The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Ms Abigail Boyd): Before I call the Hon. Tara Moriarty, I welcome to the gallery Mark Morey, the secretary of Unions NSW; Todd Pinkerton, a campaigns organiser at Unions NSW; Natasha Flores, a legal officer at Unions NSW; Sherri Hayward, a legal officer at CFMEU; and David White from the Family and Injured Workers Support and Advisory Group. You are most welcome here, and we acknowledge the work that you have done.

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY (Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional New South Wales, and Minister for Western New South Wales) (14:48): On behalf of the Hon. Daniel Mookhey: I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

On behalf of the Labor Party and the Government, I am incredibly proud to introduce the Work Health and Safety (Industrial Manslaughter) Bill 2024 into this place. The primary objective of the bill is to introduce an industrial manslaughter offence into the New South Wales work health and safety framework. The Government believes that every worker in this State should come home safely at the end of the day. That is a fundamental right. Despite 20 years of campaigning by families, friends, campaigners and unions whose members have been killed at work, New South Wales is the last mainland State without an industrial manslaughter offence.

I acknowledge the presence of Mr David White in the gallery. Mr White is here today to represent the Family and Injured Workers Support and Advisory Group. His presence underscores the importance of this bill. The Family and Injured Workers Support and Advisory Group represents workers who have lost their lives or been seriously injured at work. I also acknowledge members of the group who are watching online today, particularly the fearless Patrizia Cassaniti, who is watching from Gunnedah. I also acknowledge the members of the union movement who are here today, who have campaigned on this issue for over 20 years.

Every workplace death represents a preventable death, a tragedy that could have been avoided. Each death represents a family that has been given a life sentence. Today I hope this Parliament corrects this. This bill continues the Labor Party's legacy of supporting the right of working people to a safe workplace. Since 2019 there have been 300 fatal workplace incidents in New South Wales. Some 300 families have been given a life sentence. The establishment of an industrial manslaughter offence in New South Wales demonstrates that the Minns Labor Government will do everything it can to create safer workplaces in New South Wales.

I note that the bill before the House has been subject to three technical amendments in the other place. The reasons for those amendments were well explained by the Minister in the other place—suffice it to say that the amendments were technical in nature and made to ensure the offence is entirely consistent with other provisions in the Work Health and Safety Act 2011.

Today this House has the opportunity to make history. I hope and believe that this House will today stand up for working people and their right to a safe workplace. I acknowledge those people who have campaigned on this issue for a very long time. I again acknowledge the work of the Minister for Industrial Relations, whom I represent in this place today to present this bill, for her incredible and tireless work pursuing this issue and getting the bill to this point.

I seek leave to incorporate the remainder of the second reading speech inHansard.

Leave granted.

Today Labor delivers on a key commitment to protect working people, and this represents the culmination of a 20 -year campaign by families, friends and unions to effectively deter and prevent workplace deaths and injuries in New South Wales by discouraging unsafe work practices and holding those individuals responsible to account.

It also reflects the contributions received during the extensive public consultation that has occurred with this bill. This includes feedback, comments, submissions, meetings, phone conversations and emails from family members of deceased workers, as well as the long campaign by the union movement, legal associations, the legal fraternity, the Government and by businesses. A few months ago I was at a roundtable meeting in Griffith, where I heard robust discussion about this issue.

The bill will see the establishment of part 2A within the Work Health and Safety Act, which will establish an industrial manslaughter offence. In certain circumstances, workplace deaths in New South Wales may be prosecuted as an offence of common-law manslaughter under the Crimes Act 1900, but this has rarely happened and has plainly been insufficient in dealing with workplace deaths, both for individuals and where there is a duty owed by a person who is conducting a business or undertaking and who is a larger corporation.

Under existing provisions of the criminal law, the prosecution of large corporations for manslaughter is difficult. This is because it requires proof of criminal negligence on the part of a particular individual who can be identified as the directing mind and will of the company. This can be hard to establish and in part explains why so few prosecutions have been made in workplace settings in New South Wales.

Similarly, the highest tier offence under the Act, being a category 1 offence, can include circumstances where a workplace death has occurred, but it is not designed to specifically address this. As a result, there is a gap in the existing legal framework, and no alternative policies to effectively address it exist. The bill addresses this deficiency and as a result will make our workplaces safer by acting as a deterrent. I turn now to the substance of the bill. The bill will amend the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 to introduce an industrial manslaughter offence into the New South Wales work health and safety framework, including a minor consequential amendment to the Industrial Relations Amendment Act 2023, and additionally implements a model Work Health and Safety Act amendment to clarify the application of gross negligence to offences.

Firstly, new section 340 outlines the application of the offence and the elements required to establish the offence of industrial manslaughter. This is a new section under section 34. To commit industrial manslaughter, a person must firstly have a health and safety duty and either be the relevant person conducting the business or undertaking [PCBU] or an officer of a business or undertaking.

Under work health and safety laws, PCBUs are subject to a number of health and safety duties, including a primary duty of care to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers while they are at work. Officers of PCBUs are also required to comply with duties including exercising due diligence to ensure that PCBUs comply with their duties and obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act.

It is important to note that this new offence will not create any new work health and safety obligations or duties but rather reinforces the importance of complying with these duties by introducing a significant new offence into the work health and safety framework. This will send a clear message that unsafe practices will not be tolerated and that due diligence must be carried out in the fulfillment of all existing health and safety duties.

Secondly, although everyone has a responsibility to ensure workplace safety, under this bill an industrial manslaughter offence will cover those whose behaviour or decisions have the power to strongly influence the activities and culture of a workplace. That is why new section 340 (b) states that a person who can commit the offence is limited to a PCBU or an officer of a PCBU.

This is in direct accordance with the recommendation in Marie Boland's report published in December 2018 entitled Review of the model Work Health and Safety laws: Final report, and consistent with how other jurisdictions in Australia have constructed their own industrial manslaughter offences.

Those persons have greater responsibility within the workplace safety context because they influence the safety environment and govern specific activities and behaviours that determine the success or failure of health and safety initiatives. A PCBU can include a corporation, partnership, unincorporated association, a self-employed person or a sole trader. By utilising existing definitions and concepts within the work, health and safety legislation—that is, PCBU and officer—the bill avoids the complexities and uncertainties that may arise from introducing new definitions.

Using the existing definitions from the Work Health and Safety Act for industrial manslaughter also ensures clarity and consistency. Through proposed new section 34D, the bill makes it abundantly clear that the industrial manslaughter offence is not intended to apply to volunteers.

That is consistent with the current exception for volunteers who are acting as PCBUs or officers under the Work Health and Safety Act and the approach taken in other jurisdictions. To be clear, volunteers can still be liable under criminal law. The bill inserts a note to clarify that volunteers may still be subject to an offence of manslaughter under the Crimes Act. The insertion of the note makes it clear that volunteers may still be liable for a workplace death caused by their own dangerous or unsafe actions.

The bill outlines that a PCBU or officer of a PCBU that has a health and safety duty will commit the offence if they have engaged in conduct that constitutes a failure to comply with their health and safety duty, and the conduct causes the death of a worker or another individual to whom that health and safety duty is owed. The definition of worker in the Work Health and Safety Act is broad and includes an employee, a contractor or subcontractor, an employee of a contractor or subcontractor, an employee of a labour hire company that has been assigned to work in the person's business or undertaking, an outworker, an apprentice or trainee, a student gaining work experience, a volunteer, or a person of a prescribed class.

The offence could therefore apply in circumstances where not only a direct employee is killed but also a subcontractor at a construction site or a gig worker such as a food delivery rider. The offence of industrial manslaughter will apply where there has been a death of a person to whom a duty is held.

I acknowledge that each workplace death has everlasting mental, emotional, physical and financial impacts for the families, friends, colleagues and the community of the worker. Immense pain, grief, anger and trauma follow workplace deaths, which happen far too often in New South Wales.

A number of people in the gallery are families of those who have lost loved ones in the workplace. They can tell us that living that life sentence of grief, sorrow and trauma—and helping each other to get through—is just devastating for both family and community. The offence will be the most serious in the Work Health and Safety Act. The penalties prescribed reflect the intrinsic impact and justice that should be afforded to the loved ones of someone who went to work and never came home.

The final element that must be established for manslaughter to have been committed is detailed in new section 340 (d)—that is, a person is required to have engaged in the conduct with gross negligence. The concept of gross negligence, or criminal negligence, has been thoroughly explored in the common law that applies in New South Wales.

It denotes such a great falling short of the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise, and must involve such a risk that death or grievous bodily harm would follow, that it merits criminal punishment. Gross negligence is the appropriate legal benchmark for an industrial manslaughter offence because it is in line with the treatment of manslaughter under the Crimes Act 1900.

The elements of industrial manslaughter ensure the effectiveness and appropriateness of the offence and its application to breaches of work health and safety duties and will hold responsible those whose behaviour or decisions govern workplace safety, and have failed in that paramount duty.

This Government is committed to creating the strongest possible deterrent for organisations and PCBUs who would breach their work health and safety duties. The bill details that the offence will carry a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment for an individual and a penalty of $20 million for a body corporate.

The proposed maximum period of 25 years imprisonment is consistent with the existing maximum penalty for manslaughter under the Crimes Act 1900, which reflects the seriousness of the offence. Grossly negligent conduct that results in the death of a person should not be treated less seriously just because it happens in a workplace. Holding individuals to account is critical in not only ensuring an effective deterrent but also bringing justice to families, friends, colleagues and the community of those who have been so sadly lost.

I recognise that the penalty is above the model work health and safety law of 20 years; however, it is my belief that no life should be held above another, and consistency with the general offence of manslaughter is appropriate and justified. They will be held accountable for their crime.

The penalties represent a fair and just punishment, which will also serve to create a strong deterrent for organisations and individual officers against breaching their duties, to prevent further harm and to set the standard for making workplaces safe in New South Wales.

The maximum penalties also acknowledge the significant pain and suffering of families and loved ones of workers who have died in preventable workplace incidents. Proposed new section 34E provides that proceedings for an industrial manslaughter offence may be commenced at any time after the commission of the offence and will not be subject to a limitation period. That is consistent with criminal manslaughter offences under the Crimes Act 1900 and all other serious criminal offences in every other jurisdiction in Australia. Again, action that results in the death of a person should not be treated less seriously just because it happens in a workplace.

New section 34F clarifies that category 1 offences will be available as a statutory alternative in circumstances where the court or jury is not satisfied that a defendant has committed the offence of industrial manslaughter but is satisfied the person is guilty of meeting the threshold of a category 1 offence instead. By allowing category 1 offences to be available as an alternative verdict, judges and juries will be empowered to convict with the most appropriate offence in all the circumstances.

That provides flexibility and efficiencies in the prosecutions of the most serious of work health and safety breaches. All the elements of the category 1 offence will still need to have been proved for that to occur. As with the industrial manslaughter offence, there will be no limitation period applicable when a category 1 offence is an alternative charge to industrial manslaughter. That is to ensure that an alternative verdict can be returned in conjunction with an industrial manslaughter ruling without limiting the time that can be taken to investigate those matters.

The bill amends section 216 (2) of the Act to clarify that a work health and safety undertaking, also known as an enforceable undertaking, cannot be accepted by the regulator for contravention of an alleged industrial manslaughter offence.

That is consistent with the current approach taken to a category 1 offence, because an undertaking cannot be accepted for a contravention of a category 1 offence. By ensuring that this alternative is not available for a contravention of an alleged industrial manslaughter offence, this reinforces the bill's objective to effectively deter and bring justice to those engaging in the most egregious unsafe work practices. This will drive a change in approach to embed a culture of workplace safety across industries and workplaces.

Under amended section 229B (2) of the Work Health and Safety Act, proceedings commenced against an individual for industrial manslaughter must proceed on indictment and may be heard before the District Court or the Supreme Court.

This reflects the significant penalties attached to the offence and would entitle an individual defendant to trial by jury. This is consistent with the treatment of other serious offences under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986, the offence of manslaughter under the Crimes Act and the existing category 1 offence in the Work Health and Safety Act.

In contrast, under new section 229B (3A), industrial manslaughter offence and category 1 offence proceedings against a body corporate will be dealt with summarily in the newly re-established Industrial Court, which is appropriate, given this court's specialty and jurisdiction. This does not mean that the penalties available against a body corporate will be limited in any way. In this context, the reference to the offence being dealt with summarily simply has the effect of confirming that these offences will be heard by the Industrial Court.

This is unless the prosecutor elects to have proceedings against a corporation dealt with on indictment, and this gives a prosecutor flexibility to choose the approach that best promotes the interests of justice. For instance, where the offence against the individual and the body corporate arise from the same set of circumstances, it may be appropriate to have both offences heard in the same court. This is a commonsense approach.

SafeWork NSW and the NSW Resources Regulator, as work health and safety regulatory authorities, will have carriage of summary prosecutions, being those prosecutions against a PCBU only. The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions will have carriage of indictable prosecutions, as is the situation now. The DPP will be resourced to run the prosecutions through the establishment of a specialist unit within the DPP to conduct the prosecution. I acknowledge our Attorney General, Michael Daley, his office and the Department of Communities and Justice for their assistance with the bill.

It is also the expectation of the Government that both the regulators and the DPP will thoroughly investigate workplace deaths as quickly as possible, with no delay. This must be done to ensure that charges, if necessary, are laid in an expedient manner. Families should not be waiting years for a prosecution to be brought; it must be done as soon as possible.

The bill meets the clear community expectations that individuals and corporations be held accountable for a workplace fatality. Further, it allows the regulatory authorities and prosecutors to effectively undertake proceedings in accordance with established procedures, providing rigour and consistency in approach.

For clarity, all existing defences for the offence of manslaughter that apply under the Crimes Act and under common law will be available for industrial manslaughter where applicable.

The Government is committed to ensuring that these laws remain fit for purpose and effective, and continue to meet their policy objectives. That is why the amended section 276B establishes a statutory requirement to review the provisions related to industrial manslaughter within the bill.

The bill outlines that the review is to be undertaken 18 months from the commencement of the provisions. This timeframe strikes a balance of allowing the provisions to be implemented without taking too long to identify any inefficiencies. The review will consider whether the policy objectives remain valid and the terms of the provisions remain appropriate for achieving those objectives.

A report on the outcome of the review must be tabled in each House of Parliament within three months after the completion of the review. The most serious offence within the work health and safety framework should continue to work effectively, and this review will ensure that. It also provides transparency of government policymaking.

The bill inserts new section 244BA, which clarifies how the fault element of gross negligence is attributed to a body corporate. New section 244BA will apply if gross negligence is an element in the commission of an offence.

Under new section 244BA (2), gross negligence may exist on the pad of a body corporate despite no individual of the body corporate having engaged in the conduct with gross negligence, if the conduct of the body corporate is grossly negligent when viewed as a whole, as determined by aggregating the conduct of more than one authorised person. New section 244BA (3) provides:

... gross negligence may be evidenced by the fact the conduct was substantially attributable to—

(a)inadequate corporate management, control or supervision of the conduct of 1 or more authorised persons, or

(b)failure to provide adequate systems for conveying relevant information to relevant persons in the body corporate

This amendment establishes clearer parameters for the attribution of gross negligence to a body corporate for offences under the Work Health and Safety Act, which will include the industrial manslaughter provisions of new part 2A of the Act. Importantly, this will provide a stronger basis to prosecute a body corporate on the basis of the aggregated conduct of its authorised persons.

This amendment will align New South Wales with the provisions of the model work health and safety laws, promoting greater consistency and meeting New South Wales's obligations under the intergovernmental agreement.

The bill inserts new section 244B (1A) to clarify that the state-of-mind provisions in section 244B do not apply when establishing gross negligence, as new section 244BA provides for that. This will enable a stronger basis to prosecute a corporation on the basis of the aggregated conduct of its authorised persons.

The bill will make a minor consequential amendment to the Industrial Relations Amendment Act 2023 to ensure consistency in prosecuting alternative charges. The Industrial Relations Amendment Act was passed in November 2023 and is due to commence in full on 1 July 2024. It made consequential amendments to the Work Health and Safety Act as a part of the re-establishment of the Industrial Court. Specifically, an amendment to section 229B of the Work Health and Safety Act was made to clarify when proceedings for an offence against the Work Health and Safety Act would be dealt with summarily or on indictment.

An amendment made to section 229B (3) of the Work Health and Safety Act applied to District Court proceedings for backup or related offences to an indictable category 1 offence, allowing the court to deal with these as though it were sitting as the Industrial Court. However, it is not appropriate for the District Court to deal with backups as though it is sitting as the Industrial Court, as the Industrial Court is a higher jurisdiction.

Removing this subsection will allow the existing process provided by section 168 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 to apply, so that, when a court deals with backup charges following proceedings for an indictable offence, it will be subject to the same restrictions and procedures as the Local Court. This consequential amendment is not intended to result in any change to the existing procedures related to the prosecution of indictable offences.

The provisions of the bill related to industrial manslaughter will commence via proclamation. This is to ensure that all procedures and processes can be thoroughly considered and well established prior to the commencement of the offence. It will allow for all affected government agencies, including those that are responsible for the prosecution of industrial manslaughter offences, to consult and engage with each other to ensure the optimal outcomes.

All other provisions—that is, the model provisions related to gross negligence, consequential amendments and the statutory review provision—will commence on assent of the bill. I give my condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of all those people who have lost someone in a workplace. It is our hope that these very strong laws never have to be used.

This bill is the culmination of years of campaigning by the families of those who have lost loved ones, as well as the unions and workers who have lost workmates.

I pay special tribute to the Family and Injured Workers Support and Advisory Group and its considered engagement with the process leading to the creation of this bill. I say to the families and all those who have lost a loved one that this bill is for them and their loved ones. Just yesterday I was speaking to Mrs Pringle, who has lost her son Connor, who was 20 years old. It is very sad to have lost that young man. Since 2019, 300 workers have been killed. People have been waiting a long time for this bill.

I pay tribute to Patrizia Cassaniti and her husband, Rob Cassaniti, who are both here today. They have been campaigning for many years for this offence to be put on our statute book. I urge everyone to listen to the interview Mrs Cassaniti gave this morning on 2GB. She talks about the fact that, after five years, she still has not grieved for her beautiful Christopher. I am very sorry for that. I hope that she can grieve now.

I hope that she and other mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers and family members can now grieve properly.

Hundreds of tireless advocates have advocated for many years—not just over the past few years, but for over 20 years—for an industrial manslaughter offence. The enacting of this offence in New South Wales is part of the legacy of that campaign. I thank the great union movement of New South Wales. Over the past 20 years, the unions have fought for the introduction of this offence. Many unionists have been involved in this campaign.

There are so many, and I do not want to miss anyone, but I extend my thanks in particular to the Secretary of Unions NSW, Mark Morey, for his very hard work. I thank all the union secretaries and members. They have been running a campaign for a very long time. I extend my thanks to someone who has been working very diligently—there are many people to thank, but I give a shout -out to Sherri Hayward from the CFMEU.

Many unionists are sitting in the gallery today, along with former MPs and others. I ask anyone I have not mentioned to please forgive me. This bill is very important for the families, who are at their most vulnerable and had not been able to see justice. I have talked to many of the mums recently—I am not singling out the mums, but it is just heartbreaking. I have an 18-year-old son. In the past six months, I have received notifications about apprentices aged 18, or young workers crushed at 20, 21, or 22—the breadwinners that lose their lives. It is devastating for their families. This has got to stop. Enough is enough.

The bill is a deterrent. It says to those workplaces that they have to change the way that they work. This is 2024. No worker should be killed at work. It is simple as that: No worker should be killed at work in 2024.

I acknowledge that the bill would not be possible without the effort and attention of all the persons that participated during the extensive public consultation. I thank each and every person who took that time. I thank the 420 people who responded to the Government's survey and took the time out to express their views. We have read the responses and taken them onboard.

The respondents included members of the public and groups representing all areas of the workforce, including work health and safety professionals. Businesses support this legislation; they want to keep their workers safe. They tell me that all the time, because their workers are like family to them. They do not want to lose their family members. That is why the bill is so important. It sends a very strong message to those who are doing the wrong thing.

The Attorney General and I have met with the legal fraternity from all sides to make sure that we get this right. We met with legal associations, farmers and miners. I acknowledge the Attorney General for his work. I also acknowledge my agencies and, very importantly, my staff, who have done a brilliant job.

I acknowledge an amazing member of my staff, Tom Craven, who has been working solidly on this legislation. All my staff, led by my chief of staff, Ayshe Lewis, have done important work. All of us have worked together. I know that a number of crossbench members have been advocating for this bill for a very long time.

I am very proud to be standing here. It is very hard. It is very difficult, because we wish that we were not in this position. We wish that we were not losing young workers. We wish that it was not necessary to introduce this legislation.

But we are taking a very important step today. We are fulfilling the Minns Government's commitment to introduce an industrial manslaughter offence in New South Wales to ensure that the most serious work health and safety breaches carry a severe penalty. These new laws are intended to profoundly alter the safety culture in New South Wales by raising the bar higher.

I commend the bill to the House.

Second Reading Debate

The Hon. AILEEN MacDONALD (14:52): On behalf of the Opposition, I speak on the Work Health and Safety Amendment (Industrial Manslaughter) Bill 2024. The Liberals and The Nationals support the proposed amendments to introduce industrial manslaughter to the Work Health and Safety Act 2011. The Coalition is committed to harmonising work health and safety laws across our country, having implemented the model in 2011 as well as being among the first to adopt many of the Boland review recommendations in 2020. Under the leadership of then Minister Victor Dominello, the previous Coalition Government entered into an agreement in February 2023 with other States and Territories to amend the model work health and safety laws to allow for the introduction of an industrial manslaughter offence.

The Liberals and Nationals have been, and will remain, committed to ensuring the health, safety and lives of every individual who works in this great State. Every person who heads to work each morning should have the assurance that they will be safe from any potential threat to their life at their workplace. Unfortunately, this has not always been the reality. Too many families have had to endure the nightmare of either receiving a phone call or having a visit informing them that a loved one has been involved in a workplace incident and has tragically lost their life. To the families who have suffered through this torment, I extend my deepest condolences on behalf of myself and the Opposition.

All States and Territories agreed to introduce industrial manslaughter to work health and safety laws, except New South Wales and Tasmania. They are the only jurisdictions to not do so. New South Wales remains the State with the highest number of workplace fatalities. With the introduction of an industrial manslaughter offence, an offence will be committed when a person or an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking [PCBU] with a health and safety duty engages in gross negligence that causes the death of a worker or another individual to whom they owe a duty of care. The maximum penalty for such an offence is 25 years imprisonment for an individual, or $20 million for a body corporate. This will make New South Wales the toughest amongst all jurisdictions that have an industrial manslaughter offence. Volunteers will be exempt, as they should be, from the offence of industrial manslaughter.

NSW Farmers highlighted an important issue regarding the distinction between a place of work and a residence. Of course, many farm workers live on the same property where they work. NSW Farmers seeks clarification and certainty that no offence will apply where death results from engaging in personal, recreational or domestic activities on the property. The Opposition moved an amendment in the Legislative Assembly to clarify this issue. While that amendment was defeated, it was put on the record by the Minister for Work Health and Safety that the bill does not create any new duties in regard to work health and safety on a farm, and the offence of industrial manslaughter can only be based on gross negligence in relation to a work health and safety duty. Furthermore, the bill states that a statutory review of the amendments must be held 18 months after the commencement of the provisions and a report tabled to each House of Parliament three months after the review is completed. This welcome step is important to ensure that any unintended consequences or unforeseen issues are addressed in a timely fashion. I commend the bill to the House.

Ms ABIGAIL BOYD (14:56): On behalf of The Greens, I indicate our strongest support and endorsement for the Work Health and Safety Amendment (Industrial Manslaughter) Bill 2024. The Greens have long supported the criminalisation of industrial manslaughter. The fundamental principle is that there should be no distinction between killing somebody at work and killing somebody in a non‑work‑related place. This is core work for The Greens. I am very pleased to stand in this Chamber today as The Greens spokesperson for work health and safety as the Parliament finally passes this long‑awaited legislation.

This legislation has been campaigned on for many years by many people. In particular, I acknowledge the long and strong work and advocacy of the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU. I also acknowledge my colleague Senator David Shoebridge, who remains a fierce advocate for workers. He worked diligently while he was a member of this House to bring us closer to the moment we are on the cusp of now. The history of industrial manslaughter legislation in this State has been filled with fits and starts. We almost got over the line in 2021, when this House passed a version of an industrial manslaughter bill brought on by the Hon. Adam Searle, only for it to get trapped and prevented from being brought on in the other place by a recalcitrant Liberal‑Nationals Coalition. That is a shameful stain on the former Government.

But we can go back further. Some 20 years ago in this Chamber another former Greens member—and, frankly, icon—Lee Rhiannon, introduced the Crimes Amendment (Industrial Manslaughter) Bill 2004. This followed the terrible death of 16‑year‑old apprentice roof plumber Joel Exner, who died on his third day on the job as a roof plumber at a construction site in Western Sydney after falling 12 metres to his death. The safety mesh that should have prevented his fall was not properly secured. His employer was fined just $20,000. That is shameful. This terrible incident is widely recognised as having kicked off the public campaign to reduce deaths in the workplace and to hold employers accountable. To reiterate the point that this is core Greens work, the mantle of Lee's tireless advocacy in this space was then picked up by David Shoebridge. I am so thrilled to see New South Wales finally—belatedly, limpingly but also proudly—deliver this important piece of legislation.

Of course, in 2004 Lee was tragically unsuccessful in having her bill passed—and it was tragic. We have to wonder how many lives might not have been lost if employers had to take genuine accountability and responsibility for worker safety. In her second reading speech in the other place the Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Work Health and Safety, mentioned that over the last five years there have been 300 fatal workplace incidents in New South Wales.

How many lives have been lost due to this gap in our laws that has allowed bosses to get away with gross negligence when it comes to the lives and safety of workers in this State? How many costs and corners have been cut in the pursuit of profit and at the tragic expense of lives? How many families have been torn apart by that terrible phone call informing them that their partner, their husband or wife, their son or daughter, their grandchildren, or their niece or nephew will never come home from work again? How many colleagues and comrades have been traumatised for the rest of their lives after seeing their friend and co-worker die in a tragic and often avoidable accident before their very eyes? Enough is enough. It is time that somebody is held accountable.

I acknowledge and applaud the particularly strong and continuing work and advocacy of the CFMEU, which has been a key driving force behind this long‑overdue reform. It has taken longer than it should to overcome the political obstacles. Throughout this time, union leaders and politicians, including me, have continued to meet with and hear from grieving families about the death of a loved one at work. Throughout this time, the question has kept being put, demanding an answer and justice and vindication for their lost loved ones. They have asked, "Why is there a different test for the death of my son at work? Why is there a different test for the death of my daughter, husband, wife or partner at work? Why is their employer, which had a responsibility to keep them safe, when it has so terribly failed in that most basic duty, held to a different and lesser standard? Why do bosses get a 'get out of jail free' card for a death in the workplace?"

The bill, and the campaign for an industrial manslaughter offence, is an answer to those questions. When the bill passes into law, the answer will no longer be that a life is worth less when it is a worker's. The answer will be, "Kill a worker, go to jail." These reforms will bring New South Wales into alignment with the seven other mainland jurisdictions in Australia—all but Tasmania—which have already introduced industrial manslaughter offences. In August 2023, the federally agreed work health and safety model laws were also amended to include a jurisdictional note, and recommended maximum penalties in dealing with industrial manslaughter. The bill amends the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 to insert a new industrial manslaughter offence that will apply to a person, including a body corporate, who has a health and safety duty under the Act and is a person conducting a business or undertaking or is an officer of a person conducting a business or undertaking.

The offence will apply where the person engages in conduct that constitutes a grossly negligent failure to comply with their work health and safety duty, causing the death of a worker or another individual to whom the person's work health and safety duty is owed. There is discussion about what the correct threshold should be in determining the conduct and state of mind of the person accused of the offence. The bill determines that the standard of gross negligence is most appropriate, mirroring the threshold for other manslaughter offences. It may be worth monitoring whether that threshold remains appropriate or if it represents an impermissible barrier to the successful prosecution of this offence. The maximum penalty for the offence will be a fine of $20 million for a body corporate and 25 years imprisonment for an individual. These penalties will make New South Wales the harshest penalty jurisdiction in the country for this offence, as it should be.

New South Wales was once a nation leader in worker rights and safety, and it is long overdue for us to reclaim this mantle and become a leader again rather than laggard. There will be no limitation period for an industrial manslaughter offence, which is consistent with the manslaughter offence under the Crimes Act 1900, and a person may be found guilty of a category 1 offence in the alternative. Where a category 1 offence is relied on as an alternative to the industrial manslaughter offence, there will be no limitation period for that offence. It is right and fair that there should be no limitation period imposed on this offence, as it will continue to be a complex offence to make out, particularly in the earliest years of its implementation.

We must make it clear that there is no escape from this penalty and that justice will be served for workers who tragically die on a worksite. Proceedings against an individual will be dealt with on indictment. For a body corporate, these proceedings will be dealt with summarily, unless a prosecutor elects otherwise. The bill also requires that a statutory review of the offence provision be undertaken 18 months after the commencement of the provisions. This is a very important provision, as it will give experts the opportunity to improve and sharpen the offence to make sure it is serving its intended purpose. New South Wales will have the opportunity to learn the lessons of other jurisdictions that are a little more advanced in the implementation and enforcement of the offence so we can make sure that workers are best protected.

I will address a critical element that goes to the effectiveness of this legislation that exists outside of the language provisions of the bill: the resourcing within both SafeWork and, importantly, within the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions to effectively and expeditiously pursue these prosecutions. I note the announcements in the media that the Government will create a special unit within the Director of Public Prosecutions that will be responsible for prosecuting industrial manslaughter cases. This is a really important element, and I strongly welcome it. I take this opportunity to ask the Minister to provide assurances in her speech in reply that this special unit will receive as much resourcing, training and prioritisation as is required to be the crack unit of specialist industrial prosecutors that this State deserves.

Additionally, I reflect on an important element that is implied through this legislation. Over the years, the nature of work has changed. Of course, the countless physically dangerous jobs are the rightful focus of attention in this legislation. But I also reflect on the important developments that have occurred in recent years since the last time Labor tried to legislate for an industrial manslaughter offence, in 2021. In this time, we have come to recognise the particularly harmful psychological effects that can arise due to workplace conditions. Our work health and safety laws now reflect this reality and impose a positive duty on employers to provide a psychologically safe workplace that is safe from harassment and discrimination.

I raise that duty on employers in the context of the bill to flag my hope and understanding that it will extend to the industrial manslaughter offence in the terrible event that a worker's mental wellness is so impacted by the psychologically unsafe conditions of their workplace that they end up dying by suicide. This is a terrible prospect to contemplate, and no doubt would require a lot of evidence to prove. But just as we hope to never have to use this industrial manslaughter offence for a physical injury that results in death, we hope that employers will take their duty to protect the psychological safety of their workers equally seriously.

I conclude by sincerely thanking every person who has worked so diligently and passionately on this piece of legislation. I particularly thank Sherri Hayward from the CFMEU for her role in shepherding this legislation forward, and for her sage advice and deep knowledge. I also thank and acknowledge the work of the team at Unions NSW, in particular Secretary Mark Morey, and the wonderful Injured Workers Support Network. Of course, I particularly thank and note my appreciation of the Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Work Health and Safety, Sophie Cotsis, and her office, in particular Tom Craven, who have both made themselves so available to me and my office. I appreciate their trust and their open and collaborative approach to all of the work we do together. I cannot say the same for every office, but it is nice to feel that we are pulling in the same direction on these issues and fighting for a better deal for workers.

Finally, and most importantly, I acknowledge the families and friends of the workers who have already been tragically lost to a workplace death. This legislation will not bring their loved ones back, but it will certainly serve as their legacy. I hope that can bring them some small comfort. The Greens wholeheartedly support the bill.

The Hon. ROD ROBERTS (15:08): I indicate my support for the Work Health and Safety Amendment (Industrial Manslaughter) Bill 2024. I commend Minister Cotsis for introducing the bill in the Legislative Assembly. It is good to see her present in the Chamber. She is one of the only Ministers who consistently turns up to see her bills progress through this House. I congratulate the Minister on the bill and thank her for showing us the courtesy of being in the Chamber and being dedicated enough to ensure that her work is completed.

The Hon. John Graham: As a former member, she loves the upper House.

The Hon. ROD ROBERTS: She clearly knows the importance of this House. The bill is an important and necessary step forward. A death in the workplace as a result of negligence or recklessness must unambiguously be considered manslaughter. It is important that the family members and relatives of the victim get a sense of closure and that justice is served. A death at work was previously perceived as merely part of the job, and that is completely unacceptable. Danger at work was a given, but that is wrong. A death that comes as a result of recklessness in the workplace should be treated just as seriously as a death that comes as a result of recklessness and negligence anywhere. We are no longer in the industrial revolution. We are a smarter, forward thinking society. Workers deserve the right to be looked after and they should feel safe in the workplace.

How could a rational person not want to see a safe workplace? People go to work every day with the reasonable expectation that they will come home at the end of their shifts and see their families again. That is not a big ask. When people break the law and, as a result, other people in their employ die, there should be serious consequences. Whether that is due to an act or an omission is irrelevant. I understand that the existing legislation takes a prevention- and risk-based approach to dealing with health and safety in the workplace, with the intent of reducing significant workplace fatalities as well as serious injuries and illnesses. What better preventative measure is there than the possibility of a manslaughter conviction and imprisonment to ensure that employers provide safe and secure workplaces?

The question is: Rod, are you going to support the bill? Wouldn't Rod support the bill? This is the Rod Roberts bill. I will explain to members why. The Minister acknowledged it in my office when she met with me, along with Tom, who is also in the Chamber. I congratulate Tom for his hard work. But the Minister failed to mention me in her second reading speech. Members who have been in this House for some time will remember that, in November 2021, the Hon. Adam Searle brought before the House the first attempt at an industrial manslaughter bill. The Hon. Adam Searle's effort was valiant and brought with good intentions, but his original bill was deficient in that negligence was the only level of culpability. The bill was debated and I moved a number of amendments that were all passed by the House. The most pertinent of those amendments was a definition change to ''gross negligence". I have seen that the Minister and her staff have adopted that definition from the Rod Roberts amendments from 2021. On that night, I said:

That low level of culpability—

and that was in the original Searle bill—

would expose business operators to prosecution and imprisonment for up to 25 years for what one could describe as minor infractions—minor, low levels of negligence. For the record, I clarify that no level of negligence should be acceptable or tolerated in the workplace. However, if one was to be charged be with this offence and exposed to its possible penalty, it should be incumbent upon the prosecution to show that the level of negligence was so extreme as to warrant the penalty.

The difference between negligence and gross negligence, known as criminal negligence, is one of degree only. Both negligence and gross negligence require negligent behaviour, but it is the degree of seriousness of that behaviour that determines where the action lies. It would be on the extreme end of the scale. It must be more than a mere mistake; it must be a deliberate action or omission that is gross and shocking in its departure from standards of reasonable behaviour—a great falling short of the standards of care that involves the foreseeability and the potential for fatal or dangerous outcomes. Gross negligence encompasses more than mere negligence, but it would at least include a deliberate decision to undertake or not to undertake a certain act.

It is my assertion that gross negligence is something obvious and unacceptable and it is an act or omission undertaken with an actual appreciation of the risks involved but also a serious disregard or indifference to the obvious risk. The High Court's decision in The Queen v Lavender [2005] 222 CLR 67 affirmed that, for an accused to be convicted of manslaughter on the basis of criminal negligence, the prosecution must prove that the intentional act of the accused causing death merited criminal punishment because it fell so short of the standard of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in circumstances where the reasonable person would have appreciated a high risk that death or grievous bodily harm would result. In closing, I have moved these amendments to indicate that this proposed offence must be a grave, serious or significant departure from the standard of care which a reasonable person would have undertaken. It must be so grave in error and carry with it such a high risk that it deserves to be punished as such a serious offence.

This legislation proposes a possible penalty of 25 years. Therefore, it requires a serious degree of culpability. That is not in question. When I moved these amendments in 2021, I did so based on my experience of investigating normal deaths—not necessarily workplace deaths but other criminal offences—within my role as a senior detective. I advocated for the degree of culpability required in a normal criminal case that could happen on the street to apply to a manslaughter case, and I mirrored that level of culpability in that proposed legislation. I am pleased to see that the Minister and her team adopted that.

The Roberts amendment of 2021 is the basis for the Cotsis bill of 2024. I see the Minister shaking her head, but she brought the change forward. No other member brought it forward. I moved those amendments in 2021. No other member from the then Government brought it forward. When it got to the lower House, I think, the then Coalition Government used its numbers to ensure that it was not even debated. In this game, not many people acknowledge good work. But I acknowledge the Minister's work and applaud her for it. She will have my support for the bill.

The Hon. MARK BUTTIGIEG (15:16): I contribute to debate on the Work Health and Safety (Industrial Manslaughter) Bill 2024. This extremely important bill is another bedrock Labor reform brought before the House by our Minister for Industrial Relations, Ms Sophie Cotsis. I recognise the presence of Unions NSW in the gallery, including Secretary Mark Morey and Tod Pinkerton, as well as several officials, including Natasha Flores and Sherri Hayward. I specially acknowledge a friend of mine in the gallery who did an apprenticeship with me at Sydney County Council back in 1982, David White. That has some relevance because he is in the Chamber representing the injured workers network. David's son was 24 years old when he died of electrocution on a roof. Had these laws been in operation at that time, perhaps David would not have lost his son. He has been instrumental in representing the injured workers network and bringing this important bill before the House.

I relay a personal experience of mine that I have spoken about in the House during previous debates. By the grace of God, I am still alive. I was a third-year apprentice, I think, at Sydney County Council. Dave will understand the circumstances. It was about this time of year. I would have been all of 17 or 18 years old. We were sent out to a pole transformer to do what are called full load readings, which is when someone climbs up a pole transformer to measure the current going through the overhead wires coming out of the transformer. Fortunately, because it was so cold that day at Kurnell, I was wearing several layers of clothing.

In those days, had it been summertime, we would have been wearing shorts and short-sleeved shirts and, as a young teenager, probably sweating profusely. I proceeded to climb up the pole and I could not reach out to the furthest phase on the distributor. I was wearing pants, boots, socks, a singlet, a shirt and a jumper. I said to the fellow who was down on the ground at the time, "What do you want me to do? I can't reach up." He said, "Just jump up on top of the pole transformer." It was a live, in‑service 11,000‑volt to 415‑volt transformer. I proceeded to sit on top of the earth transformer and felt tingling down my back—the 11,000‑volt wires looked like they were insulated, because they had black plastic over them, but they were not; I had assumed they were.

I felt all this tingling in my back. I got down, and Billy was at the bottom of the pole transformer. He had been seconded from another area which was not familiar with working on the high-voltage network. They installed meters, so they were not used to working on the high-voltage network, but they were qualified electricians. I said, "Bill, are those 11,000-volt mains insulated? Because I had tingling down my back." He said, "I don't know." When I went back to the depot and proceed to tell the foreman, the blood drained from his face. He said to me, "You idiot! You're lucky to be here. That's exposed 11,000 volts." I say again, had it not been for the cold weather and the several layers of clothing, I guarantee members that I would not be here today.

Had I died that day, my parents would not have been able to prosecute the then Sydney County Council for gross negligence, because there were no laws to do it. Under the laws that the Minister is introducing to the House, which will hopefully shortly get passed, we will be able to bring a case for a situation like that and the situation that Dave's son found himself in and is no longer with us as a result. We will be able to prosecute an officer of a company for being grossly negligent in dereliction of duty, in not protecting a worker and not taking adequate steps. In my particular case, the adequate step would have been to say, "I am not going to send this young kid out with someone who does not understand the high-voltage network and is not capable of carrying out safe work practices." These are important laws.

The emblematic case, if you like, that brought so much centre of gravity and attention to this issue is the case of young Christopher Cassaniti, who passed away several years ago and whose parents, Patrizia and Rob Cassaniti, have been relentless in being the face of the campaign to bring these laws in. The idea that anyone can go to work and someone can be negligent in their duty and not take the adequate care—whether it be in the erection of scaffolding, sending out someone who is not qualified to supervise an apprentice, sending someone out to work on a roof and not undertaking adequate processes and procedures in insulating the overhead mains, or not training workers properly—should not be allowed. People should go to jail if they kill someone at work as a result of that negligence, and that is exactly what these extremely important laws will do.

I place on the record the seminal work of our former colleague Adam Searle, who introduced a similar bill in this House in 2021, which passed this House but was mothballed in the lower House. Again, without wanting to sound too opportunistic in terms of the politics of this—I do not think that it is appropriate for us to get too political—once again I acknowledge the union movement and injured workers advocating that transmission mechanism, straight through to the party of Labor in government, to change laws for the benefit of working people. I also acknowledge the work of Minister Sophie Cotsis in bringing this important bill to Parliament. It is tragic that we have had to lose so many lives to get to this point. I am proud to be part of a government that will institute a law that will hopefully prevent that happening in the future. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. JEREMY BUCKINGHAM (15:23): On behalf of the Legalise Cannabis Party, I associate myself with and speak in full support of the Work Health and Safety Amendment (Industrial Manslaughter) Bill 2024. This incredibly important bill will strengthen legislation on industrial manslaughter, and it is entirely overdue. The bill is a crucial step forward in protecting the lives of hardworking men and women who are the backbone of our nation. It is not just a policy enhancement; it is a moral imperative that addresses the very heart of justice and safety in our workplaces and society. First and foremost, industrial manslaughter represents the gravest consequence of corporate negligence. It is more than a term; it is a reality that affects families and communities across the country, as we have heard spoken of so eloquently. When an employer's gross negligence leads to the death of a worker, it is a preventable tragedy that shatters lives and leaves lasting scars. The bill seeks to ensure that such negligence is met with appropriate and stringent consequences, and reinforces our commitment to the value of every single human life.

Our current laws have laid a foundation for accountability, but they fall short in several critical areas. The penalties for industrial manslaughter must be severe enough to serve as a true deterrent. Corporations should not be able to absorb fines as a mere cost of doing business, while failing to implement essential safety measures. The bill proposes penalties that are proportionate to the severity of the offence, ensuring that no company or individual can evade responsibility through financial means. The complexity of modern workplaces demands an evolved legislative framework. With the rapid advancements in technology and the continuous evolution of industrial practices, new hazards emerge that our laws must address. The bill ensures that our legislation keeps pace with those changes, providing comprehensive protection for workers in all sectors, from traditional industries to emerging fields like technology and renewable energy.

Any honourable member who has the opportunity to visit Broken Hill and see the Line of Lode Miner's Memorial would be moved by that memorial, which records over 800 deaths in mining in Broken Hill since 1883. The moving memorial records the name of the individual and how they died, some of them in horrendous deaths. What is remarkable is the correlation between the emergence of organised labour and a reduction in deaths. The two things are synonymous. The enforcement of these laws is another critical aspect that the bill seeks to enhance. Robust legislation is ineffective without proper enforcement mechanisms. By allocating adequate resources to regulatory bodies and ensuring thorough inspections and investigations, we can maintain high safety standards. This includes training inspectors to recognise and address new and evolving risks, thereby preventing potential tragedies before they occur.

In conclusion, the proposed bill to strengthen industrial manslaughter legislation is a clear and urgent necessity. By supporting the bill, we honour the memories of those who have tragically lost their lives to industrial accidents and reaffirm our commitment to preventing future tragedies. It is our responsibility to ensure that our laws are robust, our enforcement mechanisms are effective and our workplaces are safe. Every worker deserves to return home safely at the end of each day, and the bill is a significant step towards making that a reality. I acknowledge the work of former member Adam Searle, who did so much to advance this cause in this place. I also acknowledge the work of Unions NSW. I particularly acknowledge the CFMEU. I also acknowledge the work of Minister Cotsis and all those families who have struggled with the death of a loved one and lobbied for change in this place. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this vital piece of legislation. Let us work together to uphold justice, enhance safety and protect the lives of our nation's workforce. Kill a worker, go to jail.

The Hon. EMILY SUVAAL (15:29): I too support the Work Health and Safety Amendment (Industrial Manslaughter) Bill 2024. The bill has been a long time coming, as we have heard. I commend, obviously, my colleague the wonderful Minister Sophie Cotsis for her work in introducing it to Parliament, but I also commend the work of the union movement and Unions NSW. I acknowledge its secretary, Mark Morey, is in the public gallery today. He has been championing this cause for some time. I also note my experience with the northern branch of the Mining and Energy Union, which every year puts on a very moving memorial in Cessnock for miners who have tragically lost their lives. I note that the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham also mentioned the memorial at Broken Hill. Most importantly, I acknowledge the survivors, some of whom are in the gallery today. I also acknowledge the presence of Dave White in the gallery, father of young Joel White, who was killed at work in 2019.

I acknowledge the Cassanitis. I recently had the privilege of meeting Patrizia and Rob Cassaniti. They took some time to share their story with me, something I was very grateful for. Anyone who hears their story cannot possibly not be moved by the impact that it has had on their lives. As a parent, I can think of no more unimaginable, tragic and senseless thing to have happened. This bill, I hope, will go some small way in providing a sliver of hope, although it is cold comfort for those families, as it is mainly symbolic in nature for those who have gone before us. But I hope that it provides some solace and comfort in what will no doubt be an ongoing journey of unimaginable grief in the loss that those families have endured, and I hope it brings them some comfort that their loss is not entirely in vain. I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. ANTHONY D'ADAM (15:31): It is days like these when you realise the difference that a change of government actually makes. The Work Health and Safety Amendment (Industrial Manslaughter) Bill 2024 is an excellent piece of legislation. It is the fruition of decades of campaigning by unions and by the families of those who have lost loved ones to industrial deaths. I thank the Minister for Industrial Relations, and Minister for Work Health and Safety for introducing the bill. She has long been an advocate for this measure and it is fantastic to see it finally come to be a reality. I acknowledge the work of Unions NSW and my own union, the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union [CFMEU], which for decades has been campaigning for this. I remember this issue being debated at a Labor Party conference more than 20 years ago.

For too long, New South Wales has been the only mainland State without industrial manslaughter laws. Those laws hold employers and decision‑makers within a business responsible if their reckless conduct results in the death of a worker. Labor has long supported the introduction of an industrial manslaughter offence in New South Wales. In opposition we introduced a bill to create such a law but, as we heard earlier, that was blocked by the previous Liberal Government. Now it is time to fix it. On average more than one worker in New South Wales loses their life per week. Since 2022 there have been more than 687 workplace fatalities. Yet over the same period there have been only four successful prosecutions for the highest current offence.

Avoidable workplace incidents are a tragedy. Neglecting to hold to account the employers and businesses that did not prevent those deaths is a failure of government. Thanks to the tireless campaigning by affected families, an industrial manslaughter offence will be introduced within the New South Wales Work Health and Safety Act 2011. I have met many campaigners like Patrizia Cassaniti and Rob, her husband, whose 18‑year‑old son Christopher died in 2019 after a perimeter facade—18 tonnes over its maximum capacity—caved in, trapping him and his colleague, Khaled Wehbe, at a Macquarie Park construction site.

The existing laws are inadequate for discouraging and punishing grossly negligent safety breaches resulting in a workplace death. Currently New South Wales employers who expose their workers to the risk of death may face a maximum of five years in jail and fines of up to $3.7 million. The system has never provided proper justice, with courts meting out measly fines while those left behind suffer. In the case of Patrizia's son, New South Wales District Court Judge Andrew Scotting found that Synergy Scaffolding Services knew the scaffolding was "grossly overloaded" and that there had been a history of the unauthorised removal of building ties and alteration to the scaffolding. He said it was also constructed without vertical bracing in breach of its own design and the Australian standard. The scaffolding company was eventually fined only $2 million and the construction company only $900,000. No‑one has served jail time for that tragedy.

More than two-thirds of respondents to a Unions NSW survey supported the introduction of the industrial manslaughter offence. More than 2,000 voters were polled and the results found strong support for the new laws and increased penalties. Most survey respondents were surprised industrial manslaughter was not already outlawed. The Parliament has to listen to community concerns. The people of New South Wales want corporations and CEOs held accountable for workplace deaths. The new laws will introduce a $20 million fine as the maximum penalty for a body corporate and 25 years imprisonment for an individual.

Although no amount of money or time in prison can compensate for the loss of a loved one, we need to send a strong message to reckless employers. There is no excuse for not complying with work health and safety obligations in the workplace. In order for the industrial manslaughter offence to have a deterrent effect, employers need to know that the New South Wales Government is committed to commencing prosecutions and has allocated sufficient resources to ensure that those prosecutions are a success. The CFMEU Construction and General Division NSW has recommended that a specialist prosecutor independent of SafeWork is required to show employers the Government is taking the new prosecutions seriously.

Until a specialist prosecutor can be established, industrial manslaughter prosecutions must be allocated to a separately identifiable team within the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Without a specialist team and separate funding, the CFMEU is concerned that industrial manslaughter prosecutions will be pushed aside while the DPP focuses on more violent offences. The new industrial manslaughter offence ensures that serious health and safety breaches carry a heavy penalty, holds those who place workers' lives at risk liable and guarantees that justice is served for workers and their families. Implementing this reform will put New South Wales in line with every other mainland State and Territory. Importantly, this legislation was created in consultation with families who have lost loved ones, unions, industry and legal stakeholders.

Industrial manslaughter laws underscore the moral imperative of protecting workers' lives. Everyone has the right to a safe and secure workplace. Every worker deserves to come home to their loved ones. Stopping workplace deaths must be a priority for the New South Wales Government. Kill a worker; go to jail—with this bill, it is hoped that those are now more than just words. I also say to Patrizia and Rob, if there is a heaven, Christopher is up there looking down on the work that they have been doing. Maybe things happen for a reason. Patrizia has been an amazing advocate. There are workers wandering around oblivious that they are alive because of the advocacy of Patrizia Cassaniti. She should be very proud of this legislation. It is very much a legacy of her work and I commend her for her advocacy.

The Hon. BOB NANVA (15:38): I support the Work Health and Safety Amendment (Industrial Manslaughter) Bill 2024. At the outset I acknowledge the hard, methodical work of Unions NSW, the CFMEU, the Injured Workers Support Network and particularly Minister Cotsis for getting us to this point. In the limited time available, I will not go into the substantive aspects of the bill and its critical policy underpinnings. That was ably done by the Minister in the other place. But I will make a number of remarks about the significance of these reforms to working people and their families. It is universally accepted that workers should be able to go to work at the beginning of the day, secure in the knowledge that they will return to their family unharmed—a worthy sentiment not always matched by deeds in the workplace or supported through laws in this place.

For many of us on the Government's side of the Chamber, this reform is not just a matter of policy or politics; it is intensely personal and it is an article of faith. As a former union official I have sat in the homes of grieving families who had a loved one leave for work, never to return—families who lost husbands and fathers, parents who lost their children, communities who lost their neighbours or friends. I have done so far more often than is acceptable. Some people paint an unflattering, overworked and unimaginative caricature of union leaders, but unless or until one has had to confront scenes like that in the lounge rooms, garages or backyards of those families, one will never know how deeply personal this is to us and how deeply it cuts.

One often feels helpless in the moment, but one dedicates oneself to the trade union movement's cause to resist moves to weaken workplace health and safety standards and to use whatever means available to lift them up. That is why I am honoured to be in this place, at this time, to pass a law like this. Some employers let standards slip; some cut corners to save time or money. It is workers who always pay the highest price. Laws like this could help save their lives, which is the least this Parliament can and should do.

The Hon. CAMERON MURPHY (15:41): I support this most important of bills, the Work Health and Safety Amendment (Industrial Manslaughter) Bill 2024. I start by acknowledging the presence in the gallery of Unions NSW, including its secretary Mark Morey and other union officials, as well as representatives of the many families who have been campaigning for so long on this most important of issues. I commend also Minister Cotsis not only for developing this bill but also for shepherding it through the Parliament and bringing it on as a matter of urgency in the first part of the important work that this Labor Government is doing. It is such an important issue. I saw firsthand the devastating effect that a death causes in my time working as a barrister. I dealt with cases of work health and safety where somebody had been killed. The trauma ricochets through not just the family but through workers, colleagues and entire communities. It is devastating and it has to end.

The bill will ensure that New South Wales finally joins the rest of mainland Australia in having industrial manslaughter offences. The importance of these laws is that they ensure workplace health and safety is the number one priority in every workplace across the State. Every worker has the right to return home safely at the end of each and every working day. I hope that these laws never have to be used, and that no-one is ever prosecuted, because what we want is exactly that: every worker to return home safely at the end of each day. If no-one is prosecuted, then the objective of the bill will have been fulfilled. But when employers fail, it is vitally important that they are held accountable for actions or failures that lead to the deaths of workers, and this bill will do that.

I thank all the unions in New South Wales that have campaigned for decades to achieve the outcome contained in the bill. I particularly thank the CFMEU Construction and General Division in New South Wales for its tireless advocacy on this issue over many years. Divisional president Rita Mallia, secretary Darren Greenfield and legal officer Sherri Haywood—who is in the gallery today—have worked tirelessly with the families of so many people affected by the tragic circumstances of industrial deaths. It is their work and their campaigns that have been so critical to this important change.

I thank also the honourable families, including Rob White and parents Patrizia and Rob Cassaniti, who have been the face of this change and have fought tirelessly to make sure that their loss is not in vain and that something positive comes out of that loss. That is what the bill does: It changes the law to make sure that nobody else has to face the loss of a child, relative or loved one in the way that they have. I thank them for their work. The message of the bill is "Kill a worker, go to jail." I commend the bill to the House.

The Hon. PETER PRIMROSE (15:46): Briefly, I add my support for the Work Health and Safety Amendment (Industrial Manslaughter) Bill 2024. I do not include all or even most employers when I say that I have met some employers who are real scum. They really do not care about their employees. On a number of occasions I have raised that during adjournment and other debates in this place. I sincerely hope that, if nothing else, this legislation puts the fear of God into those people. I never want to have to talk to workers who work in those facilities and workplaces because they fear for their lives or their children's lives. I want safe work that actually provides safe work, I want workplace health and safety legislation that actually provides workplace health and safety legislation, and I want industrial manslaughter laws that actually jail people who deserve to be jailed. I want the scum of the earth employers to know that that is what this legislation will do, so they never, ever cause their workers to have to experience what many people have experienced.

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY (Minister for Agriculture, Minister for Regional New South Wales, and Minister for Western New South Wales) (15:47): In reply: There is no bill more important than the one that we are debating today, the Work Health and Safety Amendment (Industrial Manslaughter) Bill 2024. As the Minister in the other place said, "This is what it means to have a Labor Government." We have made it very clear that we never want to see this law used, because it would mean another worker had died at work. Since 2019, 300 workers in this State have died at work. That is 300 sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers who went to work and never came home. Today the Parliament has listened to their families and to those who represent those who have passed away.

The Government hopes that the bill will act as the strongest possible deterrent, create safer workplaces and ensure that when a worker dies due to the action of their employer, an appropriate remedy is available. I thank members for their consideration and contributions to the debate: the Hon. Aileen MacDonald, Ms Abigail Boyd, the Hon. Rod Roberts, the Hon. Mark Buttigieg, the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham, the Hon. Emily Suvaal, the Hon. Anthony D'Adam, the Hon. Bob Nanva, the Hon. Cameron Murphy and the Hon. Peter Primrose. The Minister has asked me to pass on particular thanks to the Hon. Rod Roberts for his assistance with the development of the bill. He outlined some of the ways he did that in his contribution to the second reading debate. The Government acknowledges his incredible work and thanks him for that. The Government also acknowledges the Hon. Jeremy Buckingham and Ms Abigail Boyd for their campaigning on the issue for a long time. I thank all Government members who contributed to the debate.

This type of bill is core business for a Labor government; it is why we are in this place. Hopefully the bill will be passed by this House today. All of the contributions made by members show how important the issue is. I also thank and acknowledge a leader of the union movement, Mark Morey, who is in the gallery, and his colleagues and other representatives from the union movement. As secretary of Unions NSW, Mark Morey has been campaigning on this issue alongside the Labor Government. Well before the conception of this bill he was campaigning on behalf of workers who had died and on behalf of their families to ensure that does not happen to anyone else again.

With respect to the issues raised in the second reading debate, I note that the Minister in the other place delivered an extensive reply that addressed similar issues to those raised in this place. No-one can put it better than the Minister, so I refer members to her remarks. I again acknowledge the Family and Injured Workers Support and Advisory Group and Mr David White, who is in the gallery, for their engagement with the bill. I note that the members of that group are watching online today. I again acknowledge the Cassaniti family who, as members of this House know, lost their 18-year-old son Christopher at work after overloaded scaffolding collapsed on him. The Cassanitis have led a tireless campaign to see this law pass today. Chris died at work and the Cassaniti family received a life sentence while the employer received a fine. That is simply not good enough. I thank the Cassanitis, who have done absolutely everything they can for Chris. I hope they can finally grieve.

Again, I thank the union movement. The bill is so important. The laws will hopefully, as I have said, never need to be used, but it is essential that the strongest possible protections are in place for workers across New South Wales. I thank the Minister for Industrial Relations who does incredible work driving this type of Government reform and advocating for it in the public domain. She is an incredible and tireless advocate for working people across the State and has done a terrific job in bringing this bill to fruition on behalf of workers in New South Wales. I commend the bill to the House.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (The Hon. Dr Sarah Kaine): The question is that this bill be now read a second time.

Motion agreed to.

Third Reading

The Hon. TARA MORIARTY: On behalf of the Hon. Daniel Mookhey: I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Motion agreed to.