Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to continue the conversation that the Minister was holding in regard to the work assessments because I think this is fundamental to what we're doing here. I do acknowledge that last night he did attempt to answer some of the questions that I had about the definition of worker the degree of engagement and the relationship between workers and subcontractors in particular although I point out that thanks to a piece of legislation passed by Kieran McAnulty—a member's bill actually; the triangular relationships bill—the convoluted relationship between a contractor a subcontractor and a subcontractor's employee means that if for example a cleaning company has to put off a staff member because a business has decided that only vaccinated cleaners can come into their office then the potential for the cleaner who isn't even employed by the business to take a personal grievance against that business is very very real. Now I'm deconstructing the words the Minister has used both here in the House in the bill and on media this morning about the degree to which the work assessment tool is a prescribed tool that needs to be followed or what would happen if a business either doesn't use that tool or makes a different decision. What we heard last night and the words he used were that a business may conduct an assessment—that's what the bill says. It's not must" but "may". What I would like to know is that if that's the case why are we putting it in secondary legislation? The WorkSafe website is replete with guidance for business and for persons conducting a business or undertaking to use tools to assess risk. Farm safe is the best example of that where the farming community go online and develop using that tool their health and safety guidelines for people coming on the farm and for people working on the farm. There's dust guidelines there's how to write a guideline guideline—none of it is actually in secondary legislation. So my question is: why are these four criteria needing to be passed under secondary legislation if indeed it's a "may" not a "must"? Now in media this morning in response to a challenge from a person on the radio that the guidelines were open to too much interpretation the Minister said that they were very simple for businesses to follow. These are the words he used: "Only four things the business needs to look at. They're quite objective measures if three of four have to be met"—those are the words he used—"so that a business can reasonably require that workers can be vaccinated." So my question is this: what would happen under health and safety legislation if three of those four criteria were met but a business decided on balance not to have a vaccine mandate for reasons other than those four—supply of workers for example—and that to enforce a compulsory vaccination would destroy the business and if somebody a stakeholder coming on to the business then contracted COVID would they be liable under either this legislation or the Health and Safety at Work Act? The more likely scenario actually is a more cautious approach by business. So I can think of many businesses that have indoor spaces greater than 100 metres where people are working more than a metre apart and are not in close proximity for 15 minutes at a time where the business could quite reasonably assess that they should have a vaccine mandate for the staff—it's their business. My question is: if that happens and a staff member refuses to be vaccinated and then a dismissal process is followed would a criterion for a personal grievance be the failure of the business to follow this assessment tool? That's a very real prospect given—and I acknowledge that I think it's in Part 2 Madam Chair—the personal grievance provisions set out in Schedule 4 which is enacted by Part 2 which basically says—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! Can the member come back to Part 1 please. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It's very relevant to Part 1 because the criteria for these assessments are prescribed in new section 33AB in clause 13 in Part 1. This is a really important thing to clarify because what business wants to know is what are the rules of engagement and what are the risks that following those rules either more cautiously or with a higher-risk profile—or lower—that they're not going to actually get their butts sued off because of poorly drafted legislation. Is it "may" or is it "must"; do they have to be met or can they be a guideline; and if they're a guideline why on earth are they going to be in secondary legislation?"