Page 2228 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 31 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
workplace representative, as we know, will have certain responsibilities, but the thrust of his role will be to ensure the welfare and the safety of people in the workplace.
Deny them that right and you jeopardise the welfare and safety of people in the workplace, and that is what the Residents Rally party is deliberately doing by the position that they have taken here. They are deliberately placing in jeopardy the employees of 95 per cent of the employers in this Territory. Let me state it again: the Residents Rally party are placing in jeopardy the employees of 95 per cent of the workplaces in this Territory by virtue of the position that they have taken here.
Quite clearly, to deny them this protection under this legislation is to strike at the very heart of the whole purpose of this legislation. It has always been the stated intention of the Residents Rally party, before its massive swing to the right in recent times, that they were concerned about the welfare of workers. Now they have been exposed in their true position. They do not care and they will allow a personal vendetta between the leader of the Residents Rally party and a particular union to colour their whole approach to protective legislation.
I urge all members to keep in mind the difference between the ACT legislation and legislation in other places. In Victoria, for example, and in the Commonwealth legislation, there is no minimum number of employees for the appointment of a safety representative. In New South Wales, which was quoted by Mr Stefaniak, there is in fact quite a cumbersome position. It has not been terribly well received by quite a large number of employers because, where they have a workplace with more than 20 employees, they are required to appoint not a representative, such as we have here in the ACT legislation, but rather a committee. Each member of this committee has to be trained in occupational health and safety issues.
This is quite a cumbersome process. If there is an incident which requires action in relation to occupational health and safety, you do not have it being examined by one person, as you do under the ACT legislation, but you have it being examined by a committee which may consist of five, six, seven or eight members. So it is a much more cumbersome process. It is also much more expensive, in that there is a greater amount of training required and it is less responsive to specific instances because there are more people involved.
I would urge that the Assembly support the draft legislation, the provision in the Bill, and vote for the protection of workers.
MR JENSEN (4.54): Mr Speaker, the Rally totally rejects the assertions by the Deputy Chief Minister, that the Residents Rally has moved to the right, for a start - which
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .