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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (27 November) . . Page.. 4858 ..

MS DUNDAS (continuing):

A lot of the concern that I heard from groups was about the confusion between criminal and civil. By looking through case law and taking the time to work through what has actually been done, we can see that their concerns are quite ill-founded. When you look at the tests that apply to a criminal case, businesses can rest assured that they will have had to be doing something pretty bad before they can get tried. This is what we are trying to catch: businesses doing things that are pretty bad.

I have received a lot of correspondence over the last two days through a campaign that has been run by the chamber of business and commerce. Most of the people who wrote to me included this statement:

As a responsible employer with a very good safety record I am deeply concerned about the implications and negative impact such legislation will have on me personally and professionally.

I do not believe you or your government have communicated to me why I, as a decent and fair employer, should face 25 years imprisonment if one of my employees is unfortunately killed in the workplace through no fault on my part.

I will respond to the many letters I received on this topic individually, but I say now in this place: if the accident is no fault of yours and-as has been asserted-there is a good safety record at your workplace, there is no reason why you should be afraid of being charged with industrial manslaughter. What we are looking at are the people who do not have a good safety record, those people who are being negligent and allowing their workers to work in unsafe conditions.

As this bill passes, we will become the first jurisdiction in Australia to have an offence of industrial manslaughter. I think many would have been comfortable if we had the experience of other jurisdictions to draw upon and had the evidence before us that this offence makes employers take safety more seriously. But there are some areas where the ACT does need to take the lead, and it has led the way in many areas, such as the no waste target, decriminalisation of abortion and recognition of same-sex relationships. Down the track, we have not regretted our courage, and we have shown other states and territories the way. That can happen with industrial manslaughter.

I was concerned, when this piece of legislation was first tabled, about how it would impact on the workplace inspection role that ACT WorkCover currently undertakes. I believe that on-the-ground safety has suffered recently because a substantial amount of resources have been diverted away from working with employers and looking at workplace safety towards one individual campaign.

However, the Minister for Industrial Relations has now put on the record that the existing level of workplace inspections and the amount of time and money spent on education will not be allowed to drop, even if an industrial manslaughter prosecution is pursued. We can continue to work on the ground for workplace safety, and the industrial manslaughter legislation will be part of the package we are working towards.

The minister has informed me that she herself has consulted with eight employer representative groups and 14 unions operating in the ACT about the content of this bill, as well as receiving submissions from six employer groups. I have met and consulted widely with employer representatives and unions. Obviously, I have not been able to

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