Page 2009 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 24 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Kaine: He has left town.
MR BERRY: I know that Mr Duby will not have gone far; he will be listening to this debate right now. Only a matter of urgency would take him out of the Assembly, and I am sure that he is listening to this debate right now and taking in everything that I am saying, particularly my urgings in great faith that he will reconsider his position on the recommendations of the committee.
It is true that business employers and unions should work together to provide a safe workplace, but I would have to say that, if history is any measure of the provision of safety in the workplace by employers generally, it is likely that, if it were left to the employers in the future, we would be in exactly the same position that we are in now or worse.
There was some discussion by Mr Stefaniak that there should be some balance between the legitimate interests of employers and employees, and that is true. But the legitimate interests of the employees are often cast aside for efficiency and profits in any particular industry. We have to ensure that not only do the responsible employers have to provide a safe workplace for workers but that irresponsible ones have to provide it as well. That is what strong occupational health and safety legislation is about.
Designated work groups are, of course, an area in which the Liberals propose to narrow the cover of occupational health and safety legislation on workers. The report mentioned that, in cases where the numbers required for designated work groups were increased, there would be a significant reduction in the number of employees who would be covered. For every one employee who is added to the designated work group, there is a significant reduction in the cover of employees by occupational health and safety legislation. It is a matter of great shame that the Liberal Party would support such a wild extension of the numbers that would constitute a designated work group.
I must say that I am rather amused that the conservatives can still talk about outside interference, for heaven's sake, while referring to unions. Unions are a part of work in this country, and have been for a long time. I am puzzled and amused by the old-fashioned approach that the conservatives seem to take about unions being considered to be "outside interference". They are part of Australia and they are a very real part of the workplace. Of course, the great efforts of the conservatives have reduced the membership of unions in some respects, but I am quite confident that the unions will, as usual, rise to the occasion to protect their members when that is required.
One other matter that I would like to dwell on for just a moment is the comment by Mr Moore in relation to the involvement of unions. I should say that one of the very
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .