Page 798 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 April 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
home safely was a comprehensive report which has been endorsed by all stakeholders in the construction sector, including unions, industry associations and the government.
The government is reporting six monthly to the Assembly on implementation and we have taken a series of very detailed and concrete steps to improve safety on construction sites in the ACT. We have introduced pre-qualification arrangements for tendering for government jobs to make sure those dodgy companies that have poor work health and safety practices do not get government work. We have put in place an industrial magistrate. We have recruited additional work safety inspectors. We have put in place better education for workers. We are mandating improved training, and we are seeing similar responses from unions and from industry associations like the MBA and HIA.
Mr Coe is apparently in blissful ignorance of what has actually been happening in this policy space for the last two years and thinks, “Oh, I think we should have an inquiry into that.” He fails to recognise what has been done and where that debate is at. It is just another example as to why this referral should not be supported today.
Next, Mr Coe highlights issues around the availability and delivery of land. The government has a comprehensive land release program. The government is delivering significant new land releases. As part of the stimulus package the government announced the bringing forward of a whole series of civil works contracts for new residential development in Gungahlin to act as a stimulus to the industry and to ensure that land was being brought forward in a measured and considered way to meet demand even at a time of a significant slowdown in the economy overall. Once again, Mr Coe fails to acknowledge what is actually being done to address these issues.
Finally, Mr Coe seems to fail to understand how the Inquiries Act operates. It is simply not legal for him to insert a requirement into this motion that the head of any such board of inquiry must be agreed between the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Minister. The Inquiries Act gives power to appoint the head of an inquiry to the executive, not to the opposition. There is no binding requirement on the executive, and for Mr Coe to try and make up changes to the law through this motion simply highlights the level of ignorance of this opposition when it comes to the operation of the Inquiries Act.
Madam Speaker, for all of these reasons this proposal today is entirely a political tactic. It is a political stunt and an attempt by the Liberal Party to get someone else, preferably the taxpayer, to pay for their own policy development. If they do not have ideas on occupational health and safety and improving safety in the construction sector, for example, why do they not just go and read Getting home safely? Why do they not go and scrutinise what is happening as a result? If they have concerns about fines, fees and charges, why do they not go and examine the stimulus package and the reforms to LVC and extension of time charges which the government has put in place rather than say, “Oh, I think we should have an inquiry”? Why do they not do some work themselves for once?
Their own former Chief Minister, their own former leader, has said this opposition is shifting to the right, is becoming the home of conservatives and has lost its way in the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video