Page 1439 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 26 September 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Let me go back and give you an example. Members of the committee - and I was not with them on this occasion - travelled out to one of the fine clubs in our town to see the occupational safety measures which it had implemented. I think it is fair to say that members were impressed with what they saw. I think the greatest problem was cuts through broken glasses. But we overlooked a basic factor. You walk into that club or any club or many other premises in the ACT and you are overcome with smoke.
Mr Moore: That is taken care of by the duty of care.
MR WOOD: Well, is it? Do we simply leave it to that? This matter was highlighted in Australia not so long ago when a Melbourne bus driver was awarded compensation because he claimed he contracted cancer in his employment. He claimed that his exposure to smoke during his career had caused the cancer, though this was not ultimately proved in court. Nevertheless, the publicity over that case has made it clear that there will be many similar cases. What is not as well known is that there are quite a number of cases across Australia where employees have successfully claimed compensation. They have not all gone through the court system that the bus driver went through.
Let me just refer you to a few of them. In October 1985 in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal a defence services employee allergic to tobacco smoke was able to claim upwards of $19,000. In the Comcare Appeals Tribunal another defence employee with allergic reactions received compensation of $50,000, plus $10,000 a year. In the compensation court of New South Wales in September 1986 an Ansett employee sued because of exposure in a telephone switchroom and received $20,000 compensation. There is no small number of cases of that nature. So I hope that employees, the ACT Government, and this Assembly take note of that problem. It is not the financial outcome that is the most important consideration. We have a prime duty to attend to the health of the people, of every person in this community.
The Federal Government a little time ago took the lead and prohibited smoking in its buildings, and the ACT has followed suit and smoking is not permitted here on government premises. But we have not in clear terms expressed that view to protect all employees. Let me quote - and this is particularly relevant to the report that I was part of bringing down and to the Bill that we are still waiting to see - from a report by the American Surgeon-General on smoking in the workplace. In 1985 his report concluded that "for most workers cigarette smoking presents greater risk of death and disability than their workplace environment". So the hazards to people at work are less than the hazard of smoking, according to the American Surgeon-General. That is something we must take note of.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .