Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 7 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 2308 ..
MR PRATT
(continuing):there, to ensure that employers organise and implement their daily business in a safe way, with the best interests of their employees in mind.
Shoving responsibility for all safety management in an organisation back up to the manager, and then the owners, is not the answer. People are hired to be middle managers and shop floor managers. They are hired also to be responsible supervisors in areas including safety. The problem I have with industrial manslaughter is that it takes that sense of responsibility away from people in the middle of the organisation and lower down the chain. We do not want to see that happen.
If the committee recommends the introduction of additional legislation the government may take on that recommendation or continue to go down that track. I do not think it would be in the best interests of the ACT. We would see the introduction of yet another level of unnecessary legislation, and the imposition of more penalties with the introduction of the industrial manslaughter package. It would not be good for business. I believe we would see business leaving the ACT.
Ms Gallagher
: Isn't killing someone at work good for business?MR PRATT
: I do not sympathise with the concept of killing people at work, Ms Gallagher. There is common law in place at both the Commonwealth and state levels. A surfeit of laws exists to ensure that silly old managers and company owners do not behave negligently, dangerously, recklessly or anything else. If they do, they can be charged with manslaughter under common law.Why is that wrong? Why is that system inadequate? It is not. Why spend more of the taxpayers' money developing another layer of legal lantana so we can frighten the bejesus out of employers? In frightening employers, we are going to drive them offshore-to use an international term-and we do not want to do that. The question I ask is: will the committee, or the government, be willing to see that, if they implement an industrial manslaughter package, it is going to be equally applicable to the public service and public enterprise as it is to free enterprise?
It would want to be, because there are suspicions that it is a bit weighted. So I linger with bated breath, Ms Gallagher. I hope that will be the case. Let us drop-kick industrial manslaughter into the basket of history.
Moving on to the issue of fireworks, I am concerned at the amount of funding which has been wasted on the disposal of fireworks. The amount of $465,000 has been budgeted for the destruction or disposal of about 37 tonnes of fireworks. I am yet to be convinced that we need that amount of money to safely dispose of those fireworks.
I understand that the program of disposal involves tonnages of fireworks in many iterations. In other words, it may be the case that fireworks are being disposed of in one-tonne or half-tonne lots. I hope that is not the case. I would have thought you could dispose of five or 10 tonnes of fireworks in a safe manner, thereby cutting down your costs and also cutting down the timeframe required for the disposal of those fireworks.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .