8.1
Road use continues to be a significant, increasing contributor to workplace death and serious injury. For example, Safe Work Australia (SWA) reports that over the five-year period to 2019, 62 per cent of all workplace fatalities involved a vehicle. The most common incident type was vehicle collisions, with other incident types including pedestrians hit by vehicles and injury sustained while unloading a vehicle or conducting vehicle maintenance.
8.2
In addition to personal, economic, and social costs associated with road trauma generally, road trauma in the workplace has significant financial impacts on business in terms of disruption, productivity losses and claims. SWA reports that vehicle-related incidents accounted for over 5 per cent of claims in 2019–20. While in 2018–19, each vehicle-related incident resulted in an average of 7.2 work weeks lost and $15,600 in compensation.
8.3
Australian workplace health and safety (WHS) laws provide that a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) owes a duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers engaged by the PCBU, and workers whose activities the PCBU influences or directs. This duty covers various matters, such as observing legal requirements related to health and safety, dedicating resources to safety procedures and programs, and consulting workers on health and safety issues.
8.4
The duty to ensure the health and safety of workers extends to the use of vehicles for work. In this respect, joint guidance by Austroads and state and territory safe work authorities explains that:
A PCBU must manage road safety risks if their workers are engaged in travel on the road, regardless of who owns or operates the vehicle used.
Officers must exercise due diligence to ensure that their organisation complies with WHS laws and uses resources and processes to eliminate or minimise road traffic safety risks.
Workers are obliged to take reasonable care of their own and others’ health and safety and to co-operate with policies, procedures, and instructions.
8.5
Throughout this inquiry, stakeholders raised concerns that although there are legal duties to minimise and eliminate road- and vehicle-related risks in the workplace, road safety is often neglected at the organisational level. For example, the Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) noted that while most organisations have mechanisms in place to address general WHS risks (for example, slips and falls), risk management policies and practices do not give sufficient attention to risks associated with driving for work purposes.
8.6
According to several stakeholders, this issue stems from a failure to properly embed road safety as a normal part of doing business. The Australian Road Safety Foundation (ARSF) explained this as follows:
[W]ork related road safety …[is] probably the best opportunity to have influence over a large number of people. When you go to workplaces and you look at the safety messaging—say, at a factory or an office—there's plenty of messaging around general safety information. But, quite often, you'll ask the health and safety manager or officer, 'What do you do for road safety?' and they'll say, 'Nothing, because everybody drives their own cars for work,' or 'We don't really do much.' They'll say, 'We did driver training five years ago,' but since that time the entire staff has changed. There's been no ongoing commitment…There's been no leadership from the top. There's been no consistent approach to how people use work vehicles …[T]here's…been almost a reluctance to embed road safety as part of day-to-day operations.
8.7
This chapter is divided into three sections. The first considers measures to improve road safety in the workplace, with a focus on embedding safety as part of workplace culture. The second examines safety for road workers and on infrastructure projects. The final section covers safety for gig economy workers such as food delivery riders. The chapter concludes with the committee’s views and recommendations.
Improving road safety in the workplace
8.8
This section considers the following matters:
Workplace road safety strategies.
Workplace road safety accreditation.
Workplace reporting arrangements.
Safety monitoring via telematics and other in-vehicle systems.
The role of workplace health and safety authorities.
8.9
The committee considers that ‘general’ measures to improve workplace road safety set out in this section could also be applied to more specific contexts—such as to heavy vehicle operators or platform-based organisations in the gig economy.
Workplace road safety strategies
8.10
Stakeholders emphasised that improving road safety in the workplace requires changes to internal workplace culture to embed road safety at all levels of an organisation. Stakeholders indicated that may be achieved via implementation of workplace road safety strategies, including:
Specific road safety risk management arrangements.
Actions and policies to implement in the short, medium, and long term, including identification of necessary resources.
Measures to ensure awareness of road safety across the organisation.
Training and education for employees and third parties.
Opportunities for senior and executive staff to champion road safety at all available opportunities.
8.11
Stakeholders indicated that strategies should be developed in consultation with research and commercial organisations with relevant knowledge and expertise. In this regard, the National Road Safety Partnership Program (NRSPP) noted that it maintains a library of over 400 resources, developed with its partnership base, which have been used by partner organisations to develop internal strategies—reporting significant safety improvements.
8.12
Stakeholders emphasised that strategies must include robust systems for monitoring and evaluation. For example, ARRB noted that sources of feedback on the efficacy of safety measures include worker consultation; outcomes of investigations; hazard reports; tracking of key performance metrics; and information on new safety technologies.
8.13
Supporting road safety as part of business as usual was also identified as a priority for government agencies. NRSPP emphasised that road safety should be embedded in ‘everything from HR policies and practices to…procurement, annual reporting and…corporate social responsibility’. NRSPP stressed the need to individualise internal road safety initiatives to the risk factors of the organisation, highlighting initiatives developed by the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) and by Australia Post (AusPost):
A partnership between the BoM and the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) to address risks for BoM employees—such as long travel distances—which, with the support of management and employees, has seen the BoM improve safety and save thousands of dollars in claim costs.
AusPost’s use of its red vehicles to promote the ‘Stay Alert! There’s a life riding on it’ initiative (developed by frontline workers).
Workplace road safety accreditation
8.14
ARSF asserted that the Federal Government has an opportunity to support the creation of a national workplace road safety accreditation program. ARSF explained the program as follows:
The basis of the accreditation program will be a best practice framework, the contents of which will be based on evidence-based research. The framework will describe in detail what fleet vehicle best practice is and will be framed in terms of mutually exclusive core principles…[T]he…framework will be organisation-wide, and will have corporate governance, risk management and compliance with [workplace health and safety] legislation at its core.
Reporting on workplace road safety
8.15
Stakeholders noted that regular reporting on safety outcomes is an effective way of ensuring accountability, asserting that organisations must take steps to improve their reporting practices. Stakeholders indicated that reporting on road safety should be a priority for both public and private sector organisations.
8.16
ARSF supported a requirement for public and private sector entities to report on their road safety performance—both annually and in response to incidents. In this respect, ARSF stated:
[WorkSafe recently provided] a fairly detailed alert bulletin about a work incident where a worker was injured, and it gave all the details of the incident and said, 'You need to do these things so that you never have this happen in your workplace.' …I've never, ever seen one of those for a work-related driving incident. I've never seen an update where somebody who was driving for work purposes has been killed …[T]here is definitely an opportunity to intensify the narrative about the importance of this issue.
8.17
NRSPP recommended that both public and private sector entities, including the Parliament, be encouraged to include workplace road safety metrics in their annual reports. NRSPP noted that few organisations report on road safety metrics, stating that reporting by government would set an excellent example for the public and private sectors.
Training and education
8.18
Stakeholders noted that while both people and organisations are subject to WHS duties which capture road safety, awareness of these duties and how they apply to the road as a workplace is relatively low. Stakeholders called for both public and private sector entities to implement training initiatives to embed road safety in the workplace—particularly for those who regularly drive or ride for work purposes.
8.19
ARRB noted that companies that have implemented training programs to increase awareness of road safety have enjoyed considerable reductions in fatal and serious injuries. Drawing on case studies from the NRSPP, ARRB observed that:
Boral realised a 30 per cent reduction in rates of incidents and collisions via a comprehensive training and induction program.
WorleyParsons realised a 36 per cent reduction in serious crashes via its ‘9 Key Safe Behaviours’ campaign.
8.20
Stakeholders also provided examples of the type of training and education they have implemented in their own organisations. For example, AusPost noted that it has implemented training programs on alcohol and drugs, managing fatigue and reducing risks of injury. It has also adopted random drug and alcohol tests for drivers and education on common hazards such as wet conditions, roundabouts, and blind driveways. During one of the committee’s public hearings, AusPost further stated:
[E]veryone [must] have an appropriate licence for all vehicles that they operate. Then, once they come into the business, depending on the type or mode, there is also additional training. For example, our [Electric Delivery Vehicle] posties…will do three-day training before they're allowed out on a round by themselves, and then they're supervised. We have a buddy program. We monitor their performance. Motorbike posties come in and do an additional one day of skills training and then we do mindset training.
What we find …[on] review is that 70 per cent of our incidents are decisions made by our posties, van drivers or others that they may have been able to avoid if they were able to keep situational awareness and that sort of thing. We've developed a program which really helps to enhance motivation and give staff and teams some tools so they can stay focused on the job.
8.21
AusPost, also noted that its heavy vehicle drivers are educated on matters such as chain of responsibility and load restraints. Moreover, coach drivers are placed with AusPost drivers where issues are identified by monitoring systems. Truck drivers are also reassessed annually by AusPost’s in-house learning and development team and by driver trainers.
Improving workplace road safety via in-vehicle monitoring
8.22
Some stakeholders observed that there are opportunities to improve work-related road safety via in-vehicle monitoring systems. NRSPP noted that as people who use the road as a workplace often operate outside the physical limits of their organisation, it is difficult to ensure that the workforce can be monitored, and risks can be addressed in a timely manner. According to NRSPP, in-vehicle telemetry devices are a particularly useful means of addressing the issue. However, there is a need to ensure systems are not perceived as expressions of mistrust but as a means of prioritising safety.
8.23
AusPost expressed support for increased use of telematics, noting that individual driver behaviour clearly has a significant effect on road safety. AusPost stated that its heavy vehicles are equipped with computer systems allowing monitoring of location and speed; driver identification; times of operation; audible warnings to drivers exceeding set speed limits; and performance monitoring—including fuel consumption, over-revving, and harsh braking. AusPost vehicles are also fitted with dash-mounted cameras, enabling automatic recording of higher-risk behaviours. Records are reviewed daily (with drivers) to improve safety outcomes
8.24
ARRB indicated that organisations could make greater efforts to encourage the adoption of monitoring technologies through the development of guidelines or standards. ARRB raised concern that encouraging awareness and action from organisations may be hampered by inconsistencies in compliance monitoring approaches.
The role of workplace health and safety authorities
8.25
Stakeholders emphasised that WHS and vehicle safety authorities (such as SWA and the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR)) should play a key role in work-related road safety—for example via targeted enforcement, provision of guidance, and proactive monitoring.
8.26
P7Safety asserted that regulators must ensure safety for all those for whom the road is a workplace, and should improve their practices by:
Reporting on workplace activities and road safety outcomes.
Developing and implementing standards for workplace road safety and requiring all workplaces which require driving for work purposes to have a specific road safety plan.
Applying programs for compliance, monitoring, and reporting of road safety in workplaces.
Upskilling their own staff.
8.27
NRSPP asserted that SWA has a key role in alerting organisations to road-related safety duties, recommending that SWA provide duty holders with guidance on the road as a workplace—including for monitoring and reporting on safety concerns that may arise during business operations.
8.28
ARRB indicated that improving workplace road safety requires WHS regulators to actively pursue road safety as part of their core business, noting regulators hold powerful levers to encourage good safety practices compliance by industry members—including prosecutions, civil penalties, and compliance notices. There may also be opportunities for regulators to monitor uptake and application of the hierarchy of controls approach, to ensure effective WHS policy is applied consistently across organisations. In addition, ARRB asserted that cooperation between WHS agencies and road safety agencies is in the common interest, noting that road safety agencies have considerable expertise and often hold data that is useful to inform compliance and enforcement strategies.
8.29
An issue for several stakeholders was an apparent lack of comprehensive workplace road safety guidance developed and published by regulators—particularly at the national level. For example, the Australasian College of Road Safety (ACRS), stated that there is an ‘enormous gap’ in the guidance published by SWA, as well as in the data SWA uses to conduct its analyses.
8.30
ARSF noted that there is little guidance from national and state WorkCover agencies on what workplaces can do to improve work-related road safety.
Data on work-related road trauma
8.31
Stakeholders emphasised the importance of collecting data on road safety in the workplace, noting that accurate data is crucial to the development and evaluation of countermeasures.
8.32
NRSPP raised concern that as police across Australia may not record the purpose of a journey in their reports, the nature and scale of work-related road trauma is poorly understood. NRSPP called for a nationally consistent approach to the identification and reporting of work-related road crashes, noting that this will inform the development and evaluation of workplace safety measures and help identify changes in practices with safety impacts.
8.33
NRSPP noted that SWA may be well-placed to contribute to measures to improve the collection, collation, and refinement of data, but expressed concern that reporting of SWA’s existing data can be ‘confusing’—stating:
[In] their recent report Work-related Traumatic Injury Fatalities, Australia 2019, [Safe Work Australia] identified that 72 per cent of fatalities were related to vehicles and these were attributed to the road freight sector. However, many of these incidents would have involved third parties who interacted with heavy vehicles in an unsafe manner. Given the…size and mass of these vehicles, the outcome of these interactions is often a fatality…[T]he number of…fatalities involving a light vehicle was [also] identified as three per cent and may not have included grey fleet vehicles.
8.34
ACRS similarly noted that a key gap in road safety data is whether a vehicle (particularly a heavy vehicle) involved in a crash was travelling for work purposes, stating that:
The single best way that we could find out the true scale of [work-related road trauma] is by each state and territory road crash system, through the police, incorporating one checkbox: was anybody in this crash actually at work at the time? So a purpose-of-journey checkbox would be really effective in that road traffic crash environment.
8.35
Stakeholders indicated that gaps in workplace road safety data extend to incidents involving road workers and called for measures to enhance the collection and dissemination of information in this area. For example, Roads Australia (RA) noted that there is currently no central data repository or reporting framework for incidents involving road workers (including ‘near misses’), strongly recommending that data on such incidents be collected and reported. RA elaborated on this issue, stating:
When you look at the Safe Work Australia information that comes through, construction is one of their industries that they focus on because it is a dangerous industry. The generic data that comes through talks about vehicle-to-vehicle collision or injuries and fatalities as a result of 'person hit by moving object'. A person hit by a moving object could be either a person hit by a car, or a person hit by another type of moving object, and no-one actually knows what the difference is. So that quality of data for us on road worker safety is lacking and needs to be built up so that we can have that strong evidence base that we believe is there to improve the situation for the road workers who work for our members.
Workplace safety in the National Road Safety Strategy 2021–2030
8.36
The NRSS 2021–30 recognises road safety in the workplace as a part of the more general road safety environment, and lists workplace road safety as a priority area for action. To support enhancement to work-related road safety, the Commonwealth proposes to:
Ensure organisations are aware of their WHS responsibilities in relation to vehicles and the road as a workplace and the right of workers to a safe workplace, and ensure organisations have the information needed to support decision-making.
Establish an appropriate framework to support organisations to take responsibility for workplace road safety and the right of workers to a safe workplace, and for organisations to have the information they need to support decision-making.
Support implementation of Austroads’ Vehicles as a Workplace: Work Health & Safety Guide.
Safety for road workers
8.37
Various occupations require workers to be on or near the road, including infrastructure construction, repair, and maintenance; traffic management; tree lopping and cutting; landscaping; and utility repair and maintenance. Workers in these roles must not only focus on the work they are performing, but also on the road and the traffic around them. Stakeholders called for additional safety measures for road workers—who are often overlooked in favour of improving safety for other road users.
8.38
RA asserted that given the massive number of infrastructure projects in train (including those funded by post-COVID economic stimulus packages), there is a clear need to enhance protections for road workers. RA indicated that there are a range of levers in this regard, such as procurement processes; prequalification requirements; national standards; and knowledge sharing on a state, national and international basis to facilitate best practice.
8.39
RA noted that the federal government, largely via the ORS, has taken steps to improve worker safety. However, further work is needed to ensure the issue receives sufficient attention. As to measures that may be suitable for implementation in the short term, RA stated:
[M]easures…which can be deployed now [include] radar speed advisory signs, larger cones, and restricted lanes. Government clients should be [also] setting the standard by actively seeking the incorporation of such measures so that contractors who win work are applying a high level of safety for those workers present on site. The concept of value within contracts therefore must include a focus on safety rather than a narrow cash-only basis.
8.40
The Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia (IPWEA) asserted that some of Australia’s most at-risk workers are those undertaking repair, maintenance, and construction, noting that in local councils this cohort often makes up the ‘vast majority’ of employees and contractors. IPWEA stated that investment in technologies to replace these roles should be prioritised, noting that such technologies include using traffic signals as stop-go controllers, implementing remote machinery operations, and giving warnings to workers entering or existing designated work areas.
8.41
Transurban agreed it is ‘critical’ that Australia manages risk to employees and contractors who provide incident response and perform maintenance and construction activities. Transurban provided examples of measures which can enhance traffic management and thereby protect road workers, such as self-deployed traffic cones, automated truck-mounted attenuators, and increasing participation in working groups to share data and ideas.
8.42
ARRB stated that there is a ‘critical need’ to improve safety for those who work on the road or roadside—including for incident management and traffic control, on-road policing and roadside hazard and vegetation removal. ARRB called for better speed management at roadworks and traffic management installations and suggested there are opportunities to increase uptake of technology to permit removal of workers from higher-risk sites. In relation to speed control, ARRB told the committee that:
What we see often is that when you first install a roadworks site you might see quite good compliance with the speed limit, but after that site has been there for a period of time what happens is that you start to see that compliance drop off. People know it's there and they kind of know: 'Okay, I don't have to go 40; I can maybe go 60.' What they don't realise is that on that specific day something may have changed; there's something that they haven't seen before.
It really is that constant need to enforce the speed, and speed cameras are a really good way to do that…Speed cameras at work sites are just a given in lots of other countries and it's absolutely something that we should strive to do here.
8.43
ARRB noted that improving safety at work sites will also require robust community engagement around a need for lower speeds and other safety precautions. It highlighted the UK’s ‘Our father, our brother, our mother’ campaign as a successful initiative that communicated the importance of road worker safety.
8.44
The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of Australia (HFESA) noted that measures to increase safety for workers are sometimes implemented without ensuring drivers and other road users are made aware the measure is in place. In this respect, the HFESA stated:
Requiring drivers to slow down in work zones located on high-speed highways often presents problems where there is poor advance signage of the work zone. The introduction of pop-up cycleways with different rules for drivers about where they can drive and their legal speeds often cause problems of compliance when drivers do not expect them.
8.45
The Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) observed that the Queensland Government committed to reviewing policy and legislation with the aim of protecting road workers. According to DTMR, this review will cover matters such as road rules; driver education; road safety campaigns; and engineering solutions.
Safety around construction sites
8.46
Stakeholders called for safety to be prioritised around construction sites—particularly where this relates to interactions between heavy vehicles and other road users. ARRB observed that as infrastructure moves into cities and the ‘urban sprawl’ continues, there are likely to be higher levels of exposure to risks associated with construction trucks and other heavy vehicles. ARRB noted that heavy vehicles have large blind spot areas, making pedestrians and cyclists difficult to see. There is also an ambiguous ‘grey area’ between safety on work sites and public road safety when vehicles leave a work site and travel onto public corridors (the area ‘beyond the fence’).
8.47
NRSPP stated that there is an opportunity to protect road users from conflicts with construction vehicles via government construction contracts, noting in this respect that the Construction Logistics and Community Safety (CLOCS) standard (developed in the UK by Transport for London (TfL)) enjoyed success in reducing fatal and serious injury crashes.
8.48
NRSPP noted that it is leading adoption of the CLOCS program in Australia (to be called CLOCS-A) and has agreed a Memorandum of Understanding to support the initiative. Noting the success of the CLOCS program (and predicted success of CLOCS-A), NRSPP recommended that government funding for major infrastructure projects be conditional on standards to protect road users in construction activities. NRSPP emphasised that standards should include elements such as heavy vehicle safety technology; training; logistics planning; and community support.
8.49
The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Cities (DITRDC) noted that—via Action Plans under the NRSS 2021–30—governments will look to leverage procurement arrangements to introduce industry standards for construction logistics and associated work-related road risk for government construction projects. The two standards are the CLOCS-A and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 39001 Road Traffic Safety Management Systems.
8.50
DITRDC explained that ISO 39001 is a template for best practice road traffic safety management in the organisational context, stating that adopting the standard will bring the following benefits to organisations:
Preventing avoidable death and serious injury in the road traffic sector, including the workplace and while commuting.
Better planning, design, operation, and use of the road traffic system.
Cutting organisational crash and incident costs, reducing the number of workdays lost to injury and reducing insurance and repair costs.
Demonstrating social responsibility, improving organisational profile, and increasing business.
Road safety and the gig economy
8.51
‘Gig’ or task-based work is an increasing part of the Australian and global economy. In the growing ‘gig economy’, workers are typically engaged on a temporary, contractual, or freelance basis, and paid according to tasks rather than receiving time- or salary-based payments. While a ‘gig’-based model has certain advantages—including flexibility and cheaper, more efficient services—substantial drawbacks include erosion of traditional relationships between workers and businesses, and commercial pressures to complete tasks in the fastest time without managing associated risks.
8.52
Stakeholders noted that the escalation of the gig economy in Australia has seen an increase in people using roads for work purposes and expressed concern that gig economy participants—particularly riders and couriers—are at higher risk of trauma due to the nature of their work. Stakeholders noted that riders and couriers are often obliged to drive or ride in high-volume traffic and on unsafe roads and may be obliged to use phone-based applications to accept and receive orders—leading to safety risks associated with distraction. These risks can be compounded by insecure work and time pressures which lead workers to compromise safety to complete tasks on schedule and a lack of clear regulatory controls.
8.53
Risks to gig economy workers were encapsulated by findings of a survey conducted by the Centre for Transport Studies, University College London:
Couriers …[feel] pressured and this often led to speeding, with some admitting [to] going through red lights. [Couriers] reported being distracted especially by their phones and exposed to risk in terms of high workload situations such as busy urban centres and in poor weather conditions…Nearly half [of] respondents admitted speeding, two thirds said they often parked illegally and nearly a third had driven or ridden through a red light…40% said that the app had distracted them whilst driving or riding and 8% said they received points on their licence whilst working …16% agreed [that they had been severely fatigued while driving or riding].
8.54
This section considers road safety for gig economy workers—with a focus on food delivery riders and couriers. It considers the following matters:
Pay and conditions for gig economy workers and incentives towards higher-risk behaviours.
Driver distraction associated with phone-based applications.
Safety measures for gig economy workers and potential gaps.
Regulation of safety for gig economy workers.
Pay and conditions for gig economy workers
8.55
According to a 2021 report by the University of Technology Sydney (UTS), ‘decades of studies’ have demonstrated that there are close links between pay and conditions in the road transport industry—including for delivery riders and couriers—and higher-risk behaviours. According to the report:
[D]elivery riders routinely take risks on the road and engage in hazardous practices to meet unreasonable deadlines, endangering their own safety as well as the safety of pedestrians and other users of the public roads. Hazardous practices include riding on footpaths, weaving through traffic and pedestrians, failing to obey traffic lights, riding without lights at night and using a mobile phone whilst riding. The threat of termination of engagement for working too slowly can also contribute to poor safety.
8.56
Regarding rates of pay for food delivery workers, surveys by the Victorian Transport Workers Union (TWU) indicate that food delivery workers may earn just $10 per hour. Surveys also show that workers may not receive support from the relevant delivery platform when injured at work.
8.57
The link between pay and conditions and road safety for the gig economy was highlighted by stakeholders. For example, the Institute for Sensible Transport (IST) noted that improving safety for gig economy workers may require engaging workers as company employees rather than as contractors or ‘delivery partners’, and that workers should be provided with an hourly wage. According to the IST:
Without [this] there's an incentive for the rider to take the fastest route between their origin and their destination ...Because we've got such an immature cycling network that has lots of gaps in it, it means [riders are] exposing themselves to unnecessary risks because they are under pressure from the delivery platform to get the delivery to the final address as quickly as possible or they're deducted credits or can sometimes can be kicked off the platform. [T]hey're incentivised…to make dangerous choices.
8.58
Maurice Blackburn Lawyers (MBL) noted that because many gig economy workers are engaged as contractors, they may not have access to benefits such as minimum pay, overtime, sick leave, and insurance. MBL asserted that unless this issue is addressed, workers will ‘continue to put themselves in harm’s way to make a living’. MBL also drew attention to a report of the Senate Select Committee on Job Security which recommended establishing a commission to ‘set standards and extend entitlements into the realm of the gig economy’.
8.59
Gig economy platforms generally argued before the committee that rates of pay for workers are at least satisfactory, and that measures are in place to help ensure that workers are not pressured to engage in high-risk behaviour. For example, Deliveroo noted that its dispatch algorithm assigns deliveries based on rider or driver location and vehicle type. Other information such as performance metrics or personal characteristics are not considered. Deliveroo also emphasised that it encourages riders to ‘put safety first’ and does not put pressure on riders to deliver in a particular time. Deliveroo added that its riders typically earn around $23 per hour, with the potential to earn a higher rate by accepting jobs from multiple platforms. It stated:
It's typical for a rider to work with Uber, Deliveroo, Menulog and DoorDash at the same time. [The rider will] …look at [individual deliveries] …from multiple platforms and select which one they want. So, while they earn $23.10 with Deliveroo, they're likely …to be earning a much higher rate because, in [the] same hour, they're doing…jobs with multiple platforms ...The data [suggesting] that that is the case is that our rejection rate for jobs…is 60 per cent. That means that, if a Deliveroo rider sees a job appear which they can accept or reject, 60 per cent of the time the…job is rejected.
8.60
Uber, meanwhile, explained that earnings for Uber contractors are not based solely on pick-ups and drop-offs, but also on time and distance. As such, there should not be an incentive towards unsafe behaviours. Uber also stated that average hourly earnings are around $23, acknowledging that a worker is not paid while awaiting an order or rideshare request. Uber indicated that this is a normal part of ‘gig’-type arrangements and allows workers to arrange work for Uber around other priorities, including work for other platforms:
[T]he majority of the demand on our platform occurs at the times at which people eat…Because we give people flexibility about when and where they want to work…they will make choices about what is going to help them maximise their earnings when they come on the platform. The choice that most of them make is to come online when there is demand…which is obviously when people eat. [This] is the best representation of the earnings opportunity on our platform, particularly given everyone earning on our platform has absolute flexibility about when and where they come online.
8.61
In addition, Uber stated that the Uber app records time online and does not permit drivers to remain online for more than 12 cumulative hours without an eight-hour rest. Responding to concerns raised by the NSW Point-to-Point Transport Commissioner that many users work more than 12 cumulative hours, Uber also stated:
[T]he analysis the …[C]ommissioner has used …include[s] time offline the Uber app. I'm sure everyone can understand why we're not tracking what drivers are doing when they're not online with Uber. I talk to a lot of drivers, and often the lived intention is that drivers will come online in the morning, work for a few hours, go home and have some lunch and a rest, and then will come back online in the afternoon when it starts to get busier.
[U]ltimately…this is an industry solution. We want to work with …regulators around Australia and would call on government to continuingly educate drivers on fatigue management, because ultimately this is a decision for the individuals involved.
8.62
Menulog stated that the use of technology allows the platform to update estimated delivery times throughout the delivery process, with the result that drivers do not work to unrealistic deadlines. Menulog also drew attention to its recent trial of employed couriers in Sydney, noting that it is investigating ways of employing couriers across Australia. According to Menulog, employment will allow for greater supervision and performance management of couriers, better training, and greater control over safety.
8.63
Gig economy platforms also emphasised that the current model provides flexibility that is valued by workers. For example, DoorDash highlighted the importance of delivery platforms as a source of supplemental income, noting the flexibility associated with gig economy work.
Workers’ compensation arrangements
8.64
An issue for some stakeholders was the issue of workers’ compensation for the gig economy. Stakeholders indicated that while workers are covered by compensation or other forms of insurance, there is some inconsistency as to who is covered and how the schemes apply. This issue is compounded if a worker conducts business for multiple platforms. Stakeholders called for measures to extend the application of compensation schemes to the gig economy, and to clarify how the schemes apply.
8.65
For example, MBL supported extending workers’ compensation legislation to gig economy workers, with the effect that ‘intermediaries’ (for example, the platform used to find work) are required to pay workers’ compensation premiums. This would be subject to caveats relating to the nature of the work and the level of control exercised by an intermediary. MBL observed that the Commonwealth and the states may wish to consider a nationally consistent approach to deeming gig economy workers as employees for workers’ compensation purposes. MBL noted that while private insurance allows for a level of financial protection, it does not provide for the rehabilitation or return-to-work support which are offered under workers’ compensation schemes.
8.66
Gig economy platforms argued to the committee that insurance for workers is at least satisfactory. Deliveroo noted that riders are insured ‘from the moment they log onto the app until one hour after they…log out’. As for how insurance offered to riders compares with state-based workers’ compensation schemes, Deliveroo stated:
When Deliveroo started in Australia as a start-up, riders were added to the company's workers’ compensation scheme …and that continued for a period. What we started to notice …through…late 2018 to early 2019…was that rider claims were being rejected by the various state-based workers’ compensation organisations and that was for various reasons …[Reasons] included [that] it was the rider's delegate rather than the account holder, or …[that] riders were not deriving 80 per cent of their income from Deliveroo.
[I]n late 2019 we made the decision to move away from the state-based workers’ compensation schemes to the third-party insurance policy that we have described…We think the insurance policy that we have today is superior because it covers riders irrespective of income they derive from Deliveroo.
Safety measures to protect gig economy workers
8.67
Inquiry participants indicated that there are a variety of measures that can be taken to improve safety for gig economy participants who use the road as a workplace—notwithstanding potential incentives to unsafe behaviour associated with the gig-based model.
Existing measures
8.68
Stakeholders representing gig economy platforms highlighted their public commitments to worker safety and gave examples of safety measures which have been implemented. For example, Uber noted that it has implemented the following measures:
GPS tracking and support for all trips and deliveries on the platform.
Fatigue management features that force drivers and delivery workers to take an eight-hour break after 12 hours of using the Uber application.
Annual safety tests for bicycles used by the workforce.
In-application safety tools, including a ‘share my trip’ feature allowing workers to share their location and an emergency assistance button.
Specialised insurance covering accidents, injuries, and lost income.
A dedicated incident response team to handle safety incidents.
A policy requiring all new vehicles joining the platform to have a 5-star Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) rating.
A team of former law enforcement professionals on hand to work with police, respond to urgent issues, and assist with investigations.
8.69
Uber also noted that it has implemented measures to protect members of the workforce who use bicycles, motorcycles, and micro-mobility devices. These include helmet detection, safety checklists, protective equipment such as reflective vests, phone holsters, and training and support.
8.70
Deliveroo similarly noted that it has in place a range of measures to ensure riders are supported while using the application—including the following:
Online health and safety modules, which are required to be completed by new riders as part of onboarding processes.
Free safety equipment for riders—including reflective clothing. Riders may also access personal protective equipment (PPE) at a reduced cost.
Free personal injury and income protection insurance.
A rider advisory safety panel, which provides riders with independent representation and allows riders to give feedback on critical issues.
Free subscription to Busby (a personal safety application).
Requirements that all vehicles in the Deliveroo fleet be roadworthy.
Ongoing engagement with riders on safety issues, including regular rider safety campaigns.
National Food Delivery Platform Safety Principles
8.71
On 1 July 2021, participants in the food delivery sector including Uber, Deliveroo, DoorDash and Menulog endorsed the National Food Delivery Platform Safety Principles (Principles). The Principles seek to improve safety for all workers who use food delivery platforms, and cover matters such as training; delivery equipment and PPE; support, standards and policies; consultation; and incident reporting and investigation.
8.72
Gig economy platforms pointed to the Principles as an example of industry-led initiatives to improve workplace safety. For example, Uber emphasised that the Principles ‘outline the high standards of practice [that] the platforms have committed to implement to ensure …safety across our industry’, and ‘build on…longstanding safety features which…have led both the point-to-point transport and online food delivery industries’.
8.73
However, some stakeholders considered the Principles to be insufficient to ensure safety for gig economy workers. For example, MBL asserted that the Principles are not adequate ‘[in] …form or in substance’, stating:
As a matter of form, the [P]rinciples don't provide for any rights, they don't provide for any remedies for workers, and they don't provide for any dispute or enforcement mechanisms. They are a form of self-regulation, and that is subject to a certification process which seems to be largely at the whim of [the] signatories…[The] certification process doesn't seem to be independent.
[As a matter of substance, the Principles] are stated at a high level of generality and don't prescribe particular forms of conduct. There are also large gaps, we think, in what they purport to cover. There's no recognition of worker representation, such as elected HSRs [Health and safety representatives] or unions. There is some provision for consultation, but unions and worker representatives aren't recognised. There's no process for rehabilitation for injured workers or any sort of return-to-work program. At the heart of it they don't deal with the root causes that lead to these safety issues.
8.74
MBL asserted that it is for SWA and other public entities, working with platforms, unions, and other stakeholders, to reach an understanding of the root causes of safety issues affecting the gig economy and to develop guidelines and standards.
Guidance: managing work health and safety for food delivery workers
8.75
Following multiple incidents involving serious injury in the food delivery sector and the death of four delivery riders in 2020, SafeWork NSW led a Food Delivery Joint Taskforce with Transport for NSW and NSW Police. A key outcome of the Taskforce was the publication of the Guide to managing work health and safety in the food delivery industry (Guide), which:
…provides practical advice and information to Food Delivery Platforms, Food Outlets and Food Delivery Riders, on their roles and responsibilities as duty holders under the [Work Health and Safety Act 2011] and [associated regulation] ...The guide aims to assist duty holders to manage safety risks associated with work undertaken as part of the business or undertaking.
8.76
The Guide provides advice and information for workers, platforms, and food outlets on ensuring safety in relation to specific hazards, including unsafe systems of work; skills and competencies; unsafe equipment; high risk manoeuvres and interactions with vehicles, pedestrians, and objects; long work hours; environmental hazards, hazardous manual tasks; slips, trips, and falls; and violence from customers and road users.
8.77
Some stakeholders representing food delivery platforms noted that they participated in the Taskforce and have adopted relevant recommendations in their business operations. These include use of the Guide.
Potential gaps in safety measures
8.78
Stakeholders indicated that there is room to improve safety for food delivery riders and other gig economy participants. Gaps in training and guidance were raised as key issues—particularly for delivery riders. For example, ARRB stated:
We were engaged to help [a] provider develop a training program for their riders…[I]t was quite surprising to see how there had been almost zero instruction until that point. The riders are out on the road for significant periods of time. They have a very high exposure metric. We know they're vulnerable. They've been given very minimal information about what they need to do in terms of workplace safety ... [such as] …choos[ing] the safest route [and] the safer vehicle…protect[ing] yourself in a crash …[following] road rules [including for footpaths and pedestrian crossings].
8.79
Education and training were also raised by the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC). MUARC indicated that education for gig economy workers should focus on behaviour change and risk mitigation strategies, stating:
It's one thing to be able to educate drivers in terms of what's safe and what's not…but challenging key beliefs regarding unsafe driving behaviours—that really is an extension to education. It's about them…acknowledging what their triggers are to unsafe driving and generating strategies to avoid situations that place them at risk. If we can get to that end stage of being able to look at behaviour change in the gig economy model, I think that would be an excellent direction to go in.
8.80
Issues raised by ARRB and by MUARC closely reflect the results of a recent survey of food delivery riders across Australia conducted by the NSW Centre for Work Health and Safety, which found that while most riders have at least a basic understanding of safety, many lack the skills and knowledge to implement risk-based safety practices. The Centre indicated that this could be addressed by ensuring riders receive adequate training during the onboarding process, noting that the relevant platform would be best-placed to ensure that this training is delivered.
8.81
Another issue was visibility for delivery riders. ARRB noted, for example, that since bicycles, motorcycles, and some newer modes of transport such as e-scooters cannot feasibly be equipped with the same protective systems as are fitted to passenger vehicles, measures to protect riders and couriers must focus on avoiding crashes rather than on mitigating their impact. ARRB asserted that improving visibility for riders is a simple, cost-effective means of reducing risk, noting that a study in New Zealand found that reflective or fluorescent clothing lowered crash risk by up to 37 per cent.
8.82
IST similarly noted that as much of delivery riders’ work is done during the night, there is merit in visibility-based safety measures such as lights. IST also stressed that a training program on rider safety is needed—particularly for new workers who may have recently arrived in Australia and may not be familiar with the Australian road network.
8.83
These concerns directly reflect issues raised by the NSW Centre for Work Health and Safety, which found that most delivery riders (or at least those who responded to the survey) dress in black with limited or no reflective surfaces. The report also found that the use of lights as a means of ensuring visibility at night was sporadic.
8.84
Finally, some stakeholders indicated that there is a need to ensure delivery riders and gig economy workers are supported to report ‘near miss’ and more general safety concerns. For example, Deliveroo stated that data on incidents involving delivery riders must be collected to determine whether the risks faced by riders are unique or reflective of a broader road user experience. Deliveroo noted that it can be difficult to collect data on ‘near miss’ incidents from workers due to their fear of embarrassment or reprisal, stating it will be necessary to build a culture where reporting incidents is encouraged or rewarded.
8.85
Again, evidence provided by Deliveroo was reflective of issues raised in the NSW Centre for Worth Health and Safety report. The report stated:
Only a minority of [food delivery riders] say they would report an incident to [the relevant platform] …a substantial proportion of [riders] would not report incidents …[with] almost one in five… [stating] that they would ‘never’ report an accident or injury…
[Riders] are often unsure of how or whether to report incidents …[with many riders also indicating] that [the relevant platform] was not contactable, either because the in-app reporting system had failed or because helplines and offices were closed. Several [riders] interviewed reported a perception that reporting incidents …is difficult and not necessarily effective.
Managing driver distraction
8.86
Stakeholders noted that platform-based services often require the use of a phone-based application to accept orders or requests and raised concern that the use of applications while driving or riding creates unacceptable safety risks. Stakeholders observed that levels of enforcement around the use of applications when driving remain low across the gig economy, calling for steps to mitigate relevant safety risks.
8.87
These concerns are also reflected in the NSW Centre for Work Health and Safety report, which found that checking phones while riding or driving was a common behaviour among delivery workers. Indeed, one worker reported checking his phone ‘almost constantly’ while driving, also noting that he accepts 80 to 90 per cent of orders while in motion. Riders were also reported to be using their phones for other purposes, including using navigation applications and social media. Another significant concern was the prevalence of ‘multi-apping’ (working multiple platforms concurrently during the same shift). This requires workers to check phones more often and may be used to avoid risk management policies such as requirements to log out after working for a specified period.
8.88
Stakeholders representing food delivery platforms asserted that measures are in place to reduce risks associated with the use of applications while riding or driving, and that research is ongoing into additional mitigation strategies.
8.89
For example, Uber stated that its app is designed for use while stationary and that minimising distraction is a matter that its product teams are considering on an ongoing basis. On increasing safety for users, Uber highlighted the potential for notifications back to it when a worker appears to be engaging in unsafe behaviour. Uber is also seeking to educate its workers around safe road use.
8.90
However, Uber also noted that safe road use is the responsibility of the driver or rider, asserting that ‘people need to make choices…to be safer’, and that strictly controlling behaviours can be difficult:
[O]f course our app might see certain behaviours, but do we know exactly what that delivery partner is doing, as to whether …they're breaking the law? We …don't, because the app, the phone, only collects so much data and only knows so many things ...That's why what we're doing …is using the technology to inform drivers and delivery partners to make safer choices. That's not to say that it couldn't go further, but I think we should bear in mind that this isn't our technology; this is just the technology that sits on any smartphone that anyone's using, and it's not perfect.
8.91
Deliveroo, meanwhile, noted that safe use of its app is a key part of the onboarding training and assessment for its new riders.
Regulation
8.92
Some stakeholders indicated that safety standards for food delivery riders and other gig economy participants must be enshrined in legislation, with responsibility for risk management clearly defined.
8.93
For example, ACRS stated that increases in the size of the gig economy cast doubt on the ability of current WHS law and policy to ensure the safety of those who use the road as a workplace, and raised concern that the gig economy may operate as a ‘loophole’ for unsafe working practices. Proposals to address deficiencies have included establishment of a standard-setting body for the road transport industry to provide minimum pay and safe conditions for all workers, regardless of formal status.
8.94
Evidence provided by ACRS was reflected in a 2021 report by UTS, which recommended the following measures to improve safety for gig economy workers through improvements to pay and conditions:
Establish in legislation a national tribunal to regulate all work contracts in the road transport industry (including arrangements for engagement of on-demand gig workers) regardless of the status of those workers.
Empower the tribunal to determine complaints concerning the unfair termination of road transport workers, whether employed or otherwise.
Enact legislation to establish collective bargaining rights for all road transport workers, whether employed or otherwise.
Enact legislation to ensure the enforcement of awards and orders of the tribunal provide for supply chain accountability where road transport workers are engaged by subcontractors.
Enact legislation to make it explicit that businesses controlling digital platforms engaging gig workers are covered in state and territory workers’ compensation, so that workers are eligible for compensation if killed or injured at work, and businesses controlling the platforms are liable to meet the obligations of employers under those schemes.
8.95
ARRB indicated that safety standards for gig economy workers should be set out in regulation, with regular audits to ensure compliance, noting that this is particularly important as workers are frequently vulnerable road users (cyclists and motorcyclists); are exposed to high-volume traffic on a regular basis; and may be unfamiliar with the road system.
Applying chain of responsibility legislation to the gig economy
8.96
In the heavy vehicle sector, chain of responsibility (CoR) refers to specific legal obligations imposed on people and organisations in a supply chain. If a person or entity sends or receives goods using a heavy vehicle, they may be accountable for breaches and safety incidents. Entities captured by the CoR include employers; operators; contractors, packers, loaders and loading managers; consignors; consignees; and schedulers.
8.97
The primary duty for parties in the CoR is to ensure—as far as reasonably practicable, the safety of transport activities. This closely mirrors duties in WHS legislation to ensure safe systems of work. Parties in the CoR must identify risks associated with transport activities, assess those risks, and—where possible—eliminate them. Where elimination is not possible, risks should be minimised. The duty also means that entities must not influence drivers to engage in higher-risk behaviours or behaviours that breach the Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL)—for example via direct requests, contract terms, financial penalties or rewards, or preferential treatment.
8.98
Stakeholders noted that with the growth of the gig economy, there is an increasing need for mechanisms to allocate responsibility for worker safety to platforms and intermediaries. Stakeholders indicated that this may be achieved by adopting the CoR model.
8.99
ARSF asserted that adopting CoR arrangements for the gig economy could help create focus on road safety as a workplace issue in the corporate sector and drive cultural change. Using the example of the construction sector, ARSF stated:
Decades ago, it wasn't uncommon to see people walking around in shorts and a T-shirt on a work site. Now we have the hard hat, the hi-vis, and the metal fencing and all that sort of stuff, and that's a culture that translates from the workplace to home. [Doing] that with driving [would] help train the next generation, because those workers are then teaching the next generation of drivers as well.
8.100
MUARC acknowledged that there are some laws to regulate safety in the gig economy. However, responsibility of employers and contractors for worker safety is unclear. By contrast, the heavy vehicle sector is subject to regulation outlining the responsibilities of actors from management through to the frontline. NRSPP made similar points in their submission, also noting that United Kingdom (UK) legislation permits legal authority to holistically consider how a person is engaged in determining responsibility for breach.
8.101
MUARC added that responsibility for worker safety is confounded by the fact that people often work for multiple entities, expressing concern that this increases overall safety risk, particularly if a person accumulates high numbers of hours and fatigue is not adequately monitored.
8.102
The committee also received some evidence that current CoR arrangements may need refining to adapt to the emerging gig economy and the potential ‘uberization’ of the freight industry. The Australian Trucking Association (ATA) noted that a ‘significant gap’ in current legislation is a failure to capture intermediaries in the CoR, calling for amendments to the HVNL to include intermediaries as a matter of urgency. Similarly, the National Road Transport Association (NatRoads) asserted that the HVNL—up to and including CoR arrangements—should ‘clearly apply’ to platforms that facilitate operator engagement. NatRoads stated:
At present, there is no legal precedent to indicate whether or not heavy vehicle national law would apply to…platforms, and the answer would likely vary depending on the details of how the platform operates. Many platforms operate on the basis that they are just another form of facilitator and take no responsibility other than introducing the parties. Yet other platforms are involved with minimum conditions and high levels of control of tasks, along the lines of the Uber model.
Committee view
Road safety in the workplace
8.103
Evidence before the committee indicates that substantial efforts should be made to improve workplace road safety, starting with measures to embed safety in the workplace culture as part of ‘business as usual’. Noting that organisations are already subject to legal obligations to ensure road safety risks are reduced if not eliminated, the committee considers that efforts should focus on ensuring workers at all levels appreciate the importance of workplace road safety, understand their rights and obligations, and are supported to make decisions that minimise exposure to workplace fatal and serious injuries involving vehicle and road use.
8.104
The committee is pleased that understanding and responding to road safety risks in the workplace is a focus area within the NRSS 2021–30, and notes that the strategy proposes establishing an ‘appropriate framework’ to enhance road safety in the workplace. The committee considers that this could take the form of individual workplace road safety strategies, which would include specific road safety risk management arrangements; actions and policies to improve road safety in the short, medium, and long term; training and education for employees and third parties; and opportunities to ‘champion’ road safety in the organisation. Strategies should also capture fleet policies, with a view to ensuring that only the safest vehicles are used.
8.105
The committee recommends that the Australian Government, working with the Office of Road Safety and Safe Work Australia, investigate mechanisms to encourage public and private sector entities to develop, publish and implement individual road safety strategies, including by providing support and guidance as needed.
8.106
The committee is also of the view that comprehensive guidance should be developed on road safety in the workplace. In this regard, the committee notes that the NRSS 2021–30 proposes that the Commonwealth support implementation of Austroads’ Vehicles as a Workplace: Work Health & Safety Guide. Having reviewed this document, the committee strongly supports implementation of the action item.
Data on workplace road safety
8.107
Evidence indicates that there are critical data gaps relating to workplace road safety which create barriers to understanding road trauma in the workplace and developing targeted countermeasures.
8.108
The committee notes that while the NRSS 2021–30 acknowledges data gaps associated with driving for work purposes, it does not put forward actions directly focussed on this issue. The committee therefore considers that the Commonwealth should implement mechanisms to improve collection and reporting of data on work-related crashes, and work with Safe Work Australia (and other workplace safety authorities) to improve reporting on work-related fatal or serious injury involving road and vehicle use.
8.109
The committee considers that the relevant data should, if possible, be sufficiently granular to enable consideration of the nature of the work performed and the nature of the engagement (for example, employee or independent contractor).
8.110
The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state, territory, and local government to develop a nationally consistent approach to the collection of data on crashes involving vehicles driven for work purposes.
8.111
The committee recommends that the Office of Road Safety work with Safe Work Australia to improve reporting of data on work-related fatal and serious injuries involving road and vehicle use.
Safety for construction and road workers
8.112
Evidence before the committee indicates that there is a clear need for measures to improve safety for construction and road workers, as well as for others who are required to work in proximity to the road. The committee heard that there are a variety of measures that could be implemented, with a consensus that government action may improve consistency in approaches to safety and actively encourage contractors to implement best-practice safety measures around construction sites.
8.113
The committee considers that the Commonwealth should work with road safety stakeholders with relevant expertise (such as the National Road Safety Partnership Program, Austroads, Transurban and the Australian College of Road Safety), to develop and implement best-practice national guidance on ensuring worker safety around work sites. The committee considers that guidance should cover measures such as speed management; signage; and measures to remove workers from more dangerous roles as appropriate.
8.114
The committee also considers that the Commonwealth should explore approaches to make funding for road and other infrastructure projects conditional on funding recipients implementing measures to protect road workers—up to and including adoption of best-practice guidance.
8.115
Evidence also indicates that there is support for measures to improve safety around construction sites, with the Commonwealth supporting the implementation of CLOCS-A and ISO 39001 standards. The committee also supports adoption of those standards and considers that the Commonwealth should take further action to ensure the standards are implemented on all major construction projects—including using federal funding as a lever.
8.116
The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state, territory, and local government, and road safety stakeholders with relevant expertise, to develop and publish best-practice national guidance on ensuring safety for road workers around construction sites. This should include implementation of enforcement measures such as speed cameras.
8.117
The committee recommends that the Australian Government investigate options to make funding for infrastructure projects conditional on funding recipients adopting:
measures to ensure the safety of road workers at the site; and
standards to protect all road users in construction activities.
8.118
The committee is also cognisant that improving safety around work sites may require community engagement and awareness-raising, to ensure members of the public understand the importance of road worker safety. The committee notes in this regard that some jurisdictions have been active in designing campaigns to encourage safer behaviour around work sites and considers there may be opportunities to leverage this work to enhance awareness of worker safety at the national level.
8.119
The committee recommends that the Australian Government invest in targeted campaigns to increase public awareness of the importance of road worker safety, with a focus on encouraging drivers to lower speeds around work sites and increasing hazard awareness.
Road safety in the gig economy
8.120
The committee heard that pay and conditions in the road transport sector—including for gig economy workers—are contributors to unsafe practices. For example, stakeholders indicated that unreasonable deadlines combined with lower pay and precarious work can lead riders to speed; ignore traffic signals; drive or ride in low visibility; and drive or ride on unsafe roads. The committee also heard that gig economy workers frequently feel obliged to use phone applications while driving or riding, leading to significant risks associated with distraction. This concern is compounded by the increasing number of people in the sector who conduct work for multiple platforms.
8.121
The committee acknowledges that platform-based services have taken steps to improve safety for workers—including limiting the extent to which the fee-for-service model by which the gig economy operates creates workplace road risks. However, evidence suggests there are gaps in these measures which should be addressed as a matter of urgency. In particular, the committee heard that training and technical guidance for delivery workers—including as part of onboarding processes—may be inadequate; workers may drive or ride in low-visibility conditions without appropriate gear and without taking steps to ensure they can be seen by other road users; and workers are not appropriately supported to report safety concerns, either to the relevant platform or to other authorities.
8.122
The committee notes that the Guide to managing work health and safety in the food delivery industry captures a significant number of steps that platform-based organisations may take to ensure the safety of the workforce, and to enable platforms (which are captured by Australia’s WHS laws) to meet legal obligations. While platform-based services appear to have put in place measures that align with this Guide, it appears that more could be done to ensure protections for workers and ensure consistency across the sector. The committee therefore considers that platform-based organisations should adopt the Guide as part of their business practices (in addition to the workplace road safety strategies recommended above).
8.123
The committee also considers that more could be done to increase the strength of relevant safety measures. For example, initial and ongoing training could be mandatory in the sector; as could wearing high-visibility clothing (free of charge or highly subsidised, as is already the case for some services). Services should also be supported to strengthen their monitoring arrangements and to encourage workers to report actual and potential health and safety risks.
8.124
The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with Safe Work Australia and other relevant stakeholders to support implementation of the Guide to managing work health and safety in the food delivery industry, and other guidance on managing health and safety obligations as appropriate, with a particular focus on platform-based organisations in the rideshare and food delivery sectors. As part of this work, the committee considers that the Australian Government should support organisations to strengthen safety measures, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms, and measures for reporting safety risks.
8.125
While ‘standard’ WHS duties (including the primary duty of care to ensure safe working conditions) apply to the gig economy, there appears to be doubt as to how responsibility would be apportioned in the event of a death or serious injury. Stakeholders indicated that one way of addressing this concern is to adopt chain of responsibility arrangements, modelled after arrangements that apply in the heavy vehicle sector, in relation to gig economy workers for whom driving or riding is a core part of work.
8.126
The committee agrees that there is a need to clarify the issue of responsibility in relation to the safety of gig economy workers under applicable WHS laws and considers that adopting chain of responsibility arrangements may be one way of doing this. The committee notes that duties under chain of responsibility legislation in the heavy vehicle sector include ensuring operators do not encourage workers to higher-risk behaviour, for example via direct requests; contract terms, penalties and rewards; or preferential treatment. However, the committee remains cautious of wholesale adoption of chain of responsibility arrangements or immediate legislative change and considers that further research and policy consideration may be required.
8.127
The committee recommends that the Australian Government investigate options to further clarify responsibility for workplace health and safety in the gig economy, with a particular focus on persons who drive or ride for work purposes. As part of this process, the committee considers that the Australian Government should explore the feasibility of adopting chain of responsibility arrangements for gig economy work.
8.128
The committee recognises the evidence that there are links between pay and conditions and high-risk behaviour in the gig economy. The committee also supports measures to ensure gig economy participants who use the road as a workplace have access to financial support should they be injured.
8.129
However, the committee considers workplace entitlements, including pay and conditions and compensation, may be beyond the scope of the inquiry and are best considered via other inquiry and review processes. In this respect, the committee notes that the interim report of the Senate Select Committee on Job Security recommended the Australian Government:
Work with state and territory governments to lead reforms of state-based workers' compensation schemes so that they extend to platform workers, regardless of their visa or work status.
Expand the definitions of 'employment' and 'employee' in the Fair Work Act 2009 to capture new and evolving forms of work. The committee also stated that there should be a mechanism by which the Fair Work Commission can extend coverage of certain rights when necessary to workers falling outside expanded definitions of employment.
8.130
The committee broadly supports those recommendations and does not make further recommendations of its own.