Page 2691 - Week 10 - Thursday, 15 October 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR BERRY: If they gain coverage under an award, they would be able to achieve that conciliated or arbitrated aim. It is a nonsense to suggest that this is an alternative to what the Government has proposed. What Mr De Domenico has set out to do is to gut the legislation and make it entirely unworkable, to ensure that none of those twelve-and-a-half per cent of the work force who are intended to be given these extra conditions will actually ever receive them. This is the aim of Mr De Domenico's amendments, and therefore the Government will be opposing them.
Question put:
That the amendment (Mr De Domenico's) be agreed to.
The Assembly voted -
AYES, 6 NOES, 8
Mrs Carnell Mr Berry
Mr Cornwell Mr Connolly
Mr De Domenico Ms Ellis
Mr Kaine Ms Follett
Mr Stevenson Mr Lamont
Mr Westende Ms McRae
Ms Szuty
Mr Wood
Question so resolved in the negative.
MR STEVENSON (3.31): I move:
Page 2, definition of "employee", line 19, omit the definition, substitute the following definition:
"'employee' means a person who is employed under a contract of service or apprenticeship on a full-time or part-time basis for an employing organisation or entity which employs not less than one hundred persons.".
I mentioned in the in-principle debate that this legislation could place hardship on businesses, mainly small businesses. Obviously, a larger business has far more capacity to reinstate someone or, with a larger number of employees, to have someone come and go without the same sort of problem. A three-person business, say, would have great difficulty. It would also be more difficult to find a person with the particular skills or abilities needed. It is quite often the case that in smaller businesses a wider ability is needed; people in larger businesses may be able to specialise more readily.
I have moved the amendment to provide a situation similar to what we have with occupational health and safety, where we acknowledge that there are situations where it is impractical to require all businesses to fulfil a particular requirement. It is reasonable to acknowledge that as a principle. Then it gets down to the cut-off point for the number of employees in a business. I have suggested in my amendment 100 people. If this Bill is going to go through, businesses with 100 or more staff would be far more able to support this sort of legislation. I seek the support of other members for the amendment.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .