Page 1296 - Week 04 - Thursday, 8 May 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
to who had the supreme power to grant or not grant permission to have a controlled burn.
Earlier this week, on the tabling of the public accounts committee report on the second appropriation bill—and we learnt this in the inquiry—there is a recommendation that where there is a lesser standard for the reporting of bullying and the action to be taken, then the lesser standard is to be accepted until the government resolves the conflict. Today we have another example of the conflict. We are about to insert into the Dangerous Substances Act a provision that under the relationship between this act and the Work Health and Safety Act, if something is in conflict, then we defer to the Work Health and Safety Act. And I think it is unfortunate.
Legislation should not have something in it that says this act is inferior to another act. I think what we should have is, particularly for those that work in these wells, something about which act applies and how it is applied. And I do not think it is unreasonable to say, “We accept your amendment today but we are going to put a year’s sunset clause in.” That is effectively what my amendments are doing. So the government is forced to actually rectify the inconsistency.
I heard Mr Rattenbury say that he has been assured that the government are working on it. If that is the case, then this should not be a problem. This is just a check to make sure that one year from today the government have actually done the job that they have told Mr Rattenbury they are going to do. You might want to take the government at face value but, as I have said, there are a number of examples that have occurred in the last couple of months where the inconsistencies are there. If there is a problem, if it is unclear, if it is an inconsistency, then let us make sure we address it. All we are simply doing is saying you have got a year to fix the problem. They are not unreasonable amendments.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Minister for Workplace Safety and Industrial Relations and Minister for the Environment and Sustainable Development) (12.19): The government will not support the amendments proposed by Mr Smyth today. The amendment to the Dangerous Substances Act contained in this bill provides a level of certainty to duty holders who may have overlapping duties under the Work Health and Safety Act and the Dangerous Substances Act.
The WHS Act is duty-based legislation and it aims to protect the health and safety of workers and other persons who may be impacted by a person’s business or undertaking. The Dangerous Substances Act is also duty-based legislation aimed to protect workers, the public, the environment and anyone who may be affected by the handling of dangerous substances such as explosives, asbestos and chemicals. The Dangerous Substances Act applies in both work and non-work settings.
As members would be aware, the government is signatory to an intergovernmental agreement to harmonise work health and safety laws across Australia. The Work Health and Safety Act was enacted for this purpose. National harmonisation has many benefits for us, including a reduction in cross-border issues for business, additional regulatory support from harmonised jurisdictions and the ability to enact a wide range of regulations, codes of practice and guidance of material.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video