Page 4100 - Week 13 - Thursday, 31 October 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The Canberra Liberals have been broadly supportive of the report’s recommendations for additional resources for work safety. In fact we have been calling for more inspectors from as early as the mid-2000s. We reiterated this position earlier this year when the minister announced his intention for more inspectors.
Let us look at the government’s track record. According to Safe Work Australia data, the ACT has the worst record for construction site safety in the country, with one in every 40 workers expected to experience a serious injury each year—not to mention also that the rate of serious injury is almost double the national average. Madam Speaker, I think before we proceed any further, it should be stated that these are unacceptable figures. Like the minister’s mismanagement of the Emergency Services Agency, after over 12 years in government this is a pretty clear case of ACT Labor mismanaging work safety.
In considering the bill we have consulted with the relevant industry bodies and local businesses. Although the HIA has been on record in support of this bill, the general sentiment that we have received has been that this will result in additional costs transferred to businesses in the sector. Recall that earlier this year the minister had also announced an increase in the construction industry levy from 1.75 to 2.5 per cent of gross wages this year, and this is on top of last year’s increase of 1.25 to 1.75 per cent. I think it is safe to say that during difficult economic times like at the present moment the minister’s go-to practice of making businesses pay for what the government should be providing will test, for instance, the building sector’s resources.
The minister has been on the record as saying that for a company with an annual wages bill of $150,000 this will mean paying up to $22.50 extra for a workers compensation insurance policy in the 2013-14 financial year. This sounds benign, but we need to take into consideration all other costs that businesses have to incur—not forgetting the increased levy on the industry and other taxes and charges. It is safe to say that, in trying to impose another tax on businesses, the minister is intentionally focusing on the tree and not the forest.
On the same point, in a briefing we received from his directorate we were told that this initiative will cost the industry approximately $2 million. Recall my earlier quote from the minister that this is part of a progressive transferring of costs. The emphasis to be made here is the claimed cost to business is just a starting point. If the construction industry levy is any indication, the costs to businesses as a result of this bill can and will increase in the future. Equally, in the same briefing we received from the minister’s directorate we were advised that the Work Safety Council had agreed to this initiative. However, as part of our consultations, this has not been the case as not all parties within the council agreed to today’s bill.
Turning to the bill itself, clause 4 gives power to the DI fund manager to decide whether the insurer or self-insurer must pay their liability, noting that this can be quarterly or when necessary when based on the sustainable functioning of the DI fund. With regard to guidelines for what is meant by “sustainable functioning” and guidelines for using this power, the government has none.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video