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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2422 ..

MS DUNDAS: I move amendments Nos 1 and 2 circulated in my name on the yellow piece of paper [see schedule 6 at page 2453].

These particular provisions of the bill have attracted the greatest amount of attention in this debate in relation to union right of entry. I have to say at the outset that this is just a little bit questionable, given the extensive nature of changes throughout this bill, because a number of new provisions in this legislation will have effects on workplaces, particularly workplaces where OH&S compliance is below standard.

The ability for employee representatives to have limited powers of access to a workplace is, I think, one of the lesser problems an employer could face if they were found to be in breach of their OH&S duties. That said, my discussions with a number stakeholders have highlighted some serious flaws in the original proposal, particularly with the lack of restraints on employee representatives in exercising their powers. I welcome the minister’s amendments, which provide far more stringent control on the authorisation of representatives, including a set of penalties for failing to use the provisions correctly. I am therefore supporting the minister’s amendments.

In addition, I move my amendments to insert new disqualification provisions. The right of entry provisions in this bill are almost identical to the provisions of the New South Wales Occupational Health and Safety Act 2000, which has been in operation for some four years. However, a crucial element missing was a method of removing a representative organisation if they abuse their powers of entry.

As I have mentioned, only four people have been referred to the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission for disqualification of their authorisation so it appears that, in general, union representatives have been operating within their boundaries. However, the fact that their authorisation can be removed, as I am proposing, is a significant disincentive to the abuse of these provisions. My amendments work to ensure that any authorised representative who has contravened or is likely to contravene the right of entry provisions, or has intentionally hindered or obstructed an employer or employee, or otherwise acted improperly in discharging a function under this section, will be culpable for those contraventions against the act.

This means that there will be an additional mechanism to enforce the right of entry provisions. At this point I would also like to thank the minister and her staff for working through these amendments. The minister’s amendments and my amendments to this section took some time to nut out, but I believe they go a momentous way towards addressing the concerns that have been raised and making sure that our legislation works to provide some balance.

I note it is quite possible that the opposition will be opposing the right of entry clauses in their entirety. However, considering some of the research into this topic, which demonstrates that increased union access generally increases safety standards in workplaces, and with the prime goal of improving workplace safety, I see it fit to keep these provisions in the bill, but as they are amended.

MS TUCKER (12.12): I will be supporting both the government’s amendments and Ms Dundas’s amendments. The government amendment extends the right of entry to

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