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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 06 Hansard (Tuesday, 22 June 2004) . . Page.. 2429 ..

The adverse naming and shaming amendments that the Labor government is proposing have the power to cripple business in Canberra and would, we maintain, have a ripple effect through the economic and social community of Canberra. Businesses that have made only a minor contravention should not be exposed to the same naming and shaming treatment as businesses that have contravened the act to the extreme, resulting in, for example, death or serious injury. Of course, in those cases, businesses should be named, but we should ensure that this does not apply across the board.

I have heard the Minister for Education and Training talking about a graduated approach, but I do not think the legislation enshrines that—it does not lock that principle in place; therefore, the Liberal opposition amendments state that the chief executive must write to the business which has been convicted or found guilty of contravening the act and invite it to make representations to the chief executive about why the information should not be published within 28 days. The chief executive cannot publish anything about this business until after the 28 days have passed and must take into consideration any representations made by this business when making the final decision on whether to publicise adverse information about that business.

The opposition believes that this is a fairer approach to take. It allows the chief executive to examine each contravention on a case-by-case basis and does not undermine the principle that those who deserve to be named because of the severity of an offence are brought to book.

MS GALLAGHER (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Children, Youth and Family Support, Minister for Women and Minister for Industrial Relations) (12.38): The government will be opposing Mr Pratt’s amendments to proposed section 93C of the act. This section enables the chief executive to publish details of convictions or findings of guilt arising from OH&S prosecutions. The provision also imposes restrictions on when a publication by the chief executive can occur. A publication cannot be made till the appeal period has elapsed or, if an appeal is filed during that time, until the appeal has been withdrawn, struck out or the appeal rejected. Criminal convictions and findings of guilt are generally matters of public record. Except in very limited cases, members of the public are entitled to sit and view court proceedings and the outcomes of criminal trials are routinely reported in the media.

Persons that have been convicted or had a finding of guilt made against them are not afforded the opportunity to make representations to newspapers or TV stations prior to them publishing information about court findings—and nor should they. These are matters of public interest and, just like this debate, are reportable and can be documented, thereby ensuring that territory residents are informed about matters affecting our community.

Publication of criminal convictions and findings of guilt by the chief executive serve the same purpose—informing the public. Nevertheless, we have already included adequate safeguards in the proposed section to ensure that rights of individuals are protected. Under the proposed provisions, publication cannot occur until the period for filing an appeal has ended. Furthermore, if an appeal is filed, publication is further prohibited until, as I said, the appeal is withdrawn. If appeals are successful, publication cannot occur; if a re-trial is ordered, publication must not occur until the re-trial is concluded

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