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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2397 ..

would be doing something and, as I understand it, there is going to be something on the website this week and something in the monthly newsletter.

Overall, I consider that the limit of the powers of authorised representatives is reasonable, particularly given the government’s and Democrats’ amendments. Representatives cannot require actions or impose penalties, but simply refer matters to WorkCover. They cannot gain entry without reasonable cause. They will need some training before being authorised and can lose that authorisation if they behave unacceptably.

There will be confidentiality requirements in respect of any documents they copy and they will be held accountable for their actions and for any damage that might result from their actions. There will also be an independent review of the act that will have to specifically evaluate the impact and effectiveness of right of entry provisions.

I do understand that people in many small businesses, in particular, are concerned that union right of entry will mean a real disruption to their work and their autonomy in running their businesses. I can only point to New South Wales, and to jurisdictions in other parts of the world, to reassure them that the fear is largely unfounded, and acknowledge that we do need to keep an eye on the implementation of this provision.

I do think, however, that this new approach, based on the establishment of an overarching safety duty, and supported by a wider range of compliance mechanisms, including the right of entry provisions, will give greater responsibility to those larger companies who manage their work by subcontracting smaller businesses. That is not a bad thing. That has to be a good thing for everybody, including the employers, if we remember that, in this city in the last few weeks, we have had a death, and consider the devastation that is created not only for the person who died, but also for everyone involved on that work site, including the employer. Surely it would have been better if we had a situation where someone had gone onto that site and said, “This is not a safe practice.” It was such a common practice.

Finally, I understand that the unions have indicated that they are more than happy to sit down with employer groups and agree on a protocol for these activities. Issues such as access to high-security workplaces, for example, clearly do require some negotiation. I understand the government has agreed to hold off the commencement of these provisions until the start of next year and has offered to incorporate the resulting protocol into regulations for the ACT. These are both constructive offers, which I hope to hear the minister put on the record when she closes the debate today.

MS DUNDAS (10.39): Mr Deputy Speaker, the ACT Democrats will be supporting the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Bill in principle. This bill has generated a large amount of controversy since it was introduced in February. There have been particular concerns expressed by employer organisations about the scope of the changes to OH&S laws and, in particular, about the appropriateness of the proposed right of entry for union representatives.

In response to this, I have spent many hours consulting with both unions and business representatives in relation to this bill, in order to get a balanced view. I agree that there are some issues in the bill as drafted, but I believe that some significant amendments can

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