Page 316 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 7 March 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
to get into the detail of a possible case, but I will say again that it is important that good safety policies be in place in the workplace.
In the last six months I have been aware of some very real concerns on building sites and other workplaces in Canberra about WorkCover’s ability to be proactive and to go into workplaces and ensure that things are hunky-dory, that everything is operating properly and that the proper procedures are in place so that accidents do not happen.
The construction industry is one of the more difficult and potentially dangerous industries where people actually can get injured. I imagine that quite a few of us in our younger days, like me, have worked on construction sites. I think that there have been considerable improvements in terms of occupational health and safety, but it is crucially important that the right practices are in place. It is important that WorkCover be able to go in and look at sites and be proactive, because that is part of their role.
Over the last few months I have been very disappointed to hear a number of complaints that WorkCover simply are unable to do their job the way they would like to do it. Due to a lack of resources they are unable to ensure that workplaces are safe, and this has been particularly acute since the budget. Again, it is the pointy end that is suffering, rather than perhaps other areas of departments, where less important activities could be curtailed when cutbacks in the public service are required. Because you chase the wrong priorities, you spend more money than you should have and suddenly you realise that you have to make some economies.
I have been particularly concerned that WorkCover has suffered, that staff morale is very low and that they feel that they are unable to do the job they should be doing properly. I have heard that, from a staff of about 51, they are down to about 15. Really, that is quite concerning. The minister does need to address the issues, and the government as a whole needs to reorganise its priorities to take account of important areas of the public service which actually affect people’s lives. Often it is the people at the pointy end, the shopfront and workplace inspectors, who suffer when a government decides to make cuts to its public service rather than in other areas which, for whatever reasons, are not cut. I think the government should pay attention to this area.
It is of great concern to me to hear those complaints about WorkCover’s inability to do the job that the workers there feel needs to be done—to be proactive and take steps to ensure that sites and workplaces are safe, rather than having to act after the event. I certainly was very concerned to hear those complaints and I think that is something the government needs to look at. It is an important issue.
My secondment would omit paragraph (3). Because of the nature of this debate and the fact that the sub judice rule applies, we obviously cannot mention names. We cannot even mention company names.
MR SPEAKER: Would you like to move your amendment?
MR STEFANIAK: I will move the amendments circulated in my name. I have already read out the first one.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .