Page 212 - Week 02 - Thursday, 25 May 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
legislation or by being gazetted. Gazettal of a code under the new legislation will mean that employers are obliged either to follow its provisions or to adopt something of equal or better efficacy than the code set.
There has been ill-informed criticism of this legislation that it somehow gives an undue role to trade unions. The ACT Labor Government makes no apology for insisting that there is an appropriate role for trade unions to play in improving the ACT's occupational health and safety performance. Trade unions provide a vital communication channel and resource regarding the identification and arrangement of workplace hazards.
In fact, there has been a significant change in the trade union movement's approach to occupational health and safety. Formerly, trade unions have limited their activities to criticising employers for their inadequacies and defending their members at risk by adversarial proceedings. In some cases they were driven to industrial action to protect their members.
From the time of the accord, the trade union movement has shown its willingness to join with employers and government to ensure an effective strategy with an emphasis on prevention of occupational accident and disease. I am certain that the trade union movement in the ACT will act with similar responsibility.
The legislation, however, requires only that employers consult with those unions which have existing membership among their work forces. The right of employers to manage their own affairs is not infringed by this legislation.
I must say that I find employer criticism of the Labor Government's commitment to effective occupational health and safety legislation inexplicable. The same employer groups have continually lobbied to have workers compensation premiums in the ACT reduced. More effective preventive measures will obviously be a significant step in winding back the costs which are limiting the competitiveness of ACT businesses.
Despite the protracted consultation process that this legislation has gone through, there remains some concern that still further opportunity should be given for co-ordination of this legislation.
I believe that this is a comprehensive and fair piece of legislation, which takes account of the range of views and concerns expressed by the parties. However, to ensure the widest possible support to this most significant piece of legislation, I propose to this Assembly that it be referred to a select committee for consideration and report. I now present the explanatory memorandum to the Bill.
Debate (on motion by Mr Stefaniak) adjourned.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .