Page 2642 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Not one business person came forward to me in the course of the election campaign, when this was clearly part of our agenda. I ask you: If there were businesses concerned about this legislation, would they not have come forward and screeched about it? Not even the Liberal Party were concerned about it in the election campaign; they did not screech about the legislation then. One would have expected that they would support an extension of safer workplaces to smaller employers. Slick business men and women know that, when you have a reduction in accidents, businesses are more profitable. Mrs Carnell is prepared to sack her workers so that she does not have to have a safer workplace - - -
Mrs Carnell: I have only six employees.
MR BERRY: But she said yesterday that she would be prepared to sack them. She made it clear.
Mrs Carnell: I said that I would be prepared to rationalise my staff to keep the business going.
MR BERRY: That means sacking them, getting rid of them.
Mrs Carnell: Quite honestly, if you do not do it - - -
MR BERRY: You ought to blush. The cost to employers is minimal. Another Liberal jumped up and complained about the cost to him. He was in the plus-20 range, and we know that he can claim it under the training guarantee levy. Another Liberal tells us something that is not quite accurate. Where do you people get off? Nobody is fooled by this sort of rhetoric. People understand that this sort of legislation is progressive. It will bring better conditions to workers and to employers and it will be more profitable. There will be fewer people with serious injuries.
Let us look at some of the injuries. How would you like to have these things happen in your business? "Bookbinding and stationery manufacturer - cut off tip of right index finger". That could be a small employer. "Courier - crushed fingers". That could be a small employer. "Retail clothing - seven and a half centimetre head wound". That could be a small employer. "Food outlet - amputation of top middle finger on right hand". That could be a small employer. "Milk deliveries - severed tendons in right hand, wrist and minor cuts"; "Baking - back strain". The list goes on. In the timber industry, and this happened well back, somebody cut off his right foot. These are horrifying statistics, and any government that has in mind the interests of the people and the workers of the ACT, as well as the profitability of business, would err in its duty to the people of the ACT if it did not proceed to make the sorts of improvements that are necessary to expand not only business but also worker safety in the ACT.
I interjected with some emotion, Madam Speaker - I lost control for a moment - and said, "They said, 'We'll all be rooned when we take the kids out of the pits'.". That is the same old echo we hear from over there every time something improves for workers in the workplace. They ignore the benefits to employers. Every time something happens in the workplace which is of benefit to workers - that is, workers are empowered, along with management, to jointly look after their workplaces - these people bleat. They are terrified, for some reason - Mrs Carnell is terrified, for some reason - that a union official will walk up to the front door. He might want to inspect your wages book and make sure that you are paying your wages in accordance with the relevant award. I would not have any problem with that if I were an honest business person.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .