Page 4550 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 23 November 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Shortly before 8.30 he went to grab a sheet of plastic that had come loose and lost his balance. Joel fell 15 metres onto hard clay ground and later died in Nepean Hospital.
Joel’s uncle, Charlie Williams, said yesterday that the teenager was the youngest of three brothers. “He was a loveable kid, a talented footballer, respected by everyone.”
Sixteen years old and on his third day at work! This is a tragedy. Tragedies like this should form the basis of any endeavour to improve the building and construction industry.
But what would our counterparts on the hill have us do? Would they introduce industrial manslaughter legislation, as is the request of Joel’s mother? Would they seek to improve the role of workplace occupational health and safety officers? No. They did neither. It seems that those on the hill share our opposition’s position on how best to protect young workers in the building and construction industry—increase the boss’ power.
I challenge the opposition to try to justify their position to Joel’s mother and why they voted against industrial manslaughter legislation in the ACT. Think about it for just one second; think about how you would say to Mrs Exner, “Sorry, but we do not think Joel’s employer, who failed to provide either scaffolding or safety harnesses, should face criminal charges because we think it would scare off business.” You had the chance to do the right thing by workers in this territory and you threw it away in the interests of your friends at the big end of town.
No, the motivation for the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act is not safety. I quote from federal workplace relations minister, Kevin Andrews’, second reading speech:
This bill is a specifically targeted legislative measure to address the unlawful conduct of unions.
As highlighted by the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, if the conduct of unions is unlawful, there would be no need to legislate. What Minister Andrews should have said is: “This is the government’s final and revised attempt to union-bust in the building and construction industry.”
The legislation was introduced to parliament on 9 March 2005. Taking effect immediately were the new definitions and penalties for unlawful industrial action. Penalties for organising or participating in such action increased to $110,000 for unions and $22,000 for individuals. The definition of unlawful industrial action is wide, as is the definition of industrial dispute. Chris White, researcher at Flinders University, points out:
Any building worker who is law abiding and raises grievances can easily get caught after the event because of this scope in definition.
These broad definitions place unreasonable restrictions on the rights of individuals to strike—a right internationally recognised by the International Labour Organisation and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .