Page 1990 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 24 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Representatives, and Deputy Safety Representatives to small businesses with more than 10 employees, and enables regulations to be made covering health and safety committees and training requirements.
The other States and the Northern Territory have applied different standards in relation to this issue. For example, formal arrangements are required where there are 5 employees in South Australia, 15 employees in Victoria, 20 in New South Wales, and 30 in Queensland. The Northern Territory Work Health Act does not rely on the establishment of Designated Work Groups or Committees.
We believe that provisions pitched at this level of small business are not warranted. The ACT has low statistics on workplace injuries and businesses would be severely handicapped by any unnecessary on-costs or overheads, especially if those are higher than NSW.
The Canberra Southern Cross Club Ltd, an employer of a number of people on a site which the committee inspected - and might I say it found that it had a very good ad hoc occupational health and safety system in place to ensure the protection of its workers and the efficient running of its business - indicated:
We believe that the legislation is confrontationist. It will pit unions against employers, and may cause over-zealousness by bureaucrats against employers.
Some unions engage in closed shop practices, sometimes forcing unwanted employees on employers. This legislation is ripe to give these types of employees a lever with which to be disruptive.
It also complained about the interpretation of involved unions and registered unions, and stated:
Surely the design of the legislation should be for employers and employees to consult in making the workplace safe. Any disputes are dealt with by the Occupational Health and Safety Registrar. There are provisions in the legislation dealing with the protection of employees.
To our way of thinking the unions have obviously been privy in influencing the legislation so they can have a vehicle by which they can intrude upon management practices.
Indeed, that was one of the criticisms of the very draconian and incredibly pro-union first draft which was
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .