Page 3318 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 12 October 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I would like now to take up some of the issues that Mrs Carnell mentioned in her speech. I do not want to appear churlish, because that is not my intention; but there seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding about the obligations of employers industrially in terms of workplace safety. If a small business becomes less viable as a result of an important workplace safety initiative, then that is as it has to be, because there is no excuse. Even before occupational health and safety legislation was introduced into this chamber it was never accepted that a safety hazard in the workplace should be allowed to persist, because it could always be fixed, as can tobacco smoke in the workplace. I think it is the wrong path to pursue if you argue that the viability of small business is the most important thing on this very important matter.
We have a couple of hundred years of tobacco consumption behind us, and things are not going to change overnight. But, if there were, say, tomorrow a case that went against an employer and significant damages awarded, then it would change overnight. It would change overnight, with fairly dramatic effects. Employers really have to start doing something about it now, because it is well recognised that there are hazards, even if it costs them to do so, even if the viability, to one extent or another, of their small businesses has to be adjusted. There is no excuse for an unsafe workplace, not even when it comes to the profitability of an enterprise.
Mrs Carnell: A phase-in period cannot hurt.
MR BERRY: Mrs Carnell says that a phase-in period cannot hurt. The reason that we have chosen that path is that we do not want to use shock treatment, but employers have to understand that if something goes wrong in the intervening period it will change overnight, and the effect will be dramatic. As Mr De Domenico knows, the insurance industry will require, overnight, much higher premiums than had hitherto been the case, and it will be like the back of an axe; it will be so blunt. Employers will be forced to do something about it. I do not think there is a clear understanding about that likelihood out there in the business society. Certainly a good many business men and women know and understand the problem, and many of them are doing something about it. I think we have to be perfectly clear on that particular issue; that employers, right now, have an obligation to their employees to provide a safe workplace under the existing occupational health and safety legislation. What we are doing on the occupational health and safety side is showing them the way to provide it. We will be grateful if they provide it before we get to that. In relation to the community generally, we are dealing with it in another way - by way of legislation to deal with enclosed public places. I thank members opposite for their in-principle support for the approach that the Government has taken.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .