Page 812 - Week 05 - Thursday, 6 July 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Also there was, in the Bill, reference to certain activities in relation to changes to designated work groups and replacement of health and safety representatives by 25 per cent of employees. We felt that that was undemocratic and indeed felt that it should be increased to 50 per cent. That was unanimously accepted by the committee.
In relation to involved unions, many witnesses were concerned about provisions that made it legally binding on employers when establishing designated work groups to consult each involved union in relation to its employees. The committee felt that, without limiting the legitimate industrial role of unions in the workplace, it is an appropriate measure to take to delete from the Bill references to involved unions, particularly as registered unions are recognised bodies, anyway, for the purposes of the legislation. Accordingly we recommend that.
In relation to designated work group formation, after giving careful consideration to the minimum number of workers required to form a designated work group and the overall percentage of private businesses that are to be affected, the committee could see no reason why the fears of employers could not be allayed by stipulating that enterprises comprising 12 or more should establish a designated work group. I have already mentioned there was some dissent in relation to that. Again, that was recommended.
In relation to plant and substances, Mr Speaker, during the examination of witnesses it became apparent to the committee that many in the private sector thought the duties imposed on employers by clauses 32 and 35 were unnecessarily onerous. We examined that matter, took advice from the officers of the department of industry, employment and education, and the majority of the committee members formed the view that the provisions were not onerous in that what is required of persons or body corporates is that they act with reasonableness, that the manufacturer, the supplier and the installer are required only to take all reasonably practical steps.
We formed the view, however, that in the interests of clarity the Bill should provide that where a manufacturer, supplier or installer has abided by the relevant Australian safety standards, which members should realise are very high, that should be prima facie evidence that the manufacturer, supplier or installer has taken all reasonably practical steps. That overcame a number of problems, rightful problems, expressed by various employer groups in relation to that, including, I think, the problem which was there initially in the Bill in relation to truck drivers bringing goods into the Territory and being responsible for any defects.
I now deal with penalties. We could see little consistency in the way penalties were provided for in the Bill. We
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .