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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2410 ..

environment. I have scores of letters and emails protesting along these lines. This is seen as unacceptable. Why should unions have the right to randomly enter a workplace in the ACT, particularly if that workplace does not have any union members? Unions should not be given authorisation to randomly enter any workplace.

I believe that the government is concerned about worker safety, as we all are. In this case, I would have expected to see an increase in the budget of WorkCover. I would be fully supportive of such an increase. Ideally, every worker should be able to go to work, perform his or her duties and return home safely. No-one in this chamber will dispute this. It is, however, the proposed mechanism by which these worker rights are to be protected and enforced that has caused such division over this matter.

Had the government pursued a path that increased the resources of WorkCover so as to make them more effective in protecting worker safety, everybody would have been happy. Employees would have been happy because workplaces on the whole would have become much safer. Similarly, responsible employers would have been more than happy to support most of this OH&S legislation because responsible employers care about worker safety.

It is the government’s intention to allow unions unfettered entry to the workplace that has caused so much worry and, in the process, taken the focus off ways to improve worker safety. It is very unfortunate that this has happened. Responsible businesses, which would in the main have few problems with this raft of OH&S legislation, now feel tremendously threatened by the fact that union reps can enter their workplace at any time and with any frequency.

Further, it is the actions that these union representatives might pursue that have businesses most worried. Businesses are concerned about harassment of themselves and their employees, whilst also registering substantial concern that union representatives might use this entry provision to drum up membership. To me these appear to be valid concerns, concerns that could easily have been avoided if union right of entry to workplaces had not been included and the WorkCover budget had been increased.

It is regrettable that the government has decided to try to push union right of entry down the throats of ACT business. Whilst I am fully supportive of trying to improve worker safety and will thus support most elements of this bill in the detail stage, I must vote against the bill as a whole due to the entirely unnecessary inclusion of the clause allowing for union right of entry. I recommend that other members do likewise.

MS GALLAGHER (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Children, Youth and Family Support, Minister for Women and Minister for Industrial Relations) (11.29), in reply: I think the opposition has set a new low with the tone of the debate tonight on this very important amendment bill to occupational health and safety. Mr Pratt, out of all of them, had the most considered speech. The shadow minister, out of all of the opposition members, had spent the most time looking at this legislation, even though quite a number of incorrect statements were made. Mr Stefaniak merely had a rant and almost a cardiac arrest before he left the chamber; Mrs Burke had her usual 10 minutes of cliche-ridden nonsense; and Mr Cornwell, in a rather unusual twist, tried to liken it to the Vardon report.

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