Page 2004 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 24 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: Precisely, Mr Kaine. It indicates that they will not accept the referee's rulings, but they will play their own games outside the framework of this legislation. I assume that one ramification of that position would be that we could expect industrial action. We could expect strikes, go-slows and other industrial actions as a result of the fact that the unions in this case do not get their way.
Mr Stefaniak indicated that it was very clear from the very simple - that is, short - submission from the Trades and Labor Council that it expected that this legislation embodied its wishes already and therefore it would not need to endure great change. The fact is, Mr Speaker, that from this side of the house, at least, it is not acceptable and we shall press to make changes that reflect the reality of Australia's emerging industrial environment. Finally, I want to quote some comments made by the Canberra Southern Cross Club Ltd which, I think, sum up very well the concerns of a number of employers about this legislation. It said:
We support occupational health and safety in the work place and are not upset at the introduction of fair legislation. We believe, along with many others, that the proposed legislation has many anomalies and may be open to abuse by unscrupulous persons or groups.
The legislation is over regulated and will affect productivity. It needs simplifying rather than trying to be all things to all people. The occupational health and safety push should be towards education rather than big stick waving.
The thrust of the legislation puts the onus on employers to bear most responsibility and all cost in matters of occupational health and safety. The legislation is obviously union influenced but what is expected of them? Nothing. What cost are they required to bear? None? What do they do towards the training and education of their members? Very little, if anything.
I endorse those comments. I think that they are wise. I think the Assembly would be unwise to ignore them and I hope that the amendments to this Bill that are to be put up from various sources will be considered on Thursday in that light and that we will end up with an arrangement in the ACT which is realistic and not damaging to the productivity of Canberra businesses. That is something which I think we can ill afford at this time above all others.
MR JENSEN (9.10): I rise to speak briefly on this Bill in the in-principle stage. While I, and other members of the Rally, generally agree with some of the comments by Mr Duby, I think there are some reasons why amendments outside the recommendations of the committee may be required.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .