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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2415 ..

The bottom line is that it will save employers money through injury prevention, which may also improve productivity and decrease workers’ compensation premiums. I might also note that right of entry does not confer any enforcement powers on authorised representatives, and the authorised representative will be required to give the person in charge of work, or the premises, a report about the outcome of the investigation within two days. Foreshadowing some further amendments the government would like to make to the bill, I note that the authorised representative will also be required to give a copy of this report to the government. It will remain solely in the power of the WorkCover inspector to decide whether any enforcement action is necessary.

Mr Speaker, this bill is part of a broader package of industrial relations, workers compensation and work safety reforms being progressed by the Stanhope government. These reforms have seen the ACT lead the nation in the development of a robust and comprehensive regulatory regime for work and public safety.

Going back to some of the comments made by members in their in-principle speeches, Mr Pratt was concerned about the increased powers of WorkCover inspectors, who would be able to enter premises at any reasonable time without notice. Under the OH&S Act at present, WorkCover inspectors do not have to provide notice to employers before entering the workplace.

In relation to the naming and shaming provisions, Mr Pratt was concerned that this means that employers who inadvertently breach OH&S will not be given a second chance. To say that ignores the bill’s provisions to encourage voluntary compliance, compliance agreements and enforceable undertakings. The bill only provides that the chief executive may publish details of convictions. In cases where that is not warranted or in cases of minimal culpability, there is no need to publish.

On the right of entry, Mr Pratt was worried that grounds are too wide—suspected breaches of OH&S being too wide a condition. [Extension of time granted.] Unions can already enter workplaces in the ACT under the federal Workplace Relations Act on the grounds of holding discussions with employees, which are much wider grounds than under this bill. We are not aware of any complaints about unions abusing the existing right of entry under the federal legislation. I have outlined the situation in New South Wales.

Again, under the right of entry, in relation to powers for government officials, the entry provisions are much stricter even than for police. The entry provisions reflect existing right of entry powers under federal legislation and New South Wales legislation. It is part of the misleading commentary on this bill to compare union officials, with no enforcement or compliance powers, to police or WorkCover inspectors. Police and WorkCover inspectors exercise enforcement powers, including seizing property, closing down business operations and commencing prosecutions. Union and employer representatives would not have any powers like that under this bill.

People exercising the right of entry have, as I said, no enforcement powers, and it is not designed to address breaches of OH&S legislation that are reckless or negligent. In her speech, Ms Tucker cited international evidence demonstrating that union involvement in the workplace leads to improved safety outcomes. Unions provide information about

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