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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2391 ..

As Mr Pratt has said, no-one wants to see people injured in the workplace, but I do not think I have seen such draconian, biased and inappropriate legislation for quite some time. This government states that it is business friendly. I do not think I have seen a Labor government in this place—including the first few—that has scared business as much as this one has with the legislation that has gone through this Assembly, ranging from industrial manslaughter to some attempts in relation to long-service leave.

However, even given that we now have two offences of manslaughter and there have been other attempts which have caused business some angst in relation to things like portability of long-service leave, this legislation here—and I am looking at division 4.3A which allows entry to workplaces by authorised representatives—is quite frankly appalling.

It is appalling for a number of reasons. When the Occupational Health and Safety Act systems were set up, we had WorkCover inspectors. I recall that we also used to have a committee that oversaw all of this, comprising unions, three employer representatives and three government officials, including public servants from whatever WorkCover was then. That worked fairly well. We probably had some fairly reasonable situations develop. On balance, too, a lot of injuries may have been avoided in the workplace as the result of the sensible cooperation that developed after 1989, when we put those systems in place.

However, what we have here gets away from having independent government officials who enter the workplace, see what is going on, issue infringement notices and perhaps eventually charge people for breaches. That is fine. That is their job and it is fine for people who are authorised government employees to do that, as it is for an inspector under the environmental laws to enter a premises, or other government officials or police who have the power to enter premises. That is understandable.

However, to have employee representative organisations entering premises and doing the job that professional government employees should be doing is quite frankly absolutely wrong. Little wonder business is scared. I think that the Treasurer might have been rolled on that because he, at least, seems to have a modicum of understanding of what business is about. Business employs 60 per cent of all workers in this town and, if you check the records, Minister, we have a pretty good record in relation to occupational health and safety issues.

Ms Tucker: Mr Deputy Speaker, point of order: Mr Stefaniak is extremely agitated and I would ask him to speak through the chair.

MR STEFANIAK: Point taken, Mr Deputy Speaker.

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: I uphold the point of order.

MR STEFANIAK: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I picked Ms Tucker’s point of order. Yes, okay I will do it through the chair. For the minister’s benefit, 60 per cent of people in the ACT are employed in the private sector. Any employers worth their salt treat their employees well, and generally we have a very good record in the ACT. That does not mean to say that we do not need sensible and strong occupational health and

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