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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2402 ..

I want the minister to tell this place, before we shut, the real state of occupational health and safety in the ACT. Where is it against the national average? What is the number of injuries? Where are those injuries occurring? What is the cost of those injuries? What has the government done in its last 2½ years to stop those injuries from occurring? I suspect the answer is very little.

When Mr Berry, the now Speaker and then opposition spokesman, moved his private members bill in March 2001 to give WorkCover inspectors the right to issue on-the-spot fines, we said your legislation was flawed and would not work—and we were right. An on-the-spot fine is yet to be issued successfully by a WorkCover inspector. Why is that? Why is it that almost 2½ years later not a single on-the-spot fine has been issued?

It is because the legislation put forward by Labor then, like the legislation put forward by Labor now, was flawed. They have not done the work properly. I give credit to Ms Dundas because she covered quite well what needs to come and what is still coming. Why is it still coming after 2½ years in office? Because of the glacial pace at which this government works and its lack of commitment to anything.

This bill just reverts to the bad old days—the sort of thing the Cole Royal Commission mentioned. If you make occupational health and safety a political issue, you set it back and put at risk the safety that you seek to guarantee and that workers deserve. And that is what will happen with this report. The Cole Royal Commission report is full of instances where this sort of power was abused.

Going to the statement Ms Dundas made that unions have already got the power to enter, my understanding is that the federal right is simply to address workers who are members of that union about the terms and conditions of their employment. This is a radical change to that power they already have, and it is an understatement and disingenuous at best to say that they have already got the power and therefore it is okay. They do not have this power. Section 57B (1) (b) states:

(b) the premises are a workplace where members of the organisation (or people who are eligible to be members of the organisation) work.

This is the right of entry to workplaces by an authorised representative. That is the nub of what this legislation is about. It is a trawl through the workplaces of the ACT to bolster the membership of unions. Let me read it again. 57B (1) (b) states:

(b) the premises are a workplace where members of the organisation (or people who are eligible to be members of the organisation) work.

It is not about contacting the people who are members of the union; it is about contacting the people who are not members of your union and who could be—and, I guess in your view, should be. That is what this is about. This is wedge legislation. It is not about addressing occupational health and safety because the case has not been made; nor has it been addressed by this government over the last 2½ years.

What is the impact of this legislation on WorkCover? My understanding of the act is that, if an authorised representative enters the workplace and comes to the conclusion

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