Page 2111 - Week 10 - Thursday, 26 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WOOD (11.10): This recommendation in the occupational health and safety committee report was one of the few that did not have my support, and my comments on that are made in a statement at the end. This was one of the key debating points during the committee's deliberations. I am not convinced that it was a significant point during the hearings. I do not believe the report really interprets as correctly as it might the mood of the views expressed during the hearings. I have a very clear memory of general harmony amongst all those who gave us evidence.
True, some employer groups - not all of them - did express concern about that level of union involvement, which is no more or less than is present in so many other employer and employee relationships. There was, I thought - and I have a very clear memory, so I know I am right - general harmony in that room. All those who came to the committee were emphatic that we needed legislation. They were all interested in the welfare of workers in the various sites around the city, and I do not recall particularly severe objection to a formal involvement with unions in connection with health and safety.
Again, I would say that there were certain reservations, but if I went back to the evidence I would say, off the top of my head, that about half the employer organisations that appeared made no reference to it or had no worry about it. So I do not believe that it is really a major issue.
Secondly, I would contest what my colleague Mr Stefaniak said about a large number of bodies making comments about it. It is certainly true that only one body expressed a very strong view in favour of keeping this, and that was the Trades and Labour Council. But bear in mind that we had - I could look at the back of the book and it would tell me - quite a number of employer groups come before the committee, perhaps up to 20 of them, but we had only one group representing the unions, the workers, and that was the Trades and Labour Council.
It could have been that every union in the town might have sent a representative along and then we would not say "a large number" and "only one". I do not think a large number is relevant to use at all because there was one group only that represented the unions and that was the Trades and Labour Council, but it was a very powerful representation, as it represented 50,000 employees in this town. So members should bear that in mind.
I do not think the amendment understands the principles behind the legislation or the reality of it, the reality that my colleague Mr Whalan has mentioned. The principles are that you do much better when you have formalised and acceptable relationships between two groups, and the reality is that you simply have to do it this way. It works in so many other spheres of employer and employee relationships and, as all our witnesses said, it will work quite well in this case when it gets up and running in this Territory.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .