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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2399 ..

However, that the penalty regime for the OH&S Act mirrors that of the Dangerous Substances Act tends to discredit the minister’s previous claims that such penalties were just to look after dangerous substances. The ACT Democrats do not oppose, in principle, the increased penalties in the bill, but we do raise concern that there is a perception that this will lead to a greater emphasis on enforcement, penalties and litigation.

I wish to make it clear that we are not agreeing to a more punitive approach to OH&S enforcement. I think there is general agreement on a more cooperative approach, with both employers and employees and their representatives working on education and agreement, rather than just punishment. I hope that the provisions for compliance agreements and other more moderate sanctions in this bill will facilitate that more cooperative approach, but it will take movement on both sides of the debate.

I would also like to talk about the use of strict liability offences in this bill. The ACT Democrats continue to be concerned at the government’s overuse of strict liability offences, particularly when high penalty levels are set. I reiterate that the original Senate committee inquiry into the model criminal code recommended that strict liability not be used for offences with penalties higher than 60 penalty units, whereas this bill uses them for 100 and 200 penalty unit offences. I reiterate my concern at the displacement of the privilege against self-incrimination in this bill, which I think will be used rarely and is probably unnecessary.

I raised these issues in some detail during the debate on the Dangerous Substances Bill and at that time the Assembly disagreed with me. So, in the interests of time, I will not raise them again, but I place my continuing concern on the record.

I note also that there are special provisions in this bill for dealing with territory entities and the Democrats welcome these provisions. Workplace safety is equally important in public and private sectors, and I would hope that the ACT government is doing its best to ensure that the territory is setting an example by maintaining workplace arrangements of the highest standards. The provisions require that any infringements of OH&S laws be published in annual reports. I know that, with my Assembly colleagues, I will be scrutinising these closely to ensure that workers in the territory are being protected.

As has already been discussed tonight, by far the most contentious aspect of this bill is the proposal to grant the authorised representatives of unions the right of entry to workplaces to inspect them for compliance with OH&S legislation. I wish to make it quite clear, especially to Mr Stefaniak, that union right of entry is not a new concept. Unions have had a right of entry to workplaces on industrial grounds for many years under the federal Workplace Relations Act. I would also like to make it clear that unions and entities are regulated under that federal legislation.

New South Wales also has a union right of entry on OH&S grounds and has had that in place for a number of years. This has so far resulted in only four applications to the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission for the revocation of authorised status and only one of those complaints was successful. Even though this law has been in place in New South Wales for a number of years, only one person has been found to have abused the law to such an extent that the rights have been removed.

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