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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2401 ..

In conclusion, I would like to point out that this debate is not about employees versus employers. It is not a debate about unions versus business and we should not see this debate as such. It should not be an us versus them circumstance. There are stereotypes that have been perpetuated tonight that are, quite frankly, inappropriate. We are not taking the view that businesses are evil and out to squash their workers and get every cent out of them. That is not something I believe to be true, in the same way that I do not believe that unions are out to shut businesses down or to distract workplaces from getting the job done.

If members of the opposition want to see how unions have changed over the last 20 years, they should consider that the union that Mr Stefaniak mentioned does not even exist anymore. Unions have been through a major reform process here in Australia and are working to ensure that their members are well represented. They want to work with businesses to ensure that the employees are safe and are getting the best that they can out of their working environment.

We need to dispel these myths; perpetuating them does not help anybody. In my experience, both unions and businesses are, on the whole, committed to improving workplace safety and this bill is not about punishing or penalising those who comply with the law. The vast majority of businesses in the ACT who are doing the right thing by their employees have nothing to fear, because their workplace will be safe and unions will have no need to exercise the provisions of this bill. Unions are directed by their members and if members are finding that they have no problems on their work site, then this bill will not have to be exercised.

I think we really need to move away from some of the myths that have been perpetuated in this debate tonight and focus on the core issue: that we are trying to improve workplace safety for everybody involved in the workplace.

MR SMYTH (Leader of the Opposition) (10.53): Occupational health and safety will only work if we work at it together. The shame about this bill as presented is that it will ultimately set employer against union because it bestows on one group, over another group, rights that it should not have. This legislation is simply wedge legislation that divides rather than unifies the entire workplace in the objective we all have. We all say quite sincerely that we seek to have safer workplaces and not to have a single injury or death in the workplace.

The bill breeds within one group vital to that objective—the employers—a suspicion that, whether or not the speeches that have been made are correct, it has a set against employers. It puts in place enormous fines without any data. No case has been made in the lead-up to this bill, or tonight, for this level of power to go to unions and for this level of fines to be made.

Employer groups have told me that that information was not forthcoming from the government when they sought information about the number and type of injuries. That is curious because I can remember, when I was minister for industrial relations responsible for WorkCover, presenting charts and breakdowns of that information to estimates committees before 2001. It was always available under us. It is important to find out where mistakes and injuries occur because then you can address them.

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