Page 2213 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 31 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
provisions as set out in this paragraph could possibly be used as a deterrent to engaging non-English speaking employees, which was something the committee clearly did not want to see happen.
However, the committee, on its site inspections, noticed the use of international safety signs on machinery, and was pleased to see this. The committee believes that the reference to "in appropriate languages" can be deleted from the paragraph without detracting from an employer's responsibility to provide the necessary information, instruction, training and supervision to employees to enable them to perform their work in a manner that is safe and without risk to their health. Accordingly, the committee suggested an amendment to the Bill to give effect to that matter, and this amendment has been put forward. I commend it to the Assembly.
MR WHALAN (Minister for Industry, Employment and Education) (3.49): The proposal to remove the requirement for an employer to make instructions and information available to employees in appropriate languages is regarded by the Government as unfortunate. To remove it takes from the legislation the only recognition it has that, for a significant proportion of the work force, English is not their first language. So if an employer employs workers who speak other than English, the employer has a duty of care to those employees to ensure that, as far as it is necessary to use equipment safely, there be instructions given that they can understand in their own language. The original proposal in the Bill only sought to clarify that responsibility, and for that reason the Government would still prefer to see its continued inclusion.
MR COLLAERY (3.50): I wish to add a few words in support of what Mr Whalan has said. Mr Speaker, the use of appropriate languages, if you go to some sections of the United States, especially the Hispanic areas, is found everywhere. In the Rally's view, it would be appropriate to require an employer to use appropriate languages. The legislation is sufficiently loose to make it difficult to secure a conviction because it uses the words "appropriate languages". It has intent, but it does not have absolute prescription. In my view, an employer who has just put someone on would hardly be likely to be convicted because he has not had his labels made yet.
There are some significant cost aspects, in the Rally's view, if everything has to be labelled and looked at, but the Rally's view is that it should go into law. The working side of it can be looked at in further reviews of the legislation. The intent is there; the message is there to employers. I think of a case that I handled in the last two years where a Serbo-Croat did not read an English sign on an articulated Case tractor. He was alone, with someone else in a sand pit, out near Bungendore getting a load of sand, and the sign said, "Do not stand on articulated linkage while hydraulic pumps are working". He stood on
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .