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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2395 ..

MS TUCKER (10.28): The Greens will be supporting this bill. In essence, this bill would put in place a compliance scheme that is somewhat more rigorous than the existing scheme and which provides a wide range of responses, from infringement notices to publication provisions—naming and shaming—to increased penalties at the top end of offences so that they are more in line with penalty provisions across Australia.

This bill is one of the outcomes of a more comprehensive review of the ACT’s work and safety legislation that began a couple of years ago. The industrial manslaughter legislation was another component of that process, as was the dangerous substances legislation we passed earlier this year.

This bill has most directly come out of the work of the OH&S Council’s compliance committee. It puts into place recommendations of the council’s “Enforcement and compliance framework” issues paper, published in August last year. One of the issues in dispute is the increase in penalties for offences at the top end of culpability. It is important to understand that this increase in penalties will simply lift the ACT regime up to the level that applies across Australia, that this legislation provides for a wider range of penalties and enforceable agreements, and that the top end offences are those where criminal recklessness or negligence can be established beyond reasonable doubt.

I am also well aware that the council and its compliance committee was not unanimous on the issue of union right of entry, and it is that policy decision and the details of its implementation that will demand the most detailed debate. I have to say up-front that the Greens believe unions make an important and legitimate contribution to workplace safety. We see occupational health and safety as a basic industrial issue and any evidence that is provided on issues of workplace safety supports the relationship between union protection and safety. Indeed, it has been well established in Australia and internationally that unionised workplaces are, on average, safer work environments than others.

For example, research conducted by Britain’s health and safety executive across the British manufacturing sector compared annual accident and incident rates in workplaces in which managers made unilateral safety decisions, in which safety decisions were made in consultation with employees and in which well-resourced, well-trained, well-informed industrial representatives were acting constructively at the workplace level to foster improved safety. Accident rates were highest in the unilateral management decision group—10.9 per 1,000 workers—and lowest in the industrial assistance group—5.3 per 1,000—which outperformed the employee consultation group—7.0 per 1,000—by 24 per cent. The reference for that research is J Edmonds in High Levels of Health and Safety at Work: Increasing Productivity and Improving Workers’ Health and Safety, 1997, citing Reilly, Paci and Hall in the British Journal of Industrial Relations, June 1995.

It is also important to recognise that the work environment has changed considerably over the past years, and that small, fragmented and flexible workplaces are quite common. So the industrial safety structures of the larger workplaces, with elected health and safety representatives, will not apply in most situations.

The independent review of Victoria’s OH&S legislation carried out by Chris Maxwell QC, analyses the variable effectiveness of health and safety representatives in that

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