Page 2557 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I have heard various people say in this place that that is a trite argument. All the businesses that I have spoken to are saying that it is not a trite argument because a further impost on any business at this minute is something that is going to reduce employment. They are the cold, hard facts of life.
Mrs Carnell: There is nowhere else for them to go.
MR DE DOMENICO: There is nowhere else for them to go, as Mrs Carnell quite rightly says. Perhaps the most telling letter that we have yet received is from a very well-known small businessman in this town, Tony Tammett. He does not mind me quoting it. He wrote a letter to Ms Szuty, in fact, and copied it to all of us. I quote, Madam Speaker:
The ACT Government proposes to amend the Occupational Health Bill ...
At a time of record high unemployment the government's policies seem hell bent on making it more and more difficult for employers to employ staff. The burden of long standing associated costs including payroll tax, holiday leave loading, generous sick leave entitlements, numerous paid public holidays and workers compensation insurance, has recently been further weighed down by the imposition of the "training guarantee" and employer-funded superannuation.
Quite apart from the actual outgoings involved in all these charges (which are considerable) the administrative operation for a small businessman is a nightmare.
He goes on to say:
There is a limit to the capacity of businesses to meet these ever-increasing costs of labour. Many have already reached that limit and gone out of business. For those that remain the obvious priority is to limit staff numbers to the absolute minimum in order to survive.
That is the reality of doing business not just in this town but anywhere. The reality is that at a time of high unemployment we have the Government trying to introduce legislation that is really not necessary. There are no hard, cold facts to say that people with designated work groups of 20 or fewer have any more accidents than those with 20 or more. There are no facts at all. So why are we introducing this legislation? Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party, as I said, will be opposing this legislation. It is unnecessary. It is a further impost on business and, as a result of that, it will cost jobs.
MS SZUTY (4.31): Madam Speaker, I support in principle the Occupational Health and Safety (Amendment) Bill 1992 as proposed by the Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Berry. The Minister, in his speech to introduce the Bill, spoke of the reduction in workplace accidents which has occurred following the introduction of the principal Act, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, in 1989. This piece of legislation has already had an interesting history. It had the honour of being the first piece of legislation introduced into the fledgling First Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .