Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (27 November) . . Page.. 4847 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

I think it appropriate that we do make some mention-I do not want to dwell on it or overstate it-of the somewhat desperate campaign that has been launched against this initiative in the ACT, principally by the ACT chamber of commerce. I acknowledge the efficiency of the organisation in marshalling its membership, particularly through some fairly flurried keyboard activity, and I acknowledge that that campaign has generated perhaps a couple of hundred letters of some displeasure to both the Minister for Industrial Relations and me.

It is a pity that the campaign has been so disingenuous and that so many of the chamber's members have accepted without question what I regard as serious misinformation that has been peddled to them, even to the extent of including in the letters that the minister and I have received the chamber's instructions on what should be included in the letters. The campaign perhaps would have been a touch more persuasive if there had been a little more variation in the letters.

Just sticking to the pro forma has resulted in some very unfortunate illogicalities or perhaps some very interesting possibilities in that I have received, for instance, and these are all fine organisations, letters from the West Belconnen Leagues Club, the Kaleen Sports Club, the Canberra Club and the cafes at RMC and ADFA in which they all suggest that if the legislation is past they will all leave town.

I must say that that does raise some very interesting possibilities. I am not entirely clear how the West Belconnen Leagues Club, the Kaleen Sports Club or the cafe at the RMC might fare if it moved interstate. That does go to explain the nonsense of some of the representations that have been made to me and to the minister in particular. Of course, the legislation can only operate within the territory's borders, so those many emails from outside the territory's borders do also come as a surprise.

In any event, contrary to statements made by the chamber and its members, the bill does not include vicarious liability law, nor does it alter the current law as it applies to natural persons. The bill does not apply to events beyond the control of the employer, but rather applies to negligent or reckless actions or omissions that contribute directly to the death of a worker.

This bill does nothing more than amend the law to ensure that corporations can be effectively prosecuted. All this has been carefully explained to the various representative business groups, including, of course, the chamber of commerce. Let me repeat for the record what my colleague the Minister for Industrial Relations, Katy Gallagher, said in introducing this legislation. That position was put at the outset. It is the position that has been maintained since and it is the true position. Ms Gallagher said in her presentation speech:

A credible and robust enforcement strategy requires both positive support for voluntary compliance, on the one hand, and a range of increasingly strong deterrent measures for serious offences, on the other.

The bill's intent is to ensure that employers can be held responsible where their reckless or criminally negligent conduct causes the death of a worker. The legislation will enable a more effective application of the law of manslaughter to

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .