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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (27 November) . . Page.. 4882 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

Belconnen. The CFMEU, in conjunction with employers, launched a program to reduce drug and alcohol abuse in the industry.

In a little office at the Belconnen markets, businesses and the union-the CFMEU-are working together to reduce the incidence of mental health problems among workers in that industry. It is a fabulous initiative. No punitive laws have been put in place and no new sections have been included in the act. Businesses and the union are doing that together to try to make it work. That is the best way to approach this problem. The only way to make a real difference is by getting businesses, the union, the government and the community working together. We must do that with peer support to ensure that everybody looks out for everybody else rather than having alienation, resentment and fear. That is the problem.

I repeat the words spoken earlier by Ms Gallagher. During Mr Pratt's contribution to debate on the bill she interjected, "And the incidence is on the rise."What has this government done to stop the increased incidence of workplace deaths? Where are the budget initiatives to beef up WorkCover? Where are the regulations that government members said earlier were missing?

Ms Gallagher: They are coming.

MR SMYTH: The answer that we have been given is that they are coming. That is the standard mantra of the Stanhope government. What we have is government through inactivity. The government has told us that the regulations are coming. It has taken this government two years-which is too long-to put together some regulations. I suspect that this bill is a smokescreen because of the inactivity of this government. What is the best way to address these occupational health and safety issues? As Mr Stefaniak has already pointed out, we do not want to be soft on those who breach the act or on those who cause a death in the workplace. But those people can already be sanctioned under the existing act.

Last year we changed part 2.5 of the Criminal Code, which includes sections 49 to 55, to establish corporate criminal responsibility. Those provisions are already in the act. Why did the Attorney-General not tell the Minister for Industrial Relations when this legislation came through cabinet that the act had already been changed? Last year we helped the government change that act. The Attorney-General forgot to tell people about that.

Those sanctions already exist in the law. We must be proactive in relation to this issue. Should we embrace this adversarial legislation or should we approach this issue as a community? Was this legislation introduced because of Labor Party preselections? Labor members could be showing their muscle in an attempt to obtain union backing and votes. However, that approach is not helping the worker. By alienating business this government is not helping the worker.

We should work with those groups and try to solve these problems together. That is the only way in which these problems will be solved. Occupational health and safety workers have not been allocated the necessary resources to resolve these issues and the government has not given these issues adequate priority. I refer members to a report that was tabled today concerning a review of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 1989

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