Page 2225 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 31 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR DUBY (4.38): My party was originally prepared to accept the amendment of the legislation to make a designated work group comprise 11 rather than 10. We felt that that was the compromise that had been agreed within the committee. Having listened to the arguments first of all from Mr Stefaniak, which are put from the Liberal Party point of view, that the DWG should comprise 20 members, I am compelled to say that I am opposed to that. The situation is quite clear, to be perfectly honest. There is a difference between designated work groups and safety committees. So, as Mr Moore said, it is foolish to compare the situation that we have in the ACT with that which applies within New South Wales.
Secondly, I think even with DWGs of 10, it is my understanding that something like 85 per cent of employers will not fall under those provisions. In other words, only 15 per cent of employers will be required to initiate the actions that are forecast within this Bill. If we move the figure to 20, my understanding is that 95 per cent of employers within the ACT do not fall within that category. Having moved the size of DWGs to 20, what on earth is the point of having occupational health and safety legislation at all? It simply means that the larger companies are the only ones that will have to take up the provisions of this Act.
Although I do not wish to sing the praises of larger companies, in most cases large companies - because of the size of the jobs that are involved and the fact that the unions do get involved in negotiations with the larger companies, generally speaking - have a pretty reasonable safety record. It always needs tightening up, et cetera, but in most cases where there are more than 20 employees the accepted OH&S practices are in place and the safety of the workers is not a matter of great concern.
If you were to keep the DWG at 20, I could think of many construction jobs around this city where the number of employees on the site would never get near 20. As a matter of fact, even to get more than 10 you are turning it into a biggish job. So with 15 men on site, or workers - some of our female apprentices or tradespersons could well be working on the site - you have got a largish job which does require the provisions of occupational health and safety to be in place, otherwise the safety of workers is in jeopardy.
Accordingly, if the decision of two of the committee members is that the original recommendation of the committee shall not be implemented - in other words, that we shall not go for 11 persons for the size of the DWG - we are prepared to accept that the figure for a designated work group should be 10, and not 20, as Mr Stefaniak proposes.
MR STEVENSON (4.42): When we mention a figure of 20 employees, it is very important to understand that this
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .