Page 656 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
She wrote and congratulated me on the legislation saying that she believed “the changes proposed by the bill are modifications likely to make ACT workplaces safer, healthier and more productive”. We have received similar feedback from experts that we have consulted, including academics from the ANU.
The changes in this bill also have the support of UnionsACT who have emphasised what a serious problem bullying is. This support has not just come from UnionsACT; it has also come from individual unions such as the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association. They have emphasised to us, as so many others have, what a serious problem workplace bullying is for their members.
There has been strong support from the community for the proposals in this bill. There is a very strong sentiment in the general public that more needs to be done to address bullying. Unfortunately, we have also received considerable feedback from people who have been involved in the ACT’s existing system for handling bullying complaints who believe that significant improvement needs to be made. They are supportive of this legislation that would bring specialist expertise into WorkSafe ACT.
Mrs Dunne suggests that she will not support the key change in the bill because the legislation attempts to do something that could be done administratively. She suggests that the change could be made through a motion. I have to say that is a weak approach. It is much more robust to embed the change in the legislation so that it is lasting. That is the key point with this. A motion does not secure changes that are permanent, nor will it bind future governments or have the policy force behind it as a legislative change.
There are numerous parallels in other statutes where the statute dictates the types of people that should be employed for particular tasks. This makes sense, as the legislators want to ensure certain policy objectives are met. If the other parties wanted changes that would help address bullying, they would not use this as an excuse. Just in concluding, this could have been an opportunity to make a real difference to bullying in the ACT, which is obviously a significant and serious problem.
I am shocked by the other parties’ lack of willingness to engage and to take up any new ideas. It is an issue that the Greens will continue to pursue. I have to say it seems that we have this fear of doing something different in the ACT, but this is not a radical proposal. It is an approach that has been applied in other jurisdictions and it is an approach that is having significantly positive impacts. While there will be a small change to the Work Safety Council on reporting of bullying psychosocial hazards, it is very disappointing, including for all those groups that support this change, that long-lasting change will not be approved today.
Just on Dr Bourke’s comments, yes, we agree that education is absolutely essential, including understanding what workplace bullying actually is and its impacts. Once an inspector comes in then an incident has obviously escalated. But this is why inspectors with expertise in bullying are required—not just to deal with the matters in an appropriate way but to act as an educative means.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video