WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY BILL 2007 Second Reading Speech

Northern Territory Second Reading Speeches

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY BILL 2007

(This an uncorrected proof of the daily report. It is made available under the condition that it is recognised as such.)

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY BILL
(Serial 123)
LAW REFORM (WORK HEALTH)
AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 124)

Bills presented and read a first time.

Mr HENDERSON (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills now be read a second time.

The purpose of these bills is to provide a more modern, appropriate legislative framework for the regulation of Occupational Health and Safety in the Northern Territory. By improving the regulatory framework the government seeks to ensure Territorians have safer working environments through reduced rates of injury and disease.

There are more Territorians in the workforce than ever before, in an ever expanding range of jobs. In 1987, when the existing Work Health Act was drafted, there were 71 600 people employed in the Northern Territory. Today, there are over 107 800 people at work in the Territory. We have the highest forecast job growth in Australia over the next five years. Attracting and keeping the right staff is a key issue for Territory businesses and a safe working environment is essential to attracting and retaining workers. We need to keep these people at work and working safely.

Safer workplaces make good economic sense as well. Workers Compensation premiums cost Territory businesses $82m last year. Other costs include production disturbance costs, costs to the economy from lost human capital, and medical and administrative costs.

The costs of workplace incidents cannot be measured in dollars alone. Last year, four Territorians were tragically killed at work, and thousands were injured. The Northern Territory government considers these costs unacceptable, and for this reason commissioned the first comprehensive independent review of the Work Health Act in 20 years.

This review was conducted in the context of a decision by government in 2006 to amalgamate all safety regulatory activities into one agency. The review was undertaken by a company, Shaw Idea, which led a consortium of consultants who, together, had extensive experience in and knowledge of the occupational health and safety or OHS regulatory system.

Over time, stakeholders have represented to government various problems with the existing regulatory regime, including confusion over duties and responsibilities, unsatisfactory enforcement powers and lack of effective engagement and consultation mechanisms. The consultants were not asked to look at specific problems with the legislation. They were asked to focus on identifying features that will deliver the most effective outcomes for the future.

The brief was to review the existing Northern Territory OHS regulatory regime with an improvement focus, ensuring that proposed legislative changes: (a) reflect contemporary Australian practice; (b) adopt standards that are clear and accessible so that all parties know what they are expected to comply with; (c) take into account existing national commitments, for example the National OHS Strategy and the National Mine Safety Framework; and (d) are suitable for all industries, including those identified as hazardous industries.

Earlier this year, I invited peak associations with a particular interest in OHS to be part of an industry based OHS reference group. This group met with the consultants and provided valuable input into the review process. During the review’s consultation process, which culminated in a full-day future inquiry workshop, stakeholders agreed on three principles.

First, there was high level agreement by all stakeholders that everyone has an interest in and a responsibility for creating and maintaining safe work environments. Secondly, making workplaces safer can only be achieved through the cooperation of all stakeholders, including employers and workers. Finally, stakeholders agreed that government can best support safer workplaces by ensuring the Work Health Authority operates independently, reports directly to the responsible minister and that its administrative arm, NT WorkSafe, is appropriately resourced.

The Shaw Review made a range of recommendations most of which identified gaps between current Australian practice and a legislative framework in place in the Northern Territory. The final report of the Shaw Review was made available to the industry based OHS Reference Group, stakeholders who furnished written submissions and it was also posted to the NT WorkSafe web site in August this year.

A number of written submissions were received from stakeholders as a result of this ongoing consultation process. It is fair to say that the main areas canvassed in the various submissions focussed on the consultation processes between employers and employees, particularly with regard to health and safety representatives and authorised union OHS representatives.

In drafting this legislation, government has taken into account the various positions of stakeholders on these issues and has ensured the appropriate checks and balances are in place to address the expressed concerns. I will go into further detail later as I discuss each part of the bills in more detail.

The Northern Territory government is committed to a range of policy decisions ensuring that Territorians are provided with safer working environments with the primary objective being a reduction in workplace injuries leading to increased productivity. These policy decisions are reflected in both bills and associated regulations.

The Workplace Health and Safety Bill replaces the existing Part 4 OHS of the Work Health Act. Its purpose is to provide a comprehensive occupational health and safety legislative framework covering all workplaces in the Northern Territory. It reflects modern workplace arrangements and is contemporary occupational health and safety legislation.

The Law Reform (Work Health) Amendment Bill deals with consequential amendments to the Mining Management Act, the Petroleum Act, Dangerous Goods Act and other affected legislation. The Law Reform (Work Health) Bill amends the title of the current Work Health Act to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act to accurately reflect the purposes of that act.

It is evident that the focus of these two items of legislation is different, yet they have a high degree of interrelationship. One focuses on prevention of workplace injury and the other focuses on rehabilitation, return to work and compensation for those who have suffered injuries. The synergies and the potential for conflict means the two regulatory frameworks are best dealt with by a single authority.

Before looking to the detail in the bills, I will reflect on the Northern Territory government’s commitment to a revamped NT WorkSafe. The Working Safer package, which includes $2.3m in additional funding over three years, is in response to stakeholders’ concerns with regard to the level of resourcing and the autonomy of the Work Health Authority. The funding will provide better support to business and to workers through improved information and advisory services, more highly skilled and mobile workplace safety officers, and a stronger leadership in OHS for the Northern Territory. NT WorkSafe will have a greater autonomy, with the appointment of a new executive director, reporting directly to the responsible minister.

I will now turn to some of the details of the bill. Part 1 contains preliminary matters, including a new Objects Clause and the definition of key terms. The inclusion of an objects clause spells out what this statute aspires to achieve. In particular, the Objects Clause seeks to achieve the highest possible standards of OHS through the elimination of risk, provision of safe workplaces, cooperation between employers and employees, and raising awareness of OHS issues. The objects are important as they provide guidance to decision-makers at a time when the courts increasingly adopt a purposive approach to statutory interpretation. One of the recommendations put to government was to include in the definition of ‘occupational health’ an explicit recognition of psychosocial issues. Stakeholders have different views on this recommendation.

Whilst government recognises the changing nature of work and work hazards, it is not clear that an explicit reference to psychosocial issues is required. While some jurisdictions may be moving in this direction, it is not currently contemporary practice. There remains some uncertainty about the nature and scope of the hazards that might fall within this area. For example, there is debate around stress and fatigue, and what is good stress, stimulating work with little risk, and bad stress through excessive demands leading to harm. Similarly, the lines drawn around the overlap of work stress and rest of life stress is still contentious. As a consequence, government has deferred this recommendation in order for NT WorkSafe to undertake further analysis.

Several of the recommendations put to government related to the definition of ‘practicable’. The definition in the current Work Health Act of ‘practicable’ in effect means ‘reasonably practicable’, so in the interests of clarity, comprehension and consistency, the words ‘reasonably practicable’ now replace ‘practicable’ in all relevant sectors of the new act, consistent with contemporary practice.

Employment arrangements in the Northern Territory today are very different to those in place 20 years ago when the current act was drafted. For this reason, the Workplace Health and Safety Bill has been drafted to be very broad, covering all workplaces, and protecting not just those who fall within the technical, legal definition of ‘worker’, but also all those who could be adversely affected by activities at the workplace, including visitors and members of the public. The bill strengthens the coverage of employment arrangements by including specifically contract workers, labour hire workers and volunteers. Again, this is in line with contemporary OHS legislation.

Part 2 sets out some matters relating to the administration of the act and allows for the continuation of the authority. Much of this part of the bill is drawn from the current Work Health Act. However, I draw to the attention of honourable members the following new provisions. As indicated earlier, in response to stakeholder views, government has increased the management capacity of NT WorkSafe through the appointment of an executive director. The Work Health Authority is constituted of the Executive Director, who will report directly to the responsible minister. However, the executive director will maintain the conventional reporting for specific requirements under the Financial Management Act and the Public Sector Employment and Management Act to the Chief Executive of the Department of Employment, Education and Training. The current act provides the power for the current authority to conduct inquiries and to examine witnesses. However, there is a lack of clarity relating to the conduct of such examinations, and the bill sets the parameters in which the authority can operate in this area.

The authority has the power to appoint officers to administer the act. The bill clarifies the functions of a workplace safety officer with regard to authorised investigations. Recognising the employer’s and employees’ need for practical and constructive advice in fulfilling their OHS obligations, the bill explicitly identifies the advisory role of the Workplace Safety Officer.

The current Work Health Advisory Council has a dual role in relation to workers compensation and occupational health and safety. In practice, the main business of the current council focuses around the workers compensation elements of the act. Under the Law Reform Work (Work Health) Amendment Bill, the functions and membership of the current Work Health Advisory Council will be arranged to monitor workers rehabilitation and compensation matters only.

Part 3 of the Workplace Health and Safety Bill establishes a new Workplace Health and Safety Advisory Council, consisting of 10 members representing employers, workers and the executive director in a tripartite advisory body reporting to the minister on matters relating to OH&S. In recognising that some industries might be more intrinsically hazardous or more specialised than others, the bill provides for the establishment of subcommittees to assist the council with its functions. For example, a mining subcommittee may be formed to provide advice around mine-specific safety issues in the context of the Territory, arising from the National Mine Safety framework. Subcommittees can coopt members from outside the council.

I turn now to some of the most significant and important improvements in the bill dealing with consultation, participation and worker representation under Part 4. Underpinning all Australian OH&S statutes is the philosophy that greater consultation between workers and employers makes for more effective OH&S at the workplace. All the contemporary research shows that, when employees have input before decisions are made about OH&S matters, workplaces have better health and safety outcomes. Whilst the current act provides for consultation with the workforce, in some fundamental aspects it falls well short of contemporary Australian practice. Part 4 establishes a duty on employers to consult with workers to enable them to contribute to the making of decisions effecting their health and safety at work. It provides guidance on how and when to consult, including: on risk identification and control; when changes to procedures, plants or materials might impact on OH&S; and when deciding on the adequacy of facilities for OH&S of workers. Quite rightly, the bill balances this against the reciprocal obligation of workers in regard to consultation. Whilst the final decision on OH&S practice will always reside with the employer as the duty holder, the intention is that workers will be involved in the decision-making process, taking into account their views.

The intent of this part of the bill is to maximise the opportunities for employers and employees to enter into a dialogue before making decisions regarding OH&S in the workplace. It is a proactive focus that allows employers, with the help of employees, to self-regulate and prevent accidents and injuries before they happen. The primary point of OH&S consultation provided for in the bill is the election of Health and Safety Representatives by and from the workers in a work group. Health and Safety Representative are the employees representative for OH&S issues in the workplace and. as such, HSRs have the important role of increasing participation and constructive discussion about occupational health and safety. Employees can be best placed to know about specific risks and hazards in a workplace, and the benefit of having trained HSRs is that they can listen to concerns and present them to the employer or management, making for better decisions. Either an employer or an employee can initiate the election of a HSR. In this regard, it is important to note that the scheme is not mandatory. However, when the scheme is initiated by an employee, it will be mandatory for an employer to adopt clearly defined actions leading to the election of a HSR. The bill provides for the establishment of work groups, agreed processes for the election by employees of a HSR, and access by the HSR to accredited training. As part of his duty to consult, the employer is required to provide training and facilities and share information with an elected HSR.

Government recognises that the cost of the election support and training of HSRs could be a burden for small business. Accordingly, a decision has been taken to exempt small business - being employers with 10 or less workers - from the requirement unless the employer wishes to elect, train and support a HSR. In offering further options for small business in the Northern Territory, a provision has been included to allow for a shared or roving HSR. This will allow for the costs of the election, training and support of a HSR to be shared between groups of small businesses should they wish to do so. This provision is designed to allow those businesses wishing to collaborate to gain the benefits of a trained HSR. A roving HSR only has jurisdiction in those businesses that formally agree, in writing, to participate in the arrangement. It should also be made quite clear that this scheme must have the agreement of employers and workers alike. The shared or roving HSR has been successfully used in the construction industry in Victoria. With multi-site employers, it might be a useful mechanism for several small businesses in locations such as Casuarina Square.

A HSR is elected for two years and has a range of functions confined to work place health and safety matters affecting the particular work group they have been elected to represent. The consultation process aims to resolve OH&S issues without recourse to the authority. However, where consultation or negotiation on an appropriate OH&S matter between the employer and HSR fails, the HSR has the specific power to issue a notice of safety hazard advising the employer to address actually or perceived breaches of legislation and places the onus on the recipient to rectify the situation.

Advice from jurisdictions that have equivalent powers indicates that employers prefer to deal with a HSR rather than the workplace safety officer. However, an employer is always able to seek assistance and direction from WorkSafe should they believe the notice is not warranted. A provision has been made for HSRs to have the collective right to cease dangerous work. This can only occur where an immediate threat to the health and safety of a person is evident. The authority’s guidance material will also detail the consultation processes that need to occur with the employer and the requirement to notify the authority if a direction to cease work is given.

An employer has every right to seek intervention by the authority should they not agree with the decisions or actions of the HSR. Under the current act, workers have a right and a responsibility to cease work in an area where there is an immediate risk of severe injury to a worker at a workplace and where the employer does not remove risk. This is retained in the bill. A significant body of research demonstrates that having well trained HSRs in the workplace does bring about positive change in health and safety practices and there is a strong link between improved safety performance and accredited training of HSRs.

An appropriate level of accredited training for HSRs is seen as essential for them to effectively engage with an employer on OH&S risks and practices in the workplace. Most jurisdictions run a three to four day accredited OH&S course for HSRs. Such a course will be developed in consultation with stakeholders to ensure the appropriate processes and content are covered, whilst minimising the impact on the employer through loss of productivity whilst the HSR is at training. Given the extent of this provision, NT WorkSafe will work with both employer and employee groups in developing guidance material that will assist in all aspects of HSRs. In addition, the government will undertake to pay for the initial training courses for HSRs in small to medium businesses which employ between 10 and 20 workers.

Provision for health and safety committees continues to be an important consultation and participation mechanism in this bill on much the same basis as it currently applies. However, in recognising the primary importance of HSRs and consulting on and addressing OH&S issues, the provision allows for them to seek the formation of a committee should they request it of an employer with 20 or more workers. Further, through the broadening of the definition of a worker, the provision now allows the involvement of subcontractors and other types of precarious workers such as labour hire workers in OH&S committees.

The third element of consultation and worker participation is the role of authorised union OH&S representatives. This bill allows for an authorised union OH&S representative to constructively support HSRs, workers and employers in resolving OH&S issues in the workplace. This division of the bill includes specific objects that make it clear that the balance between employers and employees rights and responsibilities must be maintained. The research to date is that health and safety performance is improved where trained and authorised union representatives are engaged with HSRs and employers in the work place on OH&S issues. In Australia there has been a long tradition of allowing unions reasonable access to workplaces.

The Australian government’s Workplace Relations Act provides for entry to workplaces by authorised representatives of employee associations including for OH&S purposes. The Workplace Relations Act details the arrangements for such entry including permits and conditions, permitted activity whilst on site, notice requirements, etcetera. It also prohibits misrepresentation regarding entry and activity on site. These provisions apply to workplaces in the Northern Territory.

This act provides for access by registered union officials to Northern Territory work places to investigate suspected breaches of OHS laws. In these circumstances, access is permitted to work places where there are union members or where the union is a party to an award or a collective agreement covering workers at the work place. A union representative can also access the work place after giving 24 hours notice to the employer to meet with people at the work place who are members or eligible to be members during breaks.

Some stakeholders have expressed concern that allowing a union representative to enter a work place for OHS reasons will lead to an abuse of power by union representatives and will be used as a tool to progress industrial relations issues. In response to this, a range of provisions in the bill place stringent conditions on the union representative. Only appropriately OHS trained and authorised union representatives can enter a work site under these provisions. In the spirit of cooperation, authorised union representatives are expected to make the employer aware of the workplace health and safety issue as soon as practicable after entry to a work place. They are also required to comply with conditions out placed in the Commonwealth Workplace Relations Act.

Similarly, employers are not to hinder or obstruct an authorised union representative in carrying out their functions. Where entry is sought to discuss OH matters with workers, eligible members of the registered employee association must be present, and must agree to talk with the representative. The authorised representative must give 24 hours notice of their intention to have discussions and must meet during breaks in a location directed by the employer.

Entry other than on these conditions or circumstances is not allowed under this bill. The government’s belief is that unions have a positive role to play in supporting employees and employers in resolving workplace health and safety issues, and creating a cooperative and more proactive culture when it comes to risk prevention.

The bill makes it clear that the authority will be able to assist the parties in relation to the operation of these provisions. The government’s expectation is that the need for sanctions will not arise, but in the event that any individual does not hear the message, improper use of the powers will not be tolerated and tough sanctions will apply. Appropriate mechanisms for disqualification from holding HSR or authorised union representative powers have been made explicit in the bill, and will be enforced. There is also a right to sue for damages in the event of misuse of power that results in loss or damage to a business.

In introducing this part, I highlighted the significant role that consultation, cooperation and negotiation is to play in the decision making processes regarding workplace health and safety. NT Worksafe will work with stakeholders to prepare guidance material relating to consultation and HSR’s health and safety committees and authorised union representatives to ensure that actions on the ground are guided by the intent of the bill.

Part 5 outlines the statutory duties of care. All Australian OHS statutes place general duties upon a range of parties, including employers, to employees, and to person other than employees. Self-employed people, people in control of workplaces, designers of plant and buildings, manufacturers, suppliers and importers of plant and substance, and employees. The general duty provisions ensure that all principal parties involved in the work process are subject to interlocking and overlapping duties that require them to do all that is reasonably practicable to complete or undertake work in a way that is safe. It gives the duty holder the freedom to develop his or her own solutions to OHS problems.

These general duties are absolute. That is, there is no need to prove intent or recklessness, but the extent of the duty is restricted to taking measures that are reasonably practicable. This means that any prosecution action must include proving all aspects of its case, including that the defendant failed to do what was reasonably practicable beyond reasonable doubt.

In the interests of certainty and clarity, the bill sets out how the employer should carry out the general duty by adopting a systematic approach to OHS. This clearly indicates that the outcome is the elimination of risk through a systematic approach, but still gives the duty holder choice in how to achieve that outcome.

Building design can have a critical influence on OHS outcomes. The inclusion of a duty on those who design, construct, manufacture, import, install or supply a workplace is contemporary practice, and is also an important preventative measure. Designing to avoid potential hazards in workplaces before they exist is effectively eliminating hazards at the source. The duty is limited to those matters which are under control of the designer.

The general duties imposed on employees remain unchanged in the bill. All jurisdictions have a requirement for certain types of serious incidents to be reported to the regulator. In the interests of clarity for employers and workers, Part 6 specifies what is a reportable incident and sets out the requirement for reporting the incidents to the authority. Inspectors’ powers define the capacity to enforce an act. An act that fails to give inspectors adequate powers will be essentially toothless and will, in practice, not achieve its objects.

Part 7 of this bill deals with powers applicable to investigations. The powers under the current Northern Territory legislation are non-specific and give limited direction. It is silent on the power to enforce the act, the use of search warrants, the seizure of objects or material for evidence, as well as the power to compel answers and to give directions. This is in stark contrast to all other jurisdictions that give detailed direction to reduce potential loopholes and gaps in the areas of investigation and enforcement. These deficiencies limit the capacity of the act to be used to gain and enforce compliance with OHS legislation or to facilitate prosecution.

The provisions under Part 7 address these deficiencies and provide workplace health and safety officers with the necessary powers to enable them to perform their compliance role efficiently and effectively. It gives them protection to conduct their work safely without being hindered or obstructed in their regulatory roles and it protects them from liability.

Having these powers does not detract from the educative function that is part of a regulatory role, and the authority will ensure the appropriate application of advisory, educative and compliance roles. Enforcement is essential for workplace health and safety legislation to achieve its objectives. Under the current act, the Northern Territory does not meet contemporary practice in the matter of enforcement strategies and powers. All jurisdictions in Australia now recognise the value of graduated enforcement measures, that is, having the capacity to gradually escalate the level of sanctions to the top of an enforcement pyramid whilst ensuring the majority of their effort is focussed on less interventionist approach where these seem likely to achieve the desired change in behaviour.

Part 8 sets out enforcement measures that reflect an appropriate balance between persuasion and punishment. The bill provides the authority with a range of enforcement options. It allows the use of persuasive approaches to support a duty holder to meet obligations, whilst retaining the option to use punitive measures in those cases where legal force is necessary. An important mechanism in the graduated enforcement regime relates to the enforcement tools available to the authority. The provisions allow for the authority to enter into an agreement with the alleged offender to take specific actions to remedy or guard against future contraventions. Under these agreements, a duty holder who has allegedly breached the obligations under the bill could undertake to do something which, if not done, is enforced in court. The duty holder enters into the orders voluntarily, and the authority may accept the activities associated with the order as an alternative to prosecution action through the courts. The intention of such orders is to ensure that effort and resources are directed back to where they can have a positive effect on OHS outcomes.

The bill ensures that the appropriate level of corporate officer who makes key decisions in relation to OHS can be held personally accountable for those decisions. It is evident that an officer could not be held accountable for a safety breach which he/she could not reasonably have expected to know about, or over which he/she has no control. Again, this accords with contemporary OHS practice.

The penalties for failure to comply with the Work Health Act are currently the lowest in the country. Indeed, they are so low that some stakeholders have indicated that some employers might budget for fines because it is cheaper than compliance. The Mining Management Act currently has a maximum penalty of up to 12 500 penalty units for a body corporate, and a maximum of up to 2500 penalty units for an individual, where there is an intentional breach of duty by a duty holder who ought to know the offence may result in death and which, in fact, did cause death.

The maximum penalty for this particular circumstance will be maintained in the Workplace Health and Safety Act. In other circumstances, the bill brings the maximum penalty for a corporation to 5000 penalty units, with penalties to 7000 penalty units for aggravated offences. For individuals, the maximum penalty has been set at 1000 penalty units. This takes the Northern Territory penalty regime to the middle range amongst other jurisdictions. Of course, it is up to the court in each case to decide what penalty applies in the range up to the maximum but, generally, I would expect to see penalties applied by the court to increase.

Custodial sentences in the current act still apply in the new bill, despite some stakeholders believing that the bill should include an offensive industrial manslaughter, this does not represent contemporary practice in Australia and it is not included in this bill.

Part 9 provides for a range of review and appeal provisions that more accurately reflect contemporary practice. The bill provides for transparency by adopting clearly defined review provisions that allow the application of both internal and external review.

Part 10 contains miscellaneous provisions. Employees’ representatives, such as HSRs, have a critical role to play in improving OH&S outcomes. In discharging their responsibilities, they may come into conflict with their employer or other workers. They must feel secure in their employment in order to be effective. For this reason, discrimination against a worker on the grounds of OH&S activity is prohibited. The bill provides that, once the discrimination is proved, the employer has the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities to show that OH&S activity was not the predominant reason for the discrimination. This bill allows for the act to be reviewed every five years, thereby providing for Northern Territory OH&S legislation to remain contemporary.

A general duties approach to OH&S regulation involves the use of regulations and codes of practice to provide the detail on how the general duties are to be achieved. As actions from the National Mines Safety Framework Agreement have progressed, it will be necessary to include specific mine safety regulations. The bill allows for those regulations to be made under the Work Health (Occupational Health and Safety) Regulations.

In concluding the discussion relating to the Workplace Health and Safety Bill, I extend my sincere thanks to those members of the industry-based reference group and other stakeholders who made submissions and provided valuable guidance during a period of consultation review and reform. While some stakeholders may have reservations with some aspects of the proposed bill, it is evident that in the main there is consensus that improving workplace health and safety is a priority for government, industry, employers, employees and the community.

Future work on the Law Reform (Work Health) Amendment Bill: I now turn to the legislation introduced under the Law Reform (Work Health) Bill which deals with consequential amendments made to other legislation arising from the enactment of this bill. Part 2 separates the current Work Health Act into two bills, creating the workers rehabilitation and compensation from the existing legislation relating to workers compensation. Amendments in the interpretation section reflect the executive director acting as the authority, and tidy up the bill where the removal of OH&S aspects have an impact on the definitions and other parts of the current Work Health Act.

Part 3 amends the Petroleum Act to transfer the administrative responsibility for OH&S regulation of onshore construction activity in production facilities to the Workplace Health and Safety Act. Once production facilities commence operation, the responsibility for OH&S regulation shifts to the Petroleum Act.

Part 4 amends the Dangerous Goods Act to allow the act to apply to all industry sectors, including mining.

Part 5 amends the Mining Management Act to remove all references to OH&S.

Part 6 amends the work health regulations to include changes to risk management to give a clearer definition of the hierarchy of control, and to emphasise the elimination of risk as a primary goal. It also allows for the insertion of mining operation regulations once agreements around mine-specific safety regulations are finalised from the National Mines Safety Framework. Transitional arrangements allow for the current mine management plans to be enforced until further regulations relating to OH&S risk management plans are published in the gazette.
Part 7 provides for transitional arrangements to allow the Work Health (Occupational Health and Safety) Regulations to be taken as regulations under the Workplace Health and Safety Act 2007.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present this legislation package to the parliament, as the government is committed to doing all we can to keep Territorians working safer. In conclusion, I also thank officers of my department of WorkSafe NT, who have done an enormous amount of work in pulling this together. It has been a huge body of work, and my sincere thanks to officers of the department for their contributions. I commend the bills for honourable members.

Debate adjourned.

[Index] [Search] [Bill] [Help]