Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3352 ..
MR BERRY (continuing):
Mr Speaker, in its report, the commission also said:
The expected penalties are negligible. The Commission estimates that offenders face an expected penalty of less than $33, averaged over all the jurisdictions. They vary from $159 in Queensland, to $6 in the Australian Capital Territory. Only two jurisdictions have ever expected penalties greater than $33.
On average, there is a 22 per cent chance of a workplace being visited by the OHS inspectorate in any year. If a prima facie breach of the OHS legislation is detected, there is only a 6 per cent chance of a conviction and fine by the courts. In the ACT the probability of being penalised-
wait for it-
is less than 1 per cent.
Yes, there have been changes in the ACT, but those were the facts that gave rise to the commission's recommendations in relation to the matter. The report went on to say:
The low expected penalty for non-compliance implies that current enforcement policies have little or no deterrence effect. They are unlikely to discourage those who for reasons of ignorance, apathy or financial gain breach the law.
This is not surprising. A policy of first persuading individuals to rectify an unsafe situation, by giving advice or compliance notices, could be expected to do little to deter others. Everyone knows if they are found in breach of the law, they will generally be given an opportunity to comply without a penalty being imposed. At best this will deter those who have been detected from committing another breach (and that may be questionable). However, it does not deter those yet to be found out because they know that they will be given a second chance.
Recommendation 17 of the report proposes on-the-spot fines for breaches of the occupational health and safety legislation. The report drew attention to the point that in 1995 the ACT government was considering their use. In the year 2000 the community is yet to see a response on this important issue. Five years later there has been nothing but inaction on this issue.
It is also clear from the report that the introduction of on-the-spot fines must be accompanied by an easily understood appeal system, along with thorough inspectorate training. I agree with the commission's recommendation that we should introduce on-the-spot fines. That is the focus of the bill I have introduced today.
It is my aim to ensure that on-the-spot fines are available as a strong deterrent against breaches of the law and of the codes of practice in respect of risk and harm and that a clear set of operational guidelines are developed for inspectors to ensure that this type of enforcement regime is adopted and applied judiciously.
I expect that, in practice, infringement notices would only be used for lower order breaches and that the maximum penalties available in the act would remain an active punishment in the courts for breaches of the legislation. The use of on-the-spot fines, or infringement notices as they are referred to in the bill, is consistent with the approach being taken generally by the government in respect of legislation which provides for
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .