied on this for labour hire companies.

Interestingly, the Recruitment and Consultancy Services Association construed the situation differently, arguing that they have little or no control over workplace safety. That is the point that I make here. Their workers compensation premiums are affected by the poor performance of their clients or host employers. So even the association representing these people said that these premiums were affected by the poor

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .