Page 2224 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 31 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
amendment is quite unnecessary bearing in mind the perceived problems, and I might mention I have not done the research. I have got all the submissions on my table here, but I would think that a goodly number of the employer groups, as I recall from our hearings, were not concerned about this matter. It is not as though this is the unanimous view of all the employers. It is a reasonable proposition and I ask members to support what is in the Bill at this stage.
MR MOORE (4.35): I have decided not to move the suggestion of the committee. The compromise of 10 had been reached. Mr Stefaniak has pushed since then for 20, and we now have his amendment. When I originally suggested that the figure 12 be applied, it was pointed out to me it would be a case of 13 employers having to fit in with the workplace arrangements and that 13 was an unlucky number. I think the educational disincentives by having a figure of 13 associated with occupational health and safety overrode the issue, and it was brought back to 11. At that time we were not given the information that has come through more recently about the statistical comparisons and information related to other States. I think, with that extra information about statistical comparisons, it would be pointless to have an extra one person put into the legislation, and therefore the number should remain at 10.
When Mr Stefaniak presented his view and the view of the business community, he did a series of comparisons. It is important to understand that comparisons are very difficult between this legislation and legislation in other States because often in other States we are not talking about designated work groups but about occupational health and safety committees. This is a different form of legislation to what one finds in other States. Those comparisons really are not valid. The provisions in those States are different from what is in this legislation.
It was further emphasised when Mr Stefaniak said we must consider ourselves an island within a State. If we take that argument to the extreme, why bother legislating at all? Let us just adopt all New South Wales legislation and go with them. We have a different legislation. It is different in lots of ways.
Mr Kaine: That is probably a good idea.
MR MOORE: It would do you out of a job as Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, I believe that there is a series of very good reasons for retaining the figure of 10. Firstly, it is the compromise position. Businesses have said that, if they are going to have it, they prefer 20. The unions would prefer to have nothing. Therefore, 10 is the compromise position. It allows for easy statistical comparison. Therefore, I believe that we ought vote against any amendment to this clause.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .