Page 3900 - Week 10 - Thursday, 28 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Barr: No; it did not happen, Bill.
MR STEFANIAK: Even if it did not happen, even if it is 31 October, you still have groups who ask, “Why don’t we at least wait till that?” The article said:
The setback suggests the panel is finding it difficult to reach agreement on key issues including the duty of care and offences.
There are some areas there. It said:
Meanwhile the ACT government this week—
that is, last week—
introduced a new workplace safety bill that is significantly different from every other jurisdiction in the country.
That is a point of concern in its own right. It said:
The ACT bill creates the right for employees to refuse to work if they think there is a risk to their health; forces employers to consult with workers on safety matters; and extends employers’ duties to care for contractors, volunteers and visitors. It also allows unions to prosecute safety offences, and OH&S inspectors to share information with other government agencies.
… Deacons partner Michael Tooma said the ACT bill was “a significant regression from the harmonisation agenda”. “Every wave of legislative reform drives the jurisdictions further and further apart.”
Clearly there are some issues there. Maybe that is not to say that, if our legislation is really marvellous, other states should be following us, but I strongly urge caution there.
Let me go through the various groups who have made submissions and who have concerns in relation to this bill and summarise those. The MBA has strongly requested delaying the implementation of the bill until after the release of the first report by the COAG expert national panel on workplace safety reform. It feels there is a risk that the ACT legislation would be inconsistent with a national harmonised approach. It says that there are many changes from the existing legislation, that there is a significant impact on businesses and that changes made since the exposure draft need further examination and discussion. It says that private prosecutions create adversarial confrontation and the DPP should retain the role.
The issue of control is going to create all sorts of problems. This is particularly so in terms of upstream responsibility—where that responsibility starts and ends—and the extraordinary costs associated with some recent rulings that could give rise to principals, head contractors et cetera engaging streams of experts to oversee the experts.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .