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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (27 November) . . Page.. 4850 ..

MR PRATT (continuing):

Let's talk about Summernats. We have been advised by the Summernats people that they would have to consider seriously pulling the activity out of the ACT. That is what they have said in the last couple of days. They have predicted that their insurance requirements would rise beyond control. Having already seen large events lost, it would be unforgivable to lose Summernats as well. Surely this sentiment is a lesson to be noted by the government. As the ACT is an island in the middle of New South Wales, it is very likely, as with the example that I have just given, that some businesses will move to adjacent jurisdictions.

Do we really want to support ACT government legislation which runs the risk of driving business out of Canberra? The answer has to be no. Does the government fail to understand that 60 per cent of the commercial and operational activity, business activity, in the ACT is private enterprise? Does it not realise that the people on the list that I pointed to earlier, representing corporate owners, business owners, managers and workers, are the heart and soul of activity in this territory? The government wants to put in place further impediments to their operations through this divisive draconian legislation.

As well as major business groups in Canberra being unhappy with not only the introduction of the proposed legislation but also the consultation process, there are other holes that the government has left open regarding this issue. I am referring to the questions around the review of ACT OH&S laws commissioned by the former Liberal government, specifically the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Smyth. The long-awaited review has only just been confirmed as being completed under the Labor government.

The former Liberal industrial relations minister announced a review in early 2001 of OH&S laws in the ACT which included a regulatory impact statement. He did so because the then government was dissatisfied with the standard of the workplace safety culture permeating both the private and public sectors. The then government strongly believed-and this opposition continues to carry that torch-in proactive preventive strategies to make the workplace safer.

The idea of having some sort of draconian industrial manslaughter legislation was never thought necessary and it was certainly clearly considered by our side to be severely counterproductive to workplace safety and workplace harmony. What about that OH&S review? That review was ongoing but near completion upon the change of government. If the review was completed, where is the report? Did the government consider the report's recommendations when it drafted this piece of legislation? That does not seem to be the case.

Mr Deputy Speaker, it should have been properly assessed if it was genuinely necessary to introduce such legislation into the ACT. A proper review of OH&S and the implementation of recommendations should have been completed long before any new considerations to introduce industrial manslaughter or even to rectify any other part of the Crimes Act to cater particularly for corporate behaviour, a move that we would have supported. We would still support that move. But we are yet to see and debate in this place the report on the OH&S review. That is yet to occur.

We now have the cart being put before the horse with this unnecessary industrial manslaughter law being thrust upon us before we are able to examine existing OH&S

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