Page 2257 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 31 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Where actions by both employers or employees can attract a penalty, we have clause 66, obstructing an inspector, and clause 67, false information. These two are largely geared against the employer. There are clauses 88, 89 and 90. Clauses 68 and 72 deal with an inspector who does the wrong thing. So one can see from that that the vast majority of clauses on penalties are against employers. This does bring some balance into the Act. This does provide a real deterrent to a safety representative who misuses his power, and that is one of the grave fears of employers in relation to this type of legislation. It is ridiculous to say it has not occurred. Instances were put before our committee of there being abuses in Victoria of similar types of legislation. To say it is not going to occur is really pie in the sky stuff. This at least provides a deterrent, and I would commend it to the Assembly.
MR MOORE (9.21): Mr Stefaniak presented this argument again and again in committee, constantly seeking to ensure that there were penalties put on the safety reps. I guess he sees it as a fair play thing: if you can put penalties on employers then you should put penalties on employees as well under such circumstances. The legislation of course is intended primarily to deal with duty of care and primarily to talk about the responsibilities of the employer, although it does talk about responsibilities of employees as well.
The problem with what Mr Stefaniak is suggesting is that there simply will not be any person or any employee who is prepared to take on the job. Why risk a $10,000 fine? Why take the job on in the first place? What the legislation is really calling for is a volunteer to take on a job to look after the health and safety of the workers. The sort of situation that is suggested here by Mr Stefaniak is a case that will discourage anybody from taking on that role. What it really boils down to is that it is a voluntary role, elected by the group.
Mr Stefaniak, we have been through this again and again. To encourage a penalty of this nature on an individual who is attempting to look after and assist with the occupational health and safety, to assist in reducing risks in the workplace - - -
Mr Stefaniak: I will read clause 47(3) if he does the wrong thing, Michael.
MR MOORE: Mr Speaker, I notice Mr Stefaniak's new found enthusiasm for interjecting, and I take it that he has been appointed by the local Liberal Party to be the ACT's version of Wilson Tuckey. Mind you, this seems a little like sending a rather ponderous sheep to do a wolf's job, and given that Mr Stefaniak has so far shown all the wit and wisdom of a piece of four-by-two, perhaps we should refer to him as "Wooden Bar" Stefaniak.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .