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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (27 November) . . Page.. 4859 ..

MS DUNDAS (continuing):

meet every person who has said that they have concerns about this bill. But, where I have met with employers or their representatives, I have gained the impression that they believe they could be held liable for manslaughter in a situation where they would only be liable for a civil penalty. More education about the effect of this bill is necessary.

Because there are many business people who are unclear about the effect of this legislation, I endorse the government's decision to delay commencement of this law for three months to provide time for an education campaign to allay concerns based on misunderstandings about who could be convicted of industrial manslaughter. I hope the debate that we are having today is an important part of that. There are many people with us here in the gallery, from both businesses and unions, and I hope they are listening to the understandings that each individual member has of this industrial manslaughter legislation and that they are hearing about how it will actually work in the workplace.

We all believe that a death at work is a tragedy, so we all have common ground on this issue. I believe we would all support any law that would help prevent a death in the workplace. I am willing to support this law because I believe that, on balance, it will send a message to any rogue employers who are operating in the territory and it will improve the chances that they will take their safety responsibilities more seriously.

I hope we do not have any of these rogue employers currently operating in the ACT, and I hope that we never have a prosecution under this law, but I am convinced it is worth having this law there if we need it because it will support workers and it will support employers. At the moment it does not always make business sense to comply with our current laws. People have actually said to me that it is cheaper to cop the fine for having an unsafe workplace than to do the work to make your workplace safe. I hope that having the crime of industrial manslaughter on the books sends a very clear message to employers that it is good business sense to have good workplace safety. I hope that our workplaces in the ACT become safe workplaces.

In closing, I will respond to Mr Pratt's comment that the industrial manslaughter legislation will degrade workplace safety. I do not see how we can see this industrial manslaughter legislation as a step backwards. If employers and employees want safe workplaces and take their responsibilities seriously, this will not be a step backwards. (Extension of time granted.) If employers and employees want to work to make sure that their workplaces are safe and employees are not working in unsafe conditions, then this legislation does not degrade workplace safety. It supports workplace safety. I fail to see how the argument put forward by Mr Pratt helps anything.

MR STEFANIAK (5.27): As I said when I introduced the committee report as chair and my dissenting report, and as most people in this place know, I am very much in favour of strong laws that have strong deterrent effect. I have no problem with that part of this. If people do the wrong thing and if people harm others in a criminal way, and in a serious criminal way, they should be punished-whether they are bosses harming workers, workers harming other workers or people involved in nasty armed robberies.

One of the first concerns that I had about this was the government's attitude to criminal law issues. The government, in its submission to the committee inquiry, said that it did not have any problems with the contradiction inherent in, on the one hand, industry working together with workers to have a safer workplace and, on the other hand, the big-

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