Page 2130 - Week 10 - Thursday, 26 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
oppose this because I do not think "welfare" means the sorts of services which would be provided by the welfare section of, say, my department.
I think the real issue here is that we have already adopted in the objects of the Act the relevance of welfare for employees at work. To rip it out of the legislation now would be most inappropriate.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister) (12.19): Mr Speaker, I would like to support the remarks made by Mr Berry in relation to the retention of the word "welfare". I think it is particularly worth noting that the word "welfare" in this Bill is very heavily qualified. It is welfare at work. It bears absolutely no relation to whether an employee has anything in the pantry at home or whether an employee's children have shoes. It is welfare at work.
Mr Speaker, I submit that that could relate to quite a wide range of matters at the workplace. For instance, it could relate to the morale of the work force. It could relate to the particular style of management at the workplace; whether there is undue duress upon workers; whether there is an overbearingly authoritarian attitude at work. All those things would come within the ambit of the workplace.
I believe it is totally appropriate that it be left in place in this Act. It is a qualified expression. Speaking as a woman worker, I think it is wise that we attempt to take a broader view of employees' welfare at work because, as you know, there are very many instances of incidents at work which do not relate immediately to the health or the safety of an employee but which could come well and truly into the interpretation of the welfare of an employee. As a woman, I could cite you any number of instances where that is the case.
So I would urge all members to take the broad view of welfare at work, to accept that it is a heavily qualified expression in this Bill - it is "welfare at work" - and to reject Mr Stefaniak's proposed amendment.
MR WOOD (12.21): This matter was discussed in the committee hearings. I do not recall that it was a matter for great debate, although I do recall that the committee made no resolution about it. But it comes up again today. My memory would tell me, and my knowledge of the attitudes of all those who appeared in the committee would confirm, that if we had asked the question - I am not sure we did - "Are you concerned for the welfare of your workers at work?", every one of them would have said, "Yes, we are". I am sure that, if this had been debated more, we would have had an emphatic "Yes" to retaining this in the Bill.
MS MAHER (12.22): We will be opposing the amendment. This dictionary I have defines "welfare" as:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .