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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Thursday, 12 February 2004) . . Page.. 327 ..

As far as the Liberal opposition is concerned, there has not been sufficient time to properly consult on and consider this legislation, particularly as it was introduced over the Christmas-New Year period when holidays were taken by the government, public servants, the opposition and businesses across Canberra.

In talking to the regional director of Australian Business Ltd, he pointed out that any time after 15 December through to 1 February is a difficult period for people like him to be able to consult with their members, because many people go away. Kids are on holidays at that time and families travel.

The Liberal opposition was briefed on this legislation less than a month ago. It is claimed that the business community was briefed by the government, but it must be said that priority was given to the fireworks industry and that the broader business community was not given much priority. Neither the ACT branch nor the head office in Sydney of Australian Business Ltd was formally consulted on the legislation. So a major business representative organisation was not consulted on this legislation, although the legislation has the potential to impact negatively on Canberra business.

In one sense I can see how legislation would achieve safety management aims, but there is going to be a cost to business. In some cases that may be an improper and unfair cost. Therefore, whilst business needs to be prepared to act responsibly and take on board some of the principles or tenets of this legislation, which I would support, they need to have their chance to say, “Minister, perhaps some of these issues are going to cost us unfairly. Can provision be made to cater for those concerns?”

Many Canberra businesses are confused about this legislation. That is only because of the short timeframe between tabling and debate. I am sure that, once they have had sufficient time to look at it, they will not be confused, but at the moment they are somewhat confused. Many people in the business community are saying that. There are certainly some who are saying that they are quite happy with what they see—there is no doubt about that. Let us not play silly fellows here. There are some who have had the time to consider the legislation. They understand what is going to happen but still want to talk to the minister and the department about making what they see as necessary adjustments. But those who have not seen the legislation are not particularly happy and we must ensure that they get that chance.

The government may have consulted certain business groups and businesses on this legislation when it was being developed, but we believe that sufficient consultation is also needed between tabling and debate of the legislation. We know that some of the draft material that is used in consultation in the weeks leading up to tabling may change, and the proof of the pudding is in what happens when the minister tables her legislation. We then know what we are going to be looking at. Stakeholders must also have that opportunity. Businesses and business groups were clearly not given enough time to look at the legislation, to comprehend and consider carefully the final version of the bill, and apply it to their businesses and cost out any impact it may have on them and their budgets. It is very important that operational impacts are looked at.

We also have concerns about some of the strict liability penalties the legislation proposes for breaches. For example, the bill proposes to enforce seven-year jail terms, $1 million

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