Page 3450 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 19 September 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and we will then consider those recommendations. No doubt that will include the ideal size of the DWG. In future the council will advise whether a new level is required and when this should be introduced, and we will consider it then. The number may well be brought down over a period of time, but it is certainly not time for that yet.
When this is done it would be on the advice of the tripartite council established under the Act; that is the appropriate time for the Government to consider it. This is very premature. If this motion were passed I think it would send shivers up small businesses' spine. The procedures set in place under the Act simply have not had time to work yet. The council has not had a chance to evaluate it. Perhaps when that occurs a motion such as this might be more appropriate.
MR BERRY (12.24), in reply: Mr Speaker, I am not surprised at the response by Mr Stefaniak or Mr Kaine to this move by the Labor Party because it has been their traditional position in this place to oppose the introduction of occupational health and safety legislation. It has been their traditional position to oppose it mostly on political grounds because of their preoccupation and fear of trade unions - a silly traditional position that the Liberal Party seems to feed off.
Mr Stefaniak said - and I was quite amused when he said this - that he relied upon the duty of care to cover the employees of 95 per cent of employers who are not covered by the provision of designated work groups in the workplace. It is precisely the failure of the duty of care to protect workers which has led us to a position where 500 workers are being killed each year, 300,000 are being injured at work, and the total cost of these accidents is estimated to be around $6.7 billion annually.
Mr Jensen: What, 500 workers in the ACT? Come on!
MR BERRY: The fact of the matter in the ACT, Norm, if you had been watching the figures, is that the costs have been estimated at somewhere between $120m and $240m a year. The fact of the matter, Mr Speaker, is that the duty of care has not worked. Mr Stefaniak knows it has not worked and he does not care. The thing that these people clearly rely upon and are most concerned about is the economic benefit. It was the first thing of significance that Mr Kaine mentioned in his speech and it was obviously the point that he was most worried about: the economic benefit of protecting workers. There was no concern shown for the safety of workers in the workplace in terms of priorities.
Mr Kaine: I suggest you read my speech again.
MR BERRY: The priority that the Chief Minister gave to the issues was economic benefit, first; and the safety of workers, second. That was the clear position and that also was the clear position of Mr Stefaniak, because he made it
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .