Page 3880 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 29 October 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
ACT, because that is the main game here? Indeed I note that the ACT Law Society and the ACT Bar Association, in their joint submission of June 2013 on the exposure draft of this bill, made similar observations. They said:
There also appears nothing intrinsic to the Bill which will, of itself, reduce workplace injury in the territory.
When taking the trouble to make the submission on the exposure draft, the Law Society and Bar Association made a number of other observations and recommendations. The government took up two of those. The first was to limit the civil jurisdiction of the industrial court to claims of up to $250,000. That made sense. As we are aware, in the last days of the previous Assembly Mr Corbell reviewed the civil jurisdiction regarding claims of up to $250,000.
The second recommendation of the legal profession was to structure the court so as to minimise the likelihood of conflicts of interest arising in the judiciary. I am not sure that the bill goes as far as the legal profession would like, so this may turn out to be a bandaid where something more substantial was required.
The Law Society and Bar Association also raised a number of other concerns which appear to remain unaddressed. They covered matters relating to resourcing in the judiciary and in the office of the DPP, ensuring those resources are suitably qualified and experienced in legal practice relating to work health and safety, and the risk that the industrial court’s time will be taken up with common law workers compensation matters rather than work health and safety matters. The society suggested that this is likely to cause delays and said that, for this very reason, other jurisdictions have limited the work of industrial courts to the work health and safety matters.
Finally, the joint submission of the Law Society and the Bar Association suggests there should be conferencing procedures for matters within the criminal jurisdiction so as to narrow the issues, reduce court time and save costs. Again, this has not been adopted by the government.
Much as was the case for the debate earlier this week of the Crimes (Sentencing) Amendment Bill, the opposition will support this bill with some caveats.
At this stage I would like to thank the department for the briefing that was provided in the minister’s office on this bill. But I would like to make it clear that the government will be on notice that there is a risk that a special industrial court will not actually reduce the incidence of workplace injury in the ACT and that the new jurisdictional elements may distract the court from its main purpose—that is, to address work health and safety matters.
This bill does have our support, with those comments, and we will watch with interest to see how this plays out in the coming months and years.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (10.05): I am pleased to give the Greens’ support to the Magistrates Court (Industrial Proceedings) Amendment Bill and to support the establishment of the first industrial court for the ACT.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video