Page 2639 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 October 1992

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

It would be interesting to analyse who, in fact, has come off worse in terms of the effect of the recession we had to have. I am talking of illness or even suicide or indeed loss of personal property among the unemployed or those business people whose businesses have failed due to continued pressures of overregulation or taxation. When the risk taker or employer loses, it often loses everything. I urge members opposite to think twice before they vote in favour of this legislation.

MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (4.47), in reply: There are a few inaccuracies that I need to address at the outset, before dealing with some other important issues in this debate. Mention was made of the review of workers compensation premiums. I want to make it clear and put it on the record that that review was initiated by the first Follett Government. It showed that insurance companies were making huge excess profits at the expense of ACT business. According to the Insurance Council of Australia, there was a 20 per cent reduction following the report. In reality, average premiums have halved since then, with a total average reduction of 40 per cent. The 20 per cent is only a small part of the overall reduction. The insurance companies, as is well accepted, were also exploiting ACT employers and of course - - -

Mr De Domenico: That is rubbish. That is absolute garbage, absolute rubbish.

MR BERRY: Thank you very much for your comment. Therefore, the occupational health and safety legislation has been very successful.

There was some talk at one point about how many people were employed in the ACT. Since 1988 the private sector work force has increased by 20 per cent, and still we see plummeting rates of accidents because of the occupational health and safety legislation. The number of accidents reported by insurance companies is down by 20 per cent. There is reason to believe that businesses without DWGs are not reporting accidents to the OH and S Office, even though it is compulsory to do so. As has been explained, two amputations were discovered from solicitors' letters. There have been four deaths in the ACT over the last couple of years, and two of them were from the smaller side of business.

Mrs Carnell: In what areas?

MR BERRY: I am not going to go into the detail of those sorts of things. What is important is the requirements of the Act in relation to reporting. If a worker has an accident in the workplace and the worker is off duty for seven of more days, the accident has to be reported. If there is a dangerous occurrence in the workplace, that too has to be reported. "Dangerous occurrence" is set out in the regulations as follows:

(a) damage to any boiler, pressure vessel, plant, equipment or other thing which endangers or is likely to endanger the health or safety of persons at a workplace;

(b) damage to, or failure of, any load bearing member ...

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .