Page 2215 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 31 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I ask the Rally, the No Self Government Party and the Abolish Self Government Coalition to consider this
amendment very carefully. This recommendation of the committee has not just arisen from a couple of minutes' discussion but from a great deal of discussion. Instead of going back and trying to find out what this was about, we had an indication first from the Government that it would go along with the recommendation of the committee. So we were not given an opportunity to go and explain these sorts of reasons which I have given very briefly now. Let me emphasise that we believe this will wind up doing a disservice to people who have English as a second language. If the intention is to clarify the position and to do them a service, this wording could well do more damage than good.
MR DUBY (3.56): My party supports the committee recommendation that the words "appropriate language" be removed from the legislation. Mr Moore has spoken most eloquently on the matter and has pointed out, as we all agree, that the duty of care still remains on the employer whether there is a sign in the native tongue of the worker or not. The cost to employers, especially in this multicultural society, of having to have signs in languages other than English could come to quite a tidy amount.
Finally, as he pointed out, it would wind up as a disservice to people from non-English speaking backgrounds in obtaining employment. What employer will hire folk if he knows that every time they go to use a particular piece of machinery he has to put a sign on it, whether it be in Greek, Italian, Serbo-Croat, Turkish, Vietnamese or whatever it may be? For those various reasons we support the recommendation of the committee.
MR STEVENSON (3.58): I agree with the points so well made by Mr Moore. He is in a position, which did not apply to some of us, of having been a member of the committee that looked at the matter. Certainly we all agree that people should work in a safe environment, but there have to be limitations here and some commonsense should prevail. There were indications, before, that perhaps international safety signs could to some degree cover the matter. Perhaps more attention should be given to this area and very solid training given on that matter.
Mr Collaery mentioned that the working side of it could be looked at while operating, and I well understand his concern that something be done and be done soon. But we must take the point that the care responsibility is already there with most businesses. I think it fairly obvious to say that the vast majority of businesses, if not all, are extremely concerned about the welfare of their employees. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever not to take full responsibility and ensure that your employees are well looked after. Everyone knows that one needs a harmonious working environment to be able to produce well. There is no real suggestion here that there is a major problem with negligence from an employer point of view.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .