Page 5940 - Week 18 - Wednesday, 11 December 1991

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

---

Acceptance of the amendment proposed by Mrs Nolan is not supported by the Government, for very obvious reasons. We need to make sure that employers pay the level of workers' compensation for their employees that they are required to pay. It is bad for business; it is bad for workers. If an employer does not pay the amount and is caught out, he is up for it himself by way of damages; but, if an employee is not covered and the employer subsequently goes broke, it is a very difficult situation for everybody concerned. So, it is most important that employers are required to prove very clearly that they are paying the proper level of workers' compensation.

It has been a difficulty, particularly in the building industry, over some years. We have all heard about cash in hand payments and those sorts of things, and that is to be avoided when it comes to payments of workers' compensation. All workers are entitled to that. Therefore we will oppose the amendment proposed by Mrs Nolan.

Question put:

That the amendment (Mrs Nolan's) be agreed to.

The Assembly voted -

AYES, 2  NOES, 15 

Mrs Nolan Mr Berry
Mr Stevenson Mr Collaery
 Mr Connolly
 Mr Duby
 Ms Follett
 Mrs Grassby
 Mr Humphries
 Mr Jensen
 Mr Kaine
 Dr Kinloch
 Ms Maher
 Mr Moore
 Mr Prowse
 Mr Stefaniak
 Mr Wood

Question so resolved in the negative.

MR COLLAERY (5.01): I wish to speak to the clause. Mrs Nolan's point is that not all enterprises have a registered auditor, as indeed they do not. Many small businesses who pay workers' compensation - - -

Mr Kaine: How do you define a registered auditor?

Mrs Nolan: Mr Collaery is proposing another amendment to the same clause. He is changing the wording. I used one word. He does not want to do that; he wants to do it somewhere else.

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .