Page 1146 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 6 April 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
To conclude, despite the politics and the excitement around this MOU, it is not a sinister document. It is not an extraordinary document. It is just an MOU, not written particularly well, that emphasises the importance of worker rights, health and safety and the role that unions play. It essentially offers an easy avenue for unions to provide information on these matters that procurement officials can then use as appropriate.
I do not think it is appropriate for the Assembly to seek to cancel this MOU. I think the MOU is relatively benign and most probably useful. On this point though, I have no problem with Mr Hanson requesting the information he has requested about the MOU. I think Mr Barr’s amendment picks this up and assures that the Assembly will be updated fully on how this MOU works in practice. On that basis, I will be supporting Mr Barr’s amendment.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (10.56): I am not sure if members have seen it yet, but the electronic copy of the CityNews arrived this morning while this debate was on and in it there is an article by one Alex White, Secretary of UnionsACT. The headline is “Shamefully scoring political points on workers’ safety”. It is a fascinating read. It starts with a paragraph that goes:
Just a few years ago, Canberra was the least-safe jurisdiction in Australia. More than 50 people were seriously injured each week.
After a series of catastrophic and fatal workplace accidents, the Getting Home Safely inquiry was established to try to stop the workplace carnage.
That report was tabled in November 2012. Let us refresh members’ memories of who was in office federally and locally and what was in place in November 2012 when this supposed industrial carnage was happening. We had a federal Labor government, we had an ACT Labor government, and apparently we had a workplace MOU in place between the unions and the ACT government that was meant to stop it. It was not just in place for that year; it had been in place since 2005—every year from 2005 to 2012 at a time when the “workplace carnage” was occurring.
The first thing you would ask about this MOU is whether it has achieved what it purports to do. The answer is simply no, it did not, because in that time, in the time in which the MOU was in operation, the ACT had the worst record on workplace safety in the country, under both a federal Labor government, who were meant to protect the workers, and a local Labor government who also claim to protect the workers.
It is interesting to go back. Let me go back to the report, members, and read it again. On page 23, it says:
The ACT’s number of serious construction industry claims peaked in 2008-09 at a figure much higher than … any other jurisdiction …
That was when the MOU was in place, when we had a federal Labor government, when we had an ACT Labor government. It goes on to say on page 25:
… the ACT’s serious injury rate is almost a third higher than the national average …
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video