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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (27 November) . . Page.. 4851 ..

MR PRATT (continuing):

legislation which we believe could be amended to include provisions for reckless corporate behaviour. I say again that we would support any moves to combat reckless corporate behaviour whereby guilty individuals in the workplace, including owners, managers, subordinate supervisors and workers, could be sent to jail with respect to workplace deaths if a judge thought that that was necessary. Let's look at the issue holistically; let's not just look at one level of activity.

Why did the government not go down this path? It seems that it is because they are lazy about administering OH&S and are more attracted to running with this sexy, ideologically attractive industrial manslaughter package. Is this government serious about improving workplace safety? Are they mindful of the need for proactive and preventive measures in the workplace that would minimise risk? It does not seem so, otherwise the government would not have faffed around for two years with a review that had almost been completed when it came into government.

Ms Gallagher: Fraffed?

MR PRATT: I said faffed, Mrs Cross.

Ms Gallagher: No, I interjected. I didn't catch it.

MR PRATT: For Ms Gallagher, it is spelt f-a-f-f-e-d. Why did they faff around for two years with a review that had almost been completed when they came into government? That is outrageous. Why did they ignore good governance and why, instead, did they run with this piece of divisive legislation?

Mr Hargreaves: What does "faffed"mean?

MR PRATT: It is an old soldiers' term. You should know that, John?

Another hole is that, although the legislation provides tougher penalties for employers, it provides no more power or clear rights to implement improved safety control mechanisms. The legislation makes the employer fully responsible without clarifying areas such as drug and alcohol testing and dismissals for safety breaches. There are no layers of preventive activity. It goes straight to the top and straight for the throat. These are not covered as part of this package.

The fundamental issue here is that this ideologically driven legislation will not improve workplace safety by one millimetre. In fact, it will downgrade workplace safety. It will drive a wedge between employers and employees and that is not conducive to having a harmonious, safe working place. We are not the only state or territory parliamentary party opposing the introduction of such legislation. I heard today on ABC radio one of the peak employer groups talk about why such legislation has not been introduced in other jurisdictions. Essentially, their concerns were that this legislation is not going to improve safety in the workplace, is bad for business and is unnecessarily divisive.

The Victorian and Queensland governments have considered similar proposals and they have refused to meet the demands of the unions in their jurisdictions. They have done so out of recognition of the unfairness of this legislation and the fact that there is no balance

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