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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2388 ..

any organisation and they do represent the government in preserving the provisions of the act.

Ms Gallagher: They are affiliated with WorkCover.

MR PRATT: Yes, but professionally they are accountable to you, Minister. That is why they have the powers: because we trust them in terms of their qualifications and their capabilities as safety officers. The Liberal opposition will be putting forward an amendment regarding this if we are unable to defeat the government’s bill.

Another concern for the Liberal opposition is the naming and shaming through adverse publicity measures. The published naming and shaming of businesses that have been convicted and found guilty of breaching the act does not allow for the chief executive to make allowances for the degree of a business breach of the act. I think naming and shaming is sometimes appropriate. Clearly, it can be and we have seen some very shameful acts perpetrated by employers. There are some celebrated examples of that.

However, if this is axiomatic, and there is no flexibility in law for the chief executive of WorkCover to look at things on a case-by-case basis, people who may have been temporarily foolish may find themselves losing their livelihoods when perhaps, if they had been given another chance to meet the requirements of ACT WorkCover, they may have been able to bring their industrial practices up to the benchmark. They may never get a change again. The chief executive ought to be able to exercise that discretion, show a bit of leadership and make those sorts of decisions. Unless the minister can show me otherwise, as far as I can see, the act does not allow that provision.

I want to have a look at the proposal to allow unions the right of entry. I have some really important questions to ask about this. Why should it be important to change the workplace landscape to allow union officials the right of entry? What has happened? Which sky fell in to change the circumstances so that this has to happen? Where is the need for this union right of entry? Not always, but in some cases, it can be unfettered right of entry.

Where is the proof that Canberra business owners have been so damned negligent or reckless in their duty of care to either their clients or their workers as to require this? Where are the statistics? Where is the evidence going back over the last five years that shows that there has been an epidemic of delinquent employer behaviour that has brought us to this point when we must step beyond the realm of qualified inspectors and now invite unions, whenever they wish, to seek a right of entry? Where are the statistics proving the government’s position, justifying the need for unfettered access of untrained officials from the unions who, in some cases, may barge into a workplace without prior approval or prior notice?

Mr Stanhope: No; that is not what the legislation says.

MR PRATT: What the hell is—

Mr Stanhope: Read the legislation.

Ms Gallagher: They could do it now if they wanted to.

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