Page 1994 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 24 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Whalan brought up the question of languages in the workplace, and that is something at which the committee looked very long and hard. No doubt the intention was well-meaning, but we looked at the situation and indeed went to a number of establishments where there are machines which, in relation to their use, effectively have a universal language on them. The committee considered very carefully the fact that, if that provision remained, it might ultimately prejudice persons who did not speak English or could not read English, rather than assist them. So I point that out for his benefit.
Workplace arrangements are set out at part IV. There are some time scales which are unrealistic in relation to provision of notices, et cetera, by health and safety representatives and by business, and I think they have to be looked at. My party is also concerned that all the penalties are weighted against the employer, and really the only penalty against a wayward occupational health and safety representative is dismissal from being an occupational health and safety representative. Indeed, that might not be much of a penalty at all if the person is sick of it. I think that has to be looked at very carefully and there has to be some balance there so that some of the penalties go both ways.
There are also other problems, and I am glad to see the Chief Minister raise in her paper that it is important for this Assembly to consider the question of penalties in Acts very carefully. There are some rather crazy penalties in this Bill. In my minority report I specifically referred to sections 84 and 89. I think they should be reversed. One refers, I think, to sabotage of equipment, and the other one refers to something which is far less serious in terms of a person's safety, yet the more serious one has the lesser penalty. That is something that certainly should be addressed by this Assembly, and we can start with this legislation when we consider the detail stage.
Mr Speaker, I will conclude by saying to the Assembly that we have to look very carefully at all the ramifications of this legislation, especially the cost and the potential for abuse. I might remind members that if you screw private enterprise, if you do let this legislation become union dominated, or, conversely, employer dominated - it should not be dominated by anyone - it will mean that many businesses will go broke, especially small businesses. It will mean that there will be a lack of outside investment in this Territory. (Extension of time granted)
If there is a slant in this legislation - and I would submit the slant is currently in favour of excessive union interference - it will mean businesses will go broke; it will mean a lack of outside investment in the Territory; it will mean a decrease, therefore, in the private sector, and I think we all agree that we look to our private sector to provide jobs for young Canberrans and to provide growth in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .