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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (27 November) . . Page.. 4860 ..

MR STEFANIAK (continuing):

stick approach of legislation like this. In fact, the government said it supported a range of increasingly strong deterrent measures for serious offences. It went on to say that the offences in this particular bill provided a necessary deterrent for the most serious of workplace accidents-and, yes, it does that.

Yet yesterday, in relation to a very comprehensive bill that dealt with all sorts of other offences in the Crimes Act-which was defeated-the government indicated the exact opposite: punitive actions do not reduce crime; rehabilitation should be looked at; deterrence does not work and is not going to stop crime. Why the change, Mr Speaker? Why is deterrence so important in this particular matter but in the plethora of matters we looked at yesterday completely unimportant-in fact, counterproductive because punitive actions do not reduce crime?

The other big concern I had was the fact that we actually have a law of manslaughter. It is a very serious law; it is one down from murder. It covers all manslaughters. We do not have two types of murder or two types of common assault. The one offence covers all circumstances in relation to it. The other Labor states and territories are not going down this path. That must tell the government something.

I was very concerned to see that no evidence was put before the committee to indicate that a law like this was actually necessary. Thankfully, in the ACT there are very few deaths attributable to negligence in our workplaces. The evidence failed to indicate whether any of the deaths we had seen in the ACT would have sustained a charge of industrial manslaughter, had one been brought.

These deaths went back to the 1980s, and there seemed to be no justification for introducing a separate offence of industrial manslaughter in the territory. If anything, indications are that considerable efforts have been made in recent years in Canberra to improve occupational health and safety, and they are ongoing. This is great because it means our workplaces are getting safer. Workplace accidents are less common now than they were.

We are unique, in that we do not have industries that are more likely to have accidents. We have neither a significant manufacturing industry base nor a large primary industry base. Indications are that there is even less call for legislation here than in the other states, which have not gone down this path. I am totally unconvinced about the need for this legislation.

We have the crime of manslaughter in our Crimes Act, which has been further enhanced by the Criminal Code. That was a point Ms Gallagher missed when she did an ABC interview today. Last year they introduced corporate responsibility in a Criminal Code. That was something the opposition fully supported. There are instances of corporate crime, and we have seen thousands of Australian citizens suffer as a result of it. It is terribly important that corporations can be picked up-hence it is in the Criminal Code.

That is already there with our existing law of manslaughter, and further improvements to the code next year will include a restatement of manslaughter and a number of other laws. Why on earth do we need this? The fact is we do not. The fact that corporate responsibility is in the criminal code takes away one of the main arguments for the need

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