Page 3886 - Week 10 - Thursday, 27 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
on 7 August 2009 to consider the issues that have been raised in the most recent round of public consultations, specifically on matters relating to the act’s draft regulations.
On that point, this is the most recent round of consultation on the bill. The first six weeks of consultation took place when the exposure draft was released for consideration in June last year. Preceding the last meeting of the Occupational Health and Safety Council the government again undertook a further six weeks of public consultation to engage all stakeholders and get as much feedback as possible on the development of the work safety draft regulations.
I acknowledge that I digress a little from the bill before us. However, I believe it is important to put into context how extensive engagement has been with all who have had a stake in this legislation. Consultation has underpinned the development of the various elements in this legislation. In fact, it continues as we move towards notification in October of the Work Safety Act Regulation.
Importantly, the Work Safety Act requires that, before making regulations, the government must consult with the council on the subject matter of the regulation and have regard for the recommendations made to the executive by the council, and this is exactly what the government is doing.
On another matter, I must admit to having grave concerns about the opposition’s commitment to workplace safety—a concern, no doubt, that would be shared by the broader Canberra community. The impression I am getting from Mrs Dunne is one of lack of real commitment to the core issue—workplace safety. The opposition’s opposition to proposed new section 55A is a case in point. Mrs Dunne would seem to prefer that there was no other identification in the bill as to what is a hazardous workplace.
Should it be that those working in smaller enterprises should have no protection in the law against hazardous work environments and hazardous work practices? Quite simply, it is an outrageous proposition that we should have second-class workers in this city—second-class workers who, I dare say from Mrs Dunne’s comments on Tuesday in the long service leave debate, not only do not deserve protection from dangerous work practices or dangerous workplaces but do not deserve long service leave either. I wonder what else Mrs Dunne believes those workers in smaller enterprises should be entitled to. I wonder where she gets her inspiration from. It all sounds a little like Peter Reith, former federal Liberal workplace relations minister of Patrick Stevedores fame.
Could it be that Mrs Dunne gets her inspiration from Mr Smyth, former small business adviser to Peter Reith, or is this par for the course in the Liberal Party, both at the federal and territory level? Is it the death rattle of Work Choices that I hear from across from the chamber? I fear that it is not the dying gasp, but the sound of wishful thinking on the part of those opposite that would take us back 100 years and indenture most workers if they had their druthers.
In noting the changes in proposed new section 55A, I would like to emphasise here and now that I look forward to the day when those opposite rise to move disallowance in the declaration of a dangerous workplace, Yes, I do. For it will reveal them for
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .