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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Tuesday, 29 June 2004) . . Page.. 2927 ..

approach with the New South Wales government under the federal umbrella to make sure that very strong measures are put in place to tightly restrict the sale and use of this type of substance and other highly dangerous substances. We have to ensure that the use of substances of this calibre is strictly controlled.

I am pleased to see that there is funding in respect of fireworks. At least the government has now tightened up the legislation on fireworks and introduced stronger measures. But, of course, we will never rest until we see the government ban the damned things. We will just have to wait and see what happens. Otherwise, Mr Speaker, we have little else to say at this point on WorkCover practices.

MRS CROSS (6.09): Mr Speaker, I will be very brief. I am pleased to see the government’s payment for WorkCover outputs increase this financial year by 30 per cent of what was budgeted for in 2003-04, and 7 per cent from what was actually spent in 2003-04. In my opinion, however, this is not enough. This Assembly has passed three major pieces of legislation in the last year that involved WorkCover—industrial manslaughter, dangerous substances and occupational health and safety. Presumably these pieces of legislation will substantially increase the workload of WorkCover, particularly the level of enforcement WorkCover undertakes. Surely more money is needed by WorkCover to ensure that these pieces of legislation—all designed to improve worker and community safety—are enforced. What is the point of these pieces of legislation if they are not enforced because the enforcement agency, WorkCover, cannot afford to enforce them?

I have long been an advocate of increased expenditure for WorkCover and I reiterated this position in the recent OH&S debate. My concern then, which I will restate now, was why are we allowing union officials to do WorkCover’s job? WorkCover should be given more money so they can discover and then take action against those employers who are not complying with legislation.

Discovery of non-compliance should be the role of WorkCover and not trade union officials. The only way to do this is to increase funding for WorkCover. Whilst I am pleased to see WorkCover funding increased this year—and the government should be commended for that increase—I believe it needs to be increased by a far greater amount if they are going to be a truly effective agency.

MS GALLAGHER (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for Children, Youth and Family Support, Minister for Women and Minister for Industrial Relations) (6.10): I will speak briefly to a few points that have been raised on this line item. In relation to some of Mr Pratt’s comments, in line with a motion passed by the Assembly, I recently circulated a report to the Assembly about the operations of WorkCover, including statistics on WorkCover’s education activities, communication activities and compliance measures. My reading of that report, which I presume that members either have got or will receive shortly—it was in the last day that I signed it off—is that all statistics coming out of WorkCover are showing significant activity around compliance and also around education and communication.

The new commissioner has come in and made some changes to the way WorkCover operates. Although that has caused some turbulence in the organisation, the changes have related to reallocation of the education area within WorkCover to ensure that all

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