Page 2637 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
also mentioned very low margins. Let me tell Mr Lamont that businesses, including some that I know of and am associated with, are selling today at 1988 prices - not because they want to, but because they have to. The economic situation is such that the buying power of the general public, as well as that of business, has been so eroded that people simply will not pay, or cannot pay, 1992 prices. That not only goes for business that I am associated with but is the situation generally.
You only have to read the financial pages. Large retail companies such as Coles Myer all complain about the erosion of the margins that they have to work on. Whilst competition will always work to make the margins as low as possible, there is no way that by bringing in this legislation you will increase the opportunity for business. You will send some businesses employing 10 or more people down the drain or cause them to shed employees. I speak from personal experience. I began in 1968 with four employees, but before that I had run other business, not my own, that employed more people. I can assure you that if you can spread the cost over only four people you have to watch every single penny.
This measure is simply government interference at its worst. The Government should be trying to create the climate that provides jobs. There is only one way to provide employment, and that is to create the business climate that is conducive to growth in the work force. Until an economically viable situation exists, no prudent employer can hire people on the off-chance that the economy as a whole will improve. The Occupational Health and Safety (Amendment) Bill is a disincentive to small business. I am not speaking selfishly, because I am one of the businesses with 20-plus employees and I can assure members on this side and the opposite side that the legislation has added to costs.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we do not need this legislation, for other reasons. Any well-meaning employer will take his own actions. We had safety measures in place long before the 20-person provision came into being. In fact, we won the Insurance Council national award for providing the safest workplace. We have not had a single accident in our business since we started, in one of the industries most vulnerable to these types of accidents.
Mr Lamont: And what were your insurance premiums, Mr Westende?
MR WESTENDE: Our insurance premiums were always the lowest for the particular type of business that we are engaged in. But may I add that my oncosts - workers compensation and so on - are among the highest. It is the oncost that kills business. If you people want to create employment, let me warn you that by imposing another oncost - we are not talking about wages; we are talking about oncosts - you will create further unemployment instead of creating employment.
Mr Lamont: Lou, you should be over on our side. You are supporting us.
MR WESTENDE: No. I am telling you what you should do. You should forget about this legislation. It is as simple as that. To assume that this legislation will prevent all accidents is a delusion. Even though we have not had an accident, there will always be the human factor of imperfection. You can create the safest place on earth and people will still be hurt. They can still trip over, walk into things, or be momentarily distracted for all sorts of reasons. Our time in this debate should not be taken up by talking about this Bill; it should be taken up by trying to create a climate for business growth.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .