Page 2633 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR LAMONT: That is simply not the case. They said nothing about changing the training requirements that were provided for people covered by the Act. There may be an argument that the level of training which is required for an employee in a pharmacy at Red Hill is different from the style and scope of the training required to be provided for a person working, say, in the transport industry. Not one of the employer representatives on the Occupational Health and Safety Council raised one word about that supposed difference. They did not say that the level of training should be reduced, amended or altered so that there would not be as great a cost impost.
Mr De Domenico: What did all the employers say last week?
MR LAMONT: They have said nothing on the Occupational Health and Safety Council, the forum where these matters are usually discussed.
Mrs Carnell: They have said something. What did they say?
MR LAMONT: They have said nothing in relation to the level and type of training.
Mrs Carnell: What did they say?
MR LAMONT: They have said nothing. You on that side of the house can carp for as long as you want. They have said nothing. But let us go back to when this legislation was originally introduced into the house some three years ago, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Labor Party most certainly indicated at that time that it was its intention to reduce from 20 to 10 the number of employees required for the establishment of a designated work group. It was quite clear that that was the intention. Your former colleague, Mr Leader of the Opposition, one of your number who is no longer with you, Mr Collaery - - -
Mr De Domenico: Who? He was not one of us.
MR LAMONT: He certainly was.
Mr Kaine: He was not a member of the Liberal Party.
MR LAMONT: He was part of your Alliance Government. Even he, your own deputy, recognised that there would need to be a review.
Mr De Domenico: And you saw what happened to him. The same thing will happen to you. He was a oncer.
MR LAMONT: Do not talk about that. We do not want to have to tell you the next time how to count to get yourself up to No. 2 on the ticket, either. Let us get down to what this matter really addresses, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let us get down to what it really means. We have heard that there is not a real necessity for a reduction in the size of designated work groups because we do not really know what happens where employers have fewer than 20 employees.
Mrs Carnell: That is what Mr Berry said.
MR LAMONT: That is what you have said. You only have to reread Hansard. A concern that has been continually raised is that there is not proper compliance by employers with the requirement to notify injuries. Bib and Bub at the back over there were laughing and tittering yesterday, producing a list of accidents
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .