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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2413 ..

Workplace Relations Act; in Victoria under the 2003 outworkers legislation; and in New South Wales under OH&S and industrial relations legislation. This right also derives from international treaty obligations, in particular ILO Convention 155—OH&S—and articles that establish the rights of workers, or their representatives, to inquire into all aspects of OH&S in their work.

I am aware that ACT employer groups are strongly opposed to any right of entry laws. Some employers fear that right of entry is a means for unions to gain entry for the purpose of recruiting members; others see potential for the right to be abused, as an industrial relations weapon. This is not the case. The provisions allow authorised representatives to enter premises only where there are suspected contraventions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

In September 2003, the Victorian government commissioned Chris Maxwell QC to review and update its occupational health and safety legislation. In his report of March this year, Mr Maxwell recommended that the Victorian government enact right of entry provisions for union officials. Members may also be aware that the New South Wales government enacted right of entry provisions for union officials in their act in 2000.

In his report, Mr Maxwell investigated the New South Wales experience and found that unions had exercised the right of entry conservatively and effectively. He commented that his inquiries did not reveal any outspoken opposition from New South Wales employer groups. He estimated that 1,000 union officials hold written authority to exercise right of entry under the New South Wales legislation. Since commencement, only four applications for revocation of this authority have been made in accordance with the legislation. Of these, only one application has succeeded. Of the other three applications, one was dismissed and the remaining two were withdrawn. This can only be seen as an indication that the concerns of employers are largely unfounded.

I am also aware that some employer groups have recently expressed concerns in relation to the protection of commercially sensitive information that could be obtained during exercise of the right of entry. The bill makes provisions for claiming compensation for any loss or expense incurred because of the exercise of right of entry. Existing provisions in the OH&S Act offer protection from the misuse of personal or commercial information that could be obtained in the course of investigating a suspected breach of health and safety laws.

At this point, I would like to foreshadow four amendments the government will be proposing to the right of entry provisions during the detail stage. These amendments are largely a result of consultation with the business community and employer representatives.

First, the government proposes to delay commencement of the right of entry provisions until 1 January 2005. This will allow adequate time to educate registered organisations and employers alike of their roles and responsibilities under the provision. It will also allow time for government to develop guidance material that may assist organisations and employers negotiate protocols for exercising the right of entry.

Second, the government proposes to extend the right of entry to employer organisations by allowing all registered organisations, not just employee organisations, to authorise

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