Page 3902 - Week 10 - Thursday, 28 August 2008
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
us into line with other states and the proposed new national harmonisation process. Of course, they support the ability for union prosecutions and they feel that the new bill will be essential for enabling elected OH&S elected representatives to carry out the role which they train them to perform.
Finally, Communities@Work feel that the definition of worker is too broad to include volunteers and visitors. They say that there could be grey areas when staff or volunteers undertake work at a client’s home. They say that there is uncertainty about linkages or the absence of linkages to complementary legislation such as workers comp. They have concern about private prosecutions; they feel they should remain with the DPP.
These are the basic concerns about industry groups. They are concerns about volunteers and what constitutes a worker—subbies and so on. That has been a concern for many years in the ACT. It is always a vexed issue, but it is something you need to take into account. There have been suggestions made in the letters to you, minister, as to how you do that—and not only overcome it but take these groups along. There are ways of doing it other than through this bill.
We get back to the fundamental principle. I said it last night in relation to a bill. Legislation that still has significant concerns in it appears to have been rushed. I know that these draft ideas go back many years in many instances. But what you do when you end up with legislation is expose your draft, make some amendments, plonk down pretty well what you hope is your final copy and then go through that with people. If you do that properly, you are not going to go too far wrong.
All of these groups feel that you have done that in a rushed way. They have not had much time. The bill was put down on 19 August; it is now the 28th. That is not a very lengthy period of time to ensure that you get it right. This is too important an area to not get right. It is a big bill; it is an important bill.
Most people would have no problems with most of it. I think that most people in this Assembly would accept it in principle. But for goodness sake, adjourn it. Bring it back when you have fixed it up. I think you will be able to effectively get most of these groups on side in many areas. You are not going to get all of them on side, but in many areas you will.
It is unfair and unreasonable to dump legislation like this on the table late in the process without giving people the opportunity to have their real concerns addressed. There are real concerns here. I get concerned when I see things such as that report in the Financial Review; concerns by groups like Deacons; and letters of concern from groups like the MBA and the HIA. They say—it is just one thing I highlighted—that, whilst the bill does not provide the union with an exclusive right to prosecute, as was originally proposed, the reference to a general common law right to prosecute potentially reinstates this statutory right. They say that this change has done little to address the concerns they have privately raised.
The groups go on. There is another group. John Miller, in the MBA, says:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .