Dr MARJORIE O'NEILL (Coogee) (15:45:04): I make a contribution to debate on the Work Health and Safety Amendment (Review) Bill 2019. I note that the Opposition will not oppose the passage of this legislation. This stance recognises that any progress in the pursuit of safety for the working people of New South Wales is positive. This bill does not preclude further amendments and, as such, I will be discussing areas that I believe need to be expanded, clarified and changed. In short, we support the Government taking action in this space, but we do not think this piece of legislation goes nearly far enough to properly protect the lives of our workers. For almost 120 years the Labor Party and our affiliated unions have been committed to protecting workers and others from harm in the workplace. Every day the working people of New South Wales go to work and every day they deserve to come home safely. It is our job, as legislators, to ensure that their health, safety and welfare are protected by law, so that we can minimise the risks that arise from work. Every worker has the right to feel safe at work and to know—and for their family and friends to know—that they are going to come home at the end of the day.

I take this moment to remember and pay tribute to John Kennedy and Sam Meintanis who lost their lives when the Sydney to Melbourne XPT derailed last week in Wallan. I note that the maintenance of the track and signalling mechanisms are things that workers, the Rail, Tram, and Bus Union [RTBU] and the Victorian Nationals Deputy Leader Steph Ryan had raised concerns about after a train had derailed further up the line in January.

The Opposition is concerned that, in 2020, workplace fatalities and serious injuries continue to occur. We believe that, in almost every case, such injuries are completely avoidable. Recent data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that well over half a million workplace injuries occur every year. That is one person hurt every minute during working hours. The physical impact on workers is obvious. Common work-related injuries are among the top five leading causes of disability in Australia. These include back pain and immobility, musculoskeletal disorders and neck pain. Among working-age people, these conditions are associated with the greatest burden of disability, higher than levels of other common health conditions, such as cancer, diabetes, mental health conditions, and cardiovascular and respiratory disease.

The enduring impacts of injury-related health conditions on the individual and on society become an economic and social unit of their own. These include change in health following injury and the extent to which this limits our ability to participate in activities that we usually take for granted, such as housework, driving a car and caring duties. Work-related injury can also impact workers' mental health. Studies show higher rates of anxiety and depression among injured workers. There is also a ripple effect created by injury that extends well beyond the injured person to their family, friends, workmates and even their employers. The emotional and physical tolls of work-related fatalities and injuries on family members and co-workers are almost immeasurable.

The economic cost of such incidents is also clear. In the year 2012-13 alone, Safe Work Australia estimated that work-related injury and disease cost the Australian economy $61.8 billion, representing 4.1 per cent of the national gross domestic product [GDP]. Injuries accounted for 45 per cent of the total economic cost to the sum of $28 billion. Given this reality, it is crucial that serious injuries be avoided and that employers take their workplace health and safety duties with the utmost seriousness. I note that a recent campaign run by the Australian Council of Trade Unions [ACTU] called for industrial manslaughter laws to be implemented nationally. This is in support of recommendation 23b of the Boland review to introduce an industrial manslaughter offence. Further to this, Unions NSW supports all of the recommendations of the Boland review, including greater provision to enable the charge of industrial manslaughter to be pursued for workplace deaths.

Turning specifically to the substance of the bill, in his second reading speech the Minister refers to a note that is to be inserted in clause 3 of schedule 1. This note refers to the manslaughter provisions of the Crimes Act. Referencing the manslaughter provisions of the Crimes Act does not directly address deaths caused at work. There has not been a workplace safety-related charge of manslaughter under the Crimes Act. As such, there will exist enduring confusion over territory when it comes to the investigation of workplace fatalities.

The Crimes Act 1900 does operate within the workplace. However, we question why prosecution does not routinely occur when there is no legal impediment to it occurring now. It is suggested that it may not occur because police do not generally attend workplace incidents that have caused fatalities. It is instead viewed as the role of the regulator, SafeWork NSW, to attend. In my view, if the inclusion of the note in clause 3 of schedule 1 is to be effective, both the regulator and the police must attend all fatalities occurring in the workplace or in any other place as a result of work. It is here that I believe the legislation fails to address the fact that workplace fatalities are not treated with the same degree of seriousness as fatalities outside the workplace.

What this legislation does is allow the continuation of the pervasive and erroneous view that workplace deaths are exclusively accidents and, as such, are unpredictable and unavoidable. This section of the legislation allows the belief, held by many employers and employees, that some types of work will involve a degree of risk that cannot be eliminated. In their submission to the inquiry into this bill, Unions NSW summarised that the language used in the section of the bill perpetuates this view and allows for the belief that serious injuries or fatalities at work will continue to occur. The Unions NSW submission also refers to a degree of acceptance from many workers who view violence and other unsociable types of behaviour as a normal part of their work that must be accepted. They note that this is particularly true of nurses, teachers and aged care workers. High population density, along with the presence of four major hospitals, means that many of my constituents work in these industries and face these dangers each time they go to work. That is why I feel so passionately about this section of the legislation and why I support the strengthening of this section.

Secondly, I refer to the inclusion of the words "gross negligence" in section 31. This inclusion does not equate to industrial manslaughter. The term "gross negligence" appears to set a very high hurdle when exposure to death or injury by negligence should be sufficient. Compounding this, the lack of a clear definition of what constitutes gross negligence is problematic, as the ability to pursue a charge of manslaughter may be decided on a classification of negligence made without a definition on which to base the classification.

Finally, in relation to the psychological and emotional effect of workplace trauma, this bill does not address all of the Boland review recommendations relating to mental health, one of the most important being recommendation 2: Make regulations dealing with psychological health, amend the model work health and safety regulations to deal with how to identify the psychological risks associated with psychological injury and the appropriate control measures to manage those risks.

I was disappointed to find the terms of reference did not allow for any changes to work health and safety regulations. This contradicts the recommendations of the Boland review and will simply add to the plethora of information already available and, unfortunately, largely ignored. Mental health is one of the most pressing and concerning issues facing New South Wales today. If we cannot properly legislate for better mental health support in our workplaces, we are failing in our duty to provide a model for all groups of our society to follow. I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this important bill and I support all the amendments that my colleagues will be moving. The Opposition will not oppose the bill.