Page 1985 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 24 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
legislation. The Chief Minister has spoken to the more general proposals which go to the matters outside the specific Bill. For my part, I will confine my remarks to the specific Bill.
In that regard the Government firmly opposes two of the proposed amendments to the Bill. The first of these is the removal of any reference to "involved unions" and, secondly, the change in the minimum number in a designated work group. We also believe that removal of the requirement to provide instructions to employees in appropriate languages is unfortunate, but we accept that the employers in reality will still have to provide such instructions so as to fulfil their duty of care to employees whose first language is not English.
We would also foreshadow an amendment that was raised before the select committee but was not mentioned in the final report, and this is the inclusion of an option to allow single designated work groups to be formed on large building and construction sites. We believe that this concept has the support of the industrial parties in the building industry and was left out of the Bill inadvertently.
The Government totally rejects the other proposed amendments. The removal of any reference to "involved unions" would place the ACT in the company of Queensland, of all places, and who wants an election this year? Queensland is the only jurisdiction not to recognise a role for unions in its occupational health and safety legislation.
The legislation as originally proposed by the Government would simply recognise industrial reality and require employers with employees who are members of unions to consult those unions before making any final decision. It does not require them to reach agreement with the unions, which I might say is required in New South Wales and Victoria, but it does require them to consult.
It must be remembered that employment in the ACT is governed by the Federal industrial relations Act which specifically recognises a role for unions in representing their members in a range of matters, including specifically occupational health and safety matters. If the ACT legislation does not recognise such a role, we may well be handing responsibility in this area to a third party, the Federal Industrial Relations Commission, which has already indicated on several occasions its interest in dealing with disputes over occupational health and safety. In one particular industry, the vehicle industry, the Industrial Relations Commission handed down an award overriding the occupational health and safety legislation of four States.
Furthermore, to refuse to recognise the role of unions will mean that, to play their proper role of protecting their members, they will have to operate outside the occupational
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .