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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2394 ..

The police could not enter if they suspected something was happening on reasonable grounds. They would have to rely on sections 188 and 190 of the Crimes Act. They would not be able to do it. So, Minister, and your colleagues there, shame on you for doing this. This is unnecessary. I suspect that it is going to do nothing to help with any real breaches of the law that are occurring. You have perfectly good, trained people in WorkCover. You have an occupational health and safety system that has been evolving for 15 years or more now—sometimes with a few hiccups and sometimes with a few things you people have put in that we do not agree with, such as industrial manslaughter—and it has been a system that has operated reasonably effectively. Now you are putting all that in jeopardy.

Now you are really worrying and scaring your horses. Any business has a right to be worried about this. Any right-thinking person would have a right to be worried about this. Any person who may not want to join a union would have a right to be worried about this and about being coerced. I was a labourer once when you had to be a member of the BLF. I remember that one time I was not. Luckily, I was going to another job. I had a bit of fun with a union bloke who came around. The other 15 people on the site, except three who had tickets, disappeared down a drain. I do not know what their circumstances were but they certainly were not members of the union. They were terrified of being forced to join.

I can see how people might be worried about the fact that, although there may not be union members in a workplace, the eligibility of staff to join is a good enough reason for union representatives to go into that workplace. Sorry, I just cannot see the need for this. There is just no justification for it whatsoever. I do not think the government has shown me, Mr Pratt or anyone else why we need this provision, why the WorkCover people cannot do the job and why the extra powers being given, the extra offences and the beefed-up penalties and things that cannot be applied and handled the normal way. By my understanding, they generally do a pretty good job of getting in there and checking out safety breaches.

I have no problem with assisting them a little bit further to do that and having a few additional penalties. I have suggested that and there are no problems there, but do not do it this way. This is unnecessary. It is of the 19th century. It is even of the 1930s, when workers were oppressed and had very few rights. Things have changed since the Second World War, Minister: we live in a very different era now. We live in an era where you, even as a member of a left-wing Labor government, should be trying to get on with business, should be trying to work constructively with people and should be introducing laws including beefed-up health and safety laws where you need to, but not going down this idiotic, narrow, ideological path.

I almost felt like putting in an amendment here that said that authorised representatives could be members of the RMC band, the Eclipse football club and the CWA of Australia ACT branch. That is just as ridiculous as what you have here. I am not going to do that and waste people’s time, but get real! I think this legislation should not be passed. Go away, do it again and bring back some sensible legislation without this unnecessary ideological nonsense in it.

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