Page 2644 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 14 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
formation of designated work groups in a workplace with 20 employees has been in place since the introduction of this legislation in 1989. After three years, I feel that we can wait a further eight months to allow the small business sector to adjust to this change and organise its affairs to embrace it.
I have spoken during the in-principle debate about the problems employers perceive in the level being set at 10 employees rather than 10 full-time equivalent positions. In the industries most affected by the amendment proposed by the Government - the building and construction, retail and hospitality industries - there is a high proportion of casual and on-demand staff who work part time or full time at peak periods. These staff also take an interest in their workplace safety and can contribute positively to the constructive implementation of designated work groups. Many, particularly in the hospitality industry, use part-time work as a springboard into their chosen career, combining study and work. They deserve the same consideration under this legislation as do other employees, particularly in industries where professionalism and expertise is expected from the staff, despite their temporary or part-time status.
I have outlined the fact that the most prevalent injuries in these occupations are overexertion and strain, tripping over, and injuries caused by being hit by objects or bumping into objects and fixtures. These accidents happen to workers, whether full-time, part-time, casual or itinerant. After all, an employee's pay or wage status has no impact on his or her susceptibility to injury. As a current employer of two staff and a former employer of a large and more varied work force, I can personally attest to the impact on employers of the occupational health and safety legislation introduced in 1989. In my former workplace, the Weston Creek Community Service, which I referred to yesterday, there were not only paid full-time and part-time workers to be mindful of but also casual staff and volunteers, who gave their time to assist with the running of programs and the provision of services to the community.
Another issue that must be considered from the point of view of my own experience is the difference between a system that relies on inspectors for implementing the regulations and one that relies on employee-based designated work groups. Without doubt, for employers who care about the welfare of their employees the designated work group that empowers the workers to have input into their workplace safety is far superior to any system that relies on outside officers to come in and assess working conditions. There is no State or Territory budget in Australia that can afford to keep on staff the number of inspectors it would take to ensure that all workplaces in their jurisdictions are inspected, made to comply with regulations, and visited on a regular, effective basis.
Who knows better what is and what is not safe in their workplace than the employees who work there? Once those employees have been given access to appropriate training courses to help them identify occupational health and safety issues and mechanisms to raise these issues with their employer to resolve any difficulties, they actually make everyone's job easier, including the employer's.
Madam Speaker, given my enthusiastic endorsement of the designated workplace group structure, members may well ask: Why delay the introduction of the Government's amendment Bill? While I support the change, I return to my earlier remarks about giving small businesses time to consider the effect of the legislation. I commend the amendment to the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .