Page 2260 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 31 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR JENSEN (9.31): I want to speak very briefly on this issue because I note that clearly both the Minister and Mr Stefaniak are wrong in their assertions in relation to this matter. They are wrong for different but related reasons. Mr Stefaniak says that there are no penalties for the employees, and the Minister refers to this as being a Bill which places all the responsibility on the employer.
Just to make sure that everyone realises that I was not sitting here asleep and that I was paying some attention to what was going on this evening, I thought I had better make this particular point. I refer both members to clause 30 of the Bill, which shows quite clearly why they are both wrong. There, under the duties of employees, it says that "an employee shall, at all times while at work, take all reasonably practicable steps", and then it goes on to list a series of items that they are required to do.
The penalty proposed for that is $20,000 - quite a hefty penalty - which I understand is going to be looked at. Of course, the Minister refers to this as being a Bill that is related to the responsibility of employers only. But I would suggest, Mr Speaker, that that quite clearly shows that employees have just as much responsibility to assist in maintaining a safe and tidy workplace because of this responsibility. I just thought I would make that point for both members.
Mr Kaine: So you will support us on this issue?
MR JENSEN: Mr Kaine, the Residents Rally will not be supporting the Liberal amendment in this particular case.
MR COLLAERY (9.33): We agree with the sentiments expressed by Mr Duby. The amendment that Mr Stefaniak is regrettably caught with, because he has taken the wrong advice somewhere, in my opinion, mixes administrative and judicial powers and could be open to challenge. I do not believe the amendment is worded properly. I agree with the sentiment therein. If Mr Stefaniak is able to come back here with a properly worded and acceptable amendment, the Rally will look seriously at balancing the books, as Mr Stefaniak argued.
MR STEFANIAK (9.34): Just briefly, I would submit to the people here who have said it is badly worded, et cetera, that they are wrong. I took the advice of the legislative draftsman. On that, I would submit to you all that that amendment is quite correctly drafted. When one looks at why a person is liable to disqualification one can see when one looks at clause 47(3) the grounds whereby a registrar can disqualify a health and safety rep. He has to believe those are reasonable grounds. Hence it is quite appropriate that those are the grounds where a representative, if he commits one of those actions, would be subject to this penalty. Accordingly I would say that it is quite correctly drafted.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .