Page 4105 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 20 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
legislation and to have it uniform all across the board, we do not believe we should legislate away people’s rights. A fundamental right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is a millennia-old provision and right. The Canberra Liberals are not prepared to legislate that away and will therefore oppose this clause.
MS GALLAGHER (Molonglo—Chief Minister, Minister for Health and Minister for Industrial Relations) (5.22): The government will not be supporting Mrs Dunne’s opposition of this clause. It is an important part of the discrimination framework, and opposing this clause would make it practically impossible to enforce the protections against discrimination as set out in part 6 of the bill by altering the onus of proof provisions. It is very important that this act provides surety for any person who wishes to raise a safety issue at a workplace and that they are able to do so without fear of retribution.
The provisions in respect of discrimination need to be read in their entirety and not broken down so they are taken out of context. By way of example, the act requires that a person in control of a business or undertaking provide evidence that the dominant reason why they took action, such as dismissing a worker after the worker raised or indicated that they intended to raise a work health and safety issue, was not because the worker raised or intended to raise that matter. In these circumstances, the only person who knows the reason for their action is the person in control of the business or undertaking, and it is appropriate that they provide that evidence. This is an important element of the work health and safety framework. The Work Safety Act has similar provisions to this, and that was passed in 2008 by this place.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (5.23): As I explained when speaking to my first amendment, the Greens sought to remove the dominant substantial reason test, but to do this the four amendments needed to be accepted as a whole. Given that the Liberal Party and the government voted to retain the dominant reason test, as I stated, it will no longer be necessary to move my amendment 2. However, in this case, the Greens want the reverse onus of proof to stay in place, and the Greens will, therefore, vote to retain clause 110 in its current form.
Clause 110 agreed to.
Clause 111 agreed to.
Clause 112 agreed to.
Clause 113 agreed to.
Clauses 114 and 115, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clauses 152 to 154, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 155 agreed to.
Clauses 156 to 159, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video