Page 3891 - Week 09 - Thursday, 25 August 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
to adjourn the detail stage of the bill to the next sitting period. Obviously, Mrs Dunne, the responsible shadow minister, is absent from the Assembly today.
I understand that Mrs Dunne has some amendments that she wishes to propose to the bill. Mr Seselja has flagged some of those, but these amendments are not yet ready to circulate or to debate. I believe that Mrs Dunne has prepared these in good faith. It is reasonable that we give her that opportunity to present them and give due consideration to her suggestions.
I also understand Mrs Dunne’s position, as the opportunity that opposition parties had to consider the bill and to prepare amendments was condensed. The scrutiny of bills committee provided a large amount of comment on the bill. My view is that the government has done a very good job responding to this and briefing the parties on the response. I do also recognise the hard work of the department in the overall negotiations that have occurred at the national level and then to implement the legislation in the ACT.
The Work Health and Safety Bill seeks to implement model uniform work health and safety laws in the ACT. Parliaments in all Australian states and territories are considering this same legislation or an iteration of it that is very similar. Some have already passed legislation, or have passed amended versions, and some are yet to do so.
On the issue of consultation, I am aware that the government has been involved in a very lengthy and difficult process of negotiation on the detail of this bill. I am pleased and satisfied that officers from the ACT have strongly advocated for changes to the bill that ensure compliance with our Human Rights Act. I am also largely content with the safeguards that the ACT has maintained in its version of the bill to ensure we are not winding back important worker protections.
Having had a number of meetings with officers from the department, I do commend the commitment they have shown to these matters. One of the safeguards that we have carved out specifically for the ACT is the retention of the crime of industrial manslaughter. This currently exists in the territory and it is right that we maintain this provision.
Industrial manslaughter is an important law that ensures companies cannot escape charges of manslaughter and can be held accountable. Throughout history workers have suffered because of weaknesses and deficiencies in the way that the law and the government respond to deaths that occur at work. This has resulted in companies escaping responsibility.
Research by Professor Gary Slapper on the 35,000 work deaths occurring in the UK between 1965 and 2003 suggests that about 20 per cent of them were prosecutable as manslaughter cases. Yet there have been only five companies convicted of manslaughter in the UK. Professor Slapper suggests about 90 cases of corporate manslaughter are not addressed each year.
While the UK and other jurisdictions suffer with gaps in their laws protecting workers, the ACT took steps to introduce industrial manslaughter provisions in 2004. The
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video