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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2428 ..

be used in a prosecution, which at the very least ensures that WorkCover could be seen to be reluctant to use the provisions as it will make it difficult to secure any conviction if necessary. However, displacing the provision may still have several consequences for a person who is forced to confess an offence under these provisions. I have made this argument previously with the Dangerous Substances Bill. I again ask the government to think more carefully before legislating this privilege in the future.

Amendment agreed to.

MS GALLAGHER (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Children, Youth and Family Support, Minister for Women and Minister for Industrial Relations) (12.33): I move amendment No 12 circulated in my name [see schedule 3 at page 2446].

This amendment is required to maintain consistency with the Dangerous Substances Act and is identical to a government amendment agreed to by the Assembly during the debate of that legislation. To reiterate the government’s position, it is desirable to maintain consistency between the two regimes as far as possible. This will assist work safety inspectors in the proper exercise of their function and assist employers in understanding their safety obligations and the consequences for failing to meet them.

The Scrutiny of Bills Committee report on the Dangerous Substances Bill suggested that a note should be included after clause 92 of that bill, which deals with the privilege against self-incrimination, to refer to the provisions of the Legislation Act that deal with legal professional privilege. The government agreed that this amendment would improve the bill and the change was made. As proposed new section 75E is identical to clause 92 of the Dangerous Substances Bill the same note about application of section 171 of the Legislation Act should be included, as it was in the Dangerous Substances Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 20 to 23, by leave, taken together and agreed to.

Clause 24.

MR PRATT (12.35): I move amendment No 6 circulated in my name [see schedule 4 at page 2451].

This amendment, which is related to amendments Nos 5 and 7, addresses the Liberal opposition’s concern with the naming and shaming amendments through adverse publicity measures. The published naming and shaming of businesses which have been convicted and found guilty of breaching the act does not allow for the chief executive to make allowances for the degree of the business’s breach of the act. The Liberal opposition believes that it should be considered on a case-by-case basis by the chief executive and the level of contravention of the act—the contravention of the act that we keep hearing about—should be considered when publicising the name and details of the business.

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