Page 2636 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mrs Carnell: How do you know? Why don't you go and ask the employers?
MR LAMONT: You are not going to stand here and tell me that Red Hill pharmacy is going to go out the door backwards because it has to pay $450 in a year for an industry-recognised training program. If that is how borderline your business is, Mrs Carnell, then I suggest to you that it is absolutely critical that we get somebody in there to check your occupational health and safety. It is also a matter of public record that the level of compliance diminishes as employers become closer to the margin, if you like. It is not acceptable for businesses coming close to the margin, as yours obviously is because it cannot afford the $450, to put its workers at risk. We are not prepared to let that happen. We are not prepared to pander to some very small sectional interest groups. (Extension of time granted)
This legislation proposes that the number required for the establishment of a designated work group and the election of a safety representative be reduced to 10. When the number was established at 20 the business community argued that it was inappropriate. They said that there would be no discernible reduction in the level of accidents; that there would be no discernible reduction in the level of compensation premiums payable. That has not been the case, Mr Deputy Speaker. In fact, premiums payable by employers in that category in the main have dropped, and what in fact has happened - - -
Mrs Carnell: And employers in all categories.
Mr De Domenico: In all categories - across the board.
MR LAMONT: I suggest to you that that has happened because there has been a lesser impost across the board because of fewer accidents where there are more than 20 employees. The number of accidents has dropped. That is absolutely irrefutable. The continual carping in the background from Bib and Bub not only will do them a disservice but, on the public record, also will show the people of Canberra where their vested personal interest lies.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (4.35): Mr Deputy Speaker, I nominate Mr Lamont as the workplace delegate for the 17-member work group of the Legislative Assembly. If elected, he can take one of those training courses - and I hope that the training course is a long one.
MR WESTENDE (4.35): I rise to speak on this matter with nearly 40 years' experience in employing people. It utterly amazes me that this Government can be extraordinarily defensive about what it claims to be doing for the unemployed and for the unemployment situation, yet the legislation that this Government has brought forward for consideration by the Assembly will do nothing to improve the employment situation or the local economic environment. The Occupational Health and Safety (Amendment) Bill 1992 is a case in point. In fact, if anything, this Bill works against employment. I have recently been overseas. All the overseas economies talk about the major problem being not wages but add-on cost to wages. Here we have another add-on cost to wages.
As I said, I have considerable experience as an employer. Mr Lamont and his colleagues opposite say that what you can apply to a company with 20 people you can equally apply to a company with 10 people. That is utter rubbish. If you have a certain expenditure, you can divide it by 20 much better than you can divide it by 10. If you divide it by 10, your individual cost goes up. Mr Lamont
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .