Page 2561 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON (4.43): I do not agree with the principle of this legislation, along with the vast majority of small businesses within the ACT. The first question that we need to look at and that many people have asked is whether this legislation is needed. The existing occupational health and safety legislation already covers the area. There are requirements for an employer to provide a safe workplace for employees. If an employer fails to abide by these regulations the current laws have stiff penalties. There are also common law rights that require an employer to pay due care to the welfare of employees. There are also rights within many regulations relating to specific trades.
Mr De Domenico: Insurance companies also require them before they insure for workers compensation.
MR STEVENSON: Mr De Domenico mentions that insurance companies also have certain requirements prior to their insuring employees. All these things are true. The question arises: Where is the need for the legislation? In the ACT small businesses are service oriented. This is something that should be remembered. Many are family businesses. There are very few industrial workplaces, and this raises important questions. Who called for the idea that businesses of between 10 and 20 employees should be required to conform with the proposals in this legislation? Where was the call in the community? What problem is it trying to solve and where is the evidence of that problem? Where is the evidence, the facts and figures, and the detailed explanation of what they mean? If you say that there are fewer accidents, should you not also look at the fact that there are fewer people being employed? Why are there fewer people being employed? In the Canberra Times on 4 October 1992 there was an article by Mike Bannon. It was titled "No incentive for employers to create jobs". I quote:
With the recent introduction of the Dawkins-inspired schemes such as the Training Guarantee Charge and the Superannuation Guarantee Charge, the crippling imposts of payroll tax and workers compensation and having to comply with a myriad of industrial-relations laws, very few employers have the desire to take on new staff. This non-exhaustive list of disincentives to employ is simply too great to overcome for many small-business people.
We all know this. Governments cannot create productive work. What they can create and what they should create is an environment where the creators of work, the small business sector, the private sector, have a chance to hire people. This legislation will work against employment in the ACT. What we need to look at - - -
Mr Berry: Rubbish! You do not know what you are talking about, Dennis.
MR STEVENSON: Mr Berry said that I do not know what I am talking about. Perhaps I could ask Mr Berry and any of the other members who support this legislation, through you, Madam Speaker, how many small businesses they have run. Is that not a valid question?
Mrs Grassby: How many have you run?
MR STEVENSON: Over half-a-dozen. I suggest that working within a community based area may not be the same thing. How much red tape and how many extra administrative requirements will there be? How much extra time will be taken up not just by the owner but also by the employees?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .