Page 3882 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 29 October 2013
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
As the report notes, we have had a very distressing safety record for such a small jurisdiction. I cannot speak to this bill without mentioning the human aspect to this issue and to acknowledge the personal grief of the families who have lost loved ones in building and construction industry accidents in recent times.
The Getting home safely report raised some concerns about the quality and timeliness of prosecutions for work health and safety matters. The additional resources that the government is providing to WorkSafe will hopefully bring improvements in this area. The report also considers the outcomes of the matters that do go to court. It says:
… unlike many other jurisdictions, where an Industrial Court with experience and knowledge of work health and safety and the likely impact of sentences hears matters, in the ACT such matters are considered by the Magistrates Court. An examination of outcomes reveals that ACT courts tend to impose significantly lower penalties than those applied in other jurisdictions.
The report goes on to point out that the ACT courts apply—and I quote:
… patchy and inconsistent … deterrents, with penalties, low though they might be, usually applying only to those who have ‘rolled the dice and lost’—generally with a worker or workers bearing the brunt of the consequences.
The report’s authors are blunt about what this means for worker health and safety in the territory. They say:
The outcome of a predominant focus on reactive work is that businesses which take significant risks without incurring a systems failure can often escape without detection and without penalty. This creates a gross inequity for those businesses which are committed to abiding by the law. In a competitive commercial environment this can be a significant disincentive to compliance with the law.
I agree with the report’s recommendation that establishing an industrial jurisdiction in the ACT is an appropriate response to this issue. I commend the government’s response to establish this jurisdiction through this bill.
It will be important that the government closely follows the implementation of the new industrial jurisdiction, including the outcomes of cases heard, the severity and consistency of penalties, as well as any workload issues that arise from the reconfigured jurisdiction. I am aware, for example, that workload issues were of particular concern to the Law Society. I would suggest that it would be a good idea for the minister to report back to the Assembly with an update on the industrial court so that all members might be apprised of how it is going and whether those resourcing issues are in fact proving to be a point of concern.
The experience of other states suggests that an industrial court can play an important part in leading industry reform. Over time I expect the experience in the new court will result in more consistent and potentially more serious penalties which, in turn, help reform the work health and safety culture in the ACT. This is an important and ongoing goal as the ACT strives to end injuries and deaths in workplaces and instead become a model of safety and good practice. I am pleased to support this bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video