Page 3499 - Week 11 - Thursday, 15 November 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is perhaps excusable that this oversight would occur once, but when an opposition member repeatedly draws legal issues to the attention of the government, and supplies the Attorney-General’s Department with legal research on the issue, and still nothing happens, and the government has no answer on a basic legal question pertaining to the drafting of its bill, there is some legitimate reason for criticism. We are not trying to be difficult, but we do have at our disposal some very able people in this field, as does the government. But with respect to the point in the case law that we are advancing, the reason I am putting this on the record is that, as we know, parliamentary debates sometimes get taken into account in judicial decisions. I think it is very important that the government does not ignore the issue that we are continuing to raise.
I hope that next time this issue arises the government is in a position to properly analyse its own legal drafting policies and supply a satisfactory answer to questions about their legal effect. That being said, the opposition will be pleased to support this amendment bill.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (5.20): This bill is designed to transfer the responsibility for discharging the functions of the Occupational Health and Safety Commissioner to the Chief Executive of the Department of Justice and Community Safety. Although I understand the reasoning and agree that changes to OH&S legislation are required, I do not believe that limiting the role of the commissioner is the best way to do that.
As Mr Corbell noted in his presentation speech, the Office of Regulatory Services will encompass regulatory activities from multiple agencies including ACT WorkCover. Although this will undoubtedly remove unnecessary duplication—the term used in the explanatory statement—how many of the services will suffer due to lack of specialisation? Will extra funding be provided to allow for sufficient resources? The appropriation bill mentions extra funding for the office of the commissioner, and that is wonderful, but what about regulatory services? In the JACS annual report’s ACT WorkCover section it mentions that the unit is operating with lower staffing levels than when the business plan was developed in 2005. How can this be beneficial for ensuring workplace safety?
Having WorkCover and the regulatory powers fall under JACS may save some administrative costs. However, it is a cost-cutting exercise which could become costly. Saving is only beneficial if enough of the money saved is then spent on adequately resourcing and training the office to undertake the duties required of it. OH&S is a huge safety and wellbeing issue. Money should be spent effectively in this area.
These changes to OH&S regulation may see the regulation of OH&S in the workplace become a complaints-driven process. The onus will be almost entirely on those employed in the workplace, which means that people will need to be aware of OH&S requirements and will need to feel secure enough in their jobs to make the necessary fuss. Paradoxically, the current high employment climate has gone hand in hand with an increase in self-reported job insecurity.
Given the Rudd government-in-waiting’s reticence to commit to abolishing all of the Howard government’s retrograde measures stripping employees of rights in the workplace, this confidence seems to be misguided or misplaced. There are many
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .