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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2387 ..

Everyone in this place read in the media last week about the business community’s outrage with this piece of legislation. For example, I will look at the increase in penalties and let’s have a look at the first one: “Failure to comply with safety duty—exposing people to substantial risk of serious harm.” Under this clause, if an individual is reckless or negligent, the penalty is up to $150,000, five years imprisonment or both, and if a company is reckless or negligent the penalty is up to $750,000, five years imprisonment or both.

The second is “Failure to comply with safety duty—causing serious harm to people.” Under this clause, if an individual is reckless or negligent, the penalty is up $200,000, seven years imprisonment or both, and if a company is reckless or negligent the penalty is up to $1 million, seven years imprisonment or both.

Under the current legislation, an individual could face a fine of a maximum of $25,000 for similar breaches. We agree that the current penalties are totally inadequate and there should be reform of the OH&S Act—clearly there has to be—but we question the rapid rise to these maximums and whether absolute liabilities should be in place.

I want to have a look at the increased powers of inspectors that the government’s proposed legislation will bring online. First, inspectors may enter premises at any reasonable time and, under many circumstances, no notice is required at all. Second, inspectors can stop or detain your vehicle if they believe that it is used as a workplace or has OH&S material inside, so contractors and builders beware. They may also enter premises with any necessary assistance and force, and they have the power to seize and destroy. They may also obtain search warrants.

Just to make things more complicated, compliance agreements, improvement notices, prohibition notices, enforceable undertakings and injunctions can be issued. All the organisations have come back with the same concerns: the increased penalties mentioned previously and, most importantly, the right of entry provisions for employee organisations that ensure that representatives of organisations with members or potential members in a workplace can enter work premises where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a contravention of the act has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur.

Under these provisions, the conditions of entry as stated in the bill are very general and can be used by various organisations as a way inside non-affiliated organisations if they suspect that a contravention of the act is likely to happen. Whether or not one wants to say that that will not necessarily be people’s intentions, this legislation provides that sort of opening, therefore we think it is dangerous and divisive.

This is completely unacceptable legislation. The only people who should be allowed right of entry into a workplace under suspicion of contravening the act, for workplace matters, are ACT WorkCover inspectors. Clearly, police in the normal conduct of their duties, with warrants, and others such as health inspectors, food inspectors and other approved professional inspectors, can also gain entry with the right provision. However, these are people who are professional inspectors, who do not belong to any political organisations, and who are qualified and trained to represent the community in scrutinising benchmarks. That is entirely different to providing the same powers and the same provisions to union officials. ACT WorkCover inspectors are not affiliated with

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