Page 2551 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I refer to our meeting on 4 September 1992 regarding occupational health and safety and firstly point out that we are unable to correlate complete details regarding premiums and claims and/or any reduction of these after the inclusion of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
What Mr Berry purported to be able to do, the insurance industry was not able to do - nor was anybody else. The letter goes on to say:
However, on 1 March 1991 -
the date is very important -
it was agreed by the Insurance Council of Australia to cut the gazette rates across the board by 20 per cent after pressure from the -
wait for it -
Liberal Party Government at that time.
In other words, after negotiations with the Liberal Party Government at the time the insurance industry decided, across the board, to cut rates by 20 per cent. That was done by the insurance industry in cooperation with the Liberal Party. The letter continues:
Along with this, competition within the industry for workers compensation, based on loss ratios, again reducing premiums. These occurred around the time of the commencement of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
For Mr Berry to come into this house and say that the Occupational Health and Safety Act that he introduced two or three years ago was the prime motivating factor in reducing accidents in the workplace is untrue.
Madam Speaker, we have shown now that Mr Berry's rationale is faulty. "Faulty" is a good word to use. Surely a rudimentary correlation does not, in itself, entail causation. More importantly, Madam Speaker, Mr Berry in no way can prove to the Assembly that workplaces not presently required by the Act to set up designated work groups have a higher incidence of accidents than those workplaces which are obliged to have designated work groups and therefore should warrant this cumbersome legislation. There were no figures to suggest that if you have fewer than 20 in your work force you are more prone to industrial accidents than if you have more than 20. There was nothing, no figures at all; yet we need this regulatory thing. Mr Berry, in fact, knows that it is not the case.
If one is a logical thinker one therefore tends to think that there may be a hidden agenda. I am not saying that, but there may be a hidden agenda. Mr Berry will disagree because he has never had a hidden agenda in his mind, ever. The hidden agenda may be, for example, to increase union coverage, Madam Speaker. Perhaps the hidden agenda is to increase union coverage within the hospitality and retail sectors under the guise of occupational health and safety. In fact, Mr Berry, in his introductory speech, suggests that he is particularly targeting the retail and hospitality sectors.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .