Page 2640 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
(d) any other occurrence involving imminent risk of -
... ... ...
(ii) death or serious personal injury to any person; or
(iii) substantial damage to property.
There are substantial penalties if employers are shown to have failed in their duty of care in relation to compulsory reporting. The only prosecution which has been successful under this legislation was, in fact, in relation to a dangerous occurrence. It is most important that we improve the reporting rate in order that we can encourage a safer workplace as a result of the examples exposed in reports. Of the 200 or so reports received by the OH and S Office in 1991-92, at least 53 have been clearly identified as coming from employers with fewer than 21 employees. This is of the order of 25 per cent of all reports. Of the dangerous occurrences recorded - - -
Mrs Carnell: How?
MR BERRY: People count them.
Mrs Carnell: But you said previously you did not know; you had no input.
MR BERRY: This is the most recent advice. Just sit there quietly and listen. Of the dangerous occurrences recorded, 28 per cent came from employers with fewer than 21 employees. That is indicting evidence.
Mrs Carnell: But you said at the meeting that you had no idea. Mr Berry said it. He said that he had no idea, at that public meeting.
MR BERRY: We are down the track a bit further than that. There are some other misleading things that I wish to point out to the Assembly which came up in the course of the debate. There was a most disgraceful effort yesterday by Mrs Carnell, with her pharmacist's hat on. She referred to a number of injuries, which were from the records of a single insurer.
Mrs Carnell: Who insures every pharmacy in the ACT except one.
MR BERRY: You did not tell us that yesterday either. She pointed to 30 injuries within pharmacies in the ACT, and she treated them all fairly lightly.
Mrs Carnell: No, I did not treat them very lightly at all. I said that I did not believe that the new legislation would stop any of them.
MR BERRY: Yes, you did, and I will point out shortly something else you did that you may wish to resile from. "Slipped on step leading from dispensary - paid to date, $2394". I suspect that that is a fairly serious injury. Would you not like a safer workplace? Mrs Carnell said that she would be prepared to sack workers in her pharmacy, sack some of her staff, to get herself to a level below that at which she would have to provide a safer workplace. That is the sort of person we are dealing with. The kind, caring presentation does not fool anybody. Beneath it all is a steely cold Liberal heart. That is what it is all about. She will sack workers to bring herself down under the level.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .