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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (27 November) . . Page.. 4856 ..

MS DUNDAS (continuing):

spoken up federally in support of such legislation. I am satisfied that the ACT bill is sufficiently clearly worded to cover only those offices or corporations who could reasonably be held substantially or wholly responsible for the death of an employee.

But, as this bill passes, I hope that no employer or corporation is ever convicted of the offence of industrial manslaughter. I hope and expect that every ACT employer is taking occupational health and safety seriously enough to prevent them ever being found to be criminally negligent or reckless.

Accidents, tragically, do happen and will continue to happen, even in workplaces with outstanding health and safety measures, because some workers will unthinkingly cut corners and put their own safety at risk. If that happens it will not lead to employers being convicted of manslaughter. If employers have safety measures in place and senior officers have informed workers of the risks in the workplace and the importance of working safely, they will have done all they can reasonably be expected to do.

Some occupations are inherently more dangerous than others, and it can be close to impossible to completely eliminate all the risks while still getting the job done. However, employers and senior managers who run businesses that involve working at heights, with toxic materials or even with heavy equipment have nothing to fear from this legislation if they foster a culture of safety in their workplace and take reasonable steps to safeguard their workers. Key to what we are looking at today is how we can help employers make their workplaces safe for all their workers.

This bill does not provide for vicarious liability of officers, which has been an element of industrial manslaughter bills introduced elsewhere in Australia. A person can only be convicted of an offence under this bill if their own act or omission is substantially responsible for a worker's death. A corporation can only be convicted if it did not have organisational processes and practices in place to protect the safety of workers. Let me put that in another way. If a corporation has in place organisational processes and practices that protect the safety of their workers, they cannot be charged with industrial manslaughter.

Many people in this community, in the business community in particular, have raised concerns about how this bill would operate, and the Housing Industry Association has talked about how it will impact on small businesses. But it will only be if small businesses do not take their occupational health and safety responsibilities seriously that this bill will impact. Again, I will put that in a different way. If small businesses are making sure that their OH&S responsibilities are being met and that their workers are informed of their safety responsibilities, they should not be charged with industrial manslaughter.

I, too, have spoken with many people about this legislation. I was particularly interested in how it would impact on small business because most of the businesses in the territory are small businesses. Through my discussions with unions, with businesses, with people who just work in the ACT, with the minister and with a range of other people it is quite clear that this legislation is not targeted at people who are doing the right thing.

It is not targeted at small businesses, which have a lot of investment in their employees because they are usually family businesses-or if the employees are not related by blood,

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