Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 7 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 2315 ..

MRS BURKE

That is also a good initiative-thinking outside the square. I congratulate WorkCover on that initiative.

I refer to the 10 steps to safety program-an incentive program-which is what businesses need. Businesses need to be encouraged. WorkCover has done this in the past. I remember talking to many officers of WorkCover about this when I was in business myself-that it was like the jackboots, big-stick approach. That has diminished over the years. We now have a more inclusive and encouraging environment, and I am pleased to see that.

There is also the zero injury program. I think that is a positive step, when we hear talk about industrial manslaughter. Mr Pratt alluded to the fact that it puts great fear into the most honest, reliable and upfront businesses. I see that it casts a little slur upon businesses. Nobody wants to see employees maimed-and particularly not dying-in their workplaces. That is the last thing on an employer's mind. This has some serious undertones in relation to thinking the worst of employers, rather than thinking the best.

That is why I am all for the zero injury program-encouraging people to do the right thing and allowing the law to take its course if they do not-not the hope that people will fall through the gaps. I do not think that will be the case. If you push the positives, then I think you will draw people through the process.

In my 14 years in business, I believe I enjoyed a good relationship with WorkCover. I was always able to work well with the officers in a cooperative and responsible manner. I thank WorkCover for that. That has certainly been a great culture which has changed over the years. I hope to see more of that coming forward when I look at the strategic and operational issues to be pursued in 2003-04. That theme is coming through, so I offer congratulations on that.

Cooperation is the key to what this is about. I think that is the way most operators would want to conduct their businesses, and themselves. As I have said, the notion of industrial manslaughter can be insulting to many business owners and operators, who do their utmost to ensure the safety of their workers. Why on earth would they do otherwise?

I have spoken about the law not being on the side of employers who do not do the right thing. I agree with my colleague Mr Pratt that, if we go down that pathway, it will place yet another layer of red tape and a burden on businesses which the positive approach would not necessarily do.

Occupational health and safety compliance checks, which were mentioned earlier today, are the way to go. To take away that fear factor. I have talked many times with Jocelyn Plovits on this issue. The culture of WorkCover has certainly improved, in that their officers who conduct audit and compliance checks are definitely more amenable to working in a cooperative way, rather than waving a big stick.

I believe that adopting a collaborative approach is working well. It is certainly an excellent approach. I applaud WorkCover and the minister for pursuing that. We want

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .