Page 313 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 7 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Of course, the construction industry has been significantly affected by the establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, flowing out of the royal commission inquiry into the building industry a few years ago, which has extraordinary powers to enforce what it sees as appropriate practice. The federal government, in its commitment to maintaining appropriate standards, requires those construction businesses it engages to comply with the building and construction national code, including in respect of injury management.
Sadly, the agency set up by the government when it introduced WorkChoices and gutted the industrial relations commission, the Office of Workplace Services, does not claim jurisdiction. In other words, there is no effective system of accountability set up. Corporations are nominally expected to comply with the code but there is no assurance that they will or means of making them do so. It does appear, however, that some of them like to look as though they are complying. Perhaps we should look at how this comes out in the wash.
In December last year, for example, a young worker at Thiess lost a finger. As I understand it, he was then required to attend work while on pain medication. He had no duties at work other than to attend the site long enough each day for Thiess to avoid lodging a “lost time injury report”. This is simply a way of avoiding some of the penalties that ought to impact on a business that is running an unsafe or insufficiently safe workplace.
Another example of the same approach relates to a duct installer at the Marcus Clarke Street site, who I believe was required to attend work daily despite a severe back injury. The employee attended work via a taxi paid by Thiess for one hour per day, where I understand he was obliged to watch a workplace safety video. Again, the outcome from Thiess’s point of view was that the management did not need to lodge a lost time injury report. Finally, of course, there are the other matters that I do not plan to talk about due to the Speaker’s ruling.
Mrs Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I cannot tell, listening to Dr Foskey, whether or not she is adverting to the—
DR FOSKEY: Well, I am not, Mrs Dunne. Perhaps you should listen.
Mrs Dunne: incident or the incidents on that site and therefore whether they relate to this dismissal. It seems to me that what Dr Foskey is doing is adverting to other incidents that happened on this site that were in the lead-up to this dismissal, and therefore they create a problem for sub judice.
MR SPEAKER: I do not know how we can know that.
Mr Mulcahy: Well, she is naming the company. She is naming the firm.
MR SPEAKER: Well—
Mrs Dunne: Dr Foskey is naming the company and she is also using—
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .