Page 2259 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 31 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
as much as that for not displaying improvement notices and not allowing a representative to do his job. So I urge the members of the Assembly to oppose this amendment, as the Government does.
MR DUBY (9.28): I sympathise very much, not with the motion, but with Mr Stefaniak's sentiments behind the motion. I can see the problems that he has pointed out, and to me they do tend to stand out like a sore thumb. There is a problem there in the fact that the employers can be fined various amounts of money. When you have a health and safety rep for a group, if you look at the tasks that this person has to do to get disqualified, you would wonder why the builder is looking at just fining him and not chucking him in gaol. The Bill also details the intention of causing harm to the employer "unreasonably, capriciously or otherwise than for the purpose for which the power was conferred" on the rep, or misusing information.
I sympathise with where Mr Stefaniak is coming from. However, a person whom the registrar determines has acted in that fashion is punished, not so much with a financial impediment but is disqualified from holding the position of health and safety rep and can be disqualified for a period of up to five years. Now that certainly removes the troublemaker, that sort of person, or a person who is acting in ways in which it has not been anticipated that a health and safety rep would be acting. It certainly removes him from the scene. The provision is there within the Act for that person to be removed. I have difficulties with the wording of Mr Stefaniak's motion.
Debate interrupted.
ADJOURNMENT
MR SPEAKER: Order! It being 9.30 pm, I propose the question:
That the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr Whalan: I require the question to be put forthwith without debate.
Question resolved in the negative.
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY BILL 1989
Debate resumed.
MR DUBY: The wording of Mr Stefaniak's motion, I have been advised, seems to be a bad mixture of legal and administrative functions. I think that the fine is far too high anyway. So, reluctantly, I will not be supporting Mr Stefaniak's motion.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .