Page 5720 - Week 15 - Thursday, 10 December 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We must note, however, that we hope that the removal of this formal requirement is accompanied by increased active compliance checks by the government to ensure that the few irresponsible employers do not use the opportunity to shirk their responsibilities. That, however, is a discussion for the WorkCover review; I will not spend time on it here.
The portion of this bill that considers the implementation of a national framework is a commonsense measure. The relationship between Canberra and the other states, particularly New South Wales, means that consistency in standards and requirements, as well as mutual recognition of providers, is a necessary requirement for workers coming across our border. Moreover, it facilitates choice for employees and employers in selecting rehabilitation providers during this difficult period.
This brings us to the compliance section of the bill. Let me be clear from the outset: the Greens support strong compliance regimes and the measures put in place, both criminal and civil, to ensure that it is never cheaper for an employer to avoid their responsibilities. That is a worthy goal. However, we feel that two measures should be taken to improve compliance; they are contained in the amendments I will be circulating later.
The bill as it currently stands lists a range of criteria by which the chief executive can reduce the recovery amount. The first two amendments remove mention of “previous compliance” as a criterion for reducing the recovery amount that can be demanded of a non-compliant company. Whilst we understand that there are areas within law that consider prior good behaviour to be a consideration for mitigating penalties, we do not believe it is appropriate to apply that principle in this case.
The ACT Greens believe that providing workers compensation insurance is a basic and important requirement for business. Failure at a moment in time to provide the basic protections for workers in a company is not mitigated by the fact that a company has not failed before. To draw a comparison, smoking at a petrol station is not any less irresponsible and dangerous simply because you have not done it before.
We believe that this element of our amendments will send a stronger message that workers compensation insurance is a non-negotiable requirement for doing business responsibly. Furthermore, given the elements of this bill, previously mentioned, that make it simpler and cheaper to comply, failure to do so is that much more inexcusable. The Labor Party and also the Liberal Party have indicated that they will oppose this portion of our amendments. We do challenge them to stand and explain why they are unwilling to penalise equally all those who abdicate from a basic duty of care to their workers.
The second element of the amendments we seek to have passed relates to seeking recovery amounts from culpable executive officers in addition to seeking them from the entities they represent.
We have three concerns with the proposal as it currently stands within the bill. Firstly, we believe that culpable executive directors are insulated from the repercussions of the decisions they make. Civil and criminal penalties solely aimed at companies do
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video