Page 2214 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 31 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
it; he had his foot crimped off. He was there for hours. It was an horrific accident. Part of the case will be that he could not read the sign. I think international companies like that, knowing the way machinery is used, could well afford to add a $10 or $20 label in multi-languages to equipment. We support the retention of the words "in appropriate languages".
MR MOORE (3.52): I am extremely disappointed at what I perceive to be a sudden turn. The recommendation of the committee was quite clear. We were given a paper by the Government last week that indicated that the Government would agree, and I quote from it, "as it is believed that the duty of care will adequately cover this requirement". I believe it is true that a duty of care will just as certainly apply. The anecdotal evidence that Mr Collaery gave is horrifying but is very relevant. I do not believe that this requirement - in appropriate languages - will change that situation. I believe that sort of situation will still exist. Unfortunately, by leaving "in appropriate languages" in the legislation, it draws the matter to the attention of the employer so that the employer can think, "This is an extra burden that I'm going to have to deal with. Therefore, I won't employ a certain person because of the language he speaks".
Employers may, in fact, employ somebody who has English as his second language. They may employ somebody who speaks Greek, for example. They may next employ somebody who speaks French as his first language. Then somebody may come along who speaks an Asian language. At what point will they say, "Well, I'm going to have to provide these instructions in all these languages. I'm compelled to provide these instructions in all these languages. How am I going to do that?".
The committee spent a great deal of time determining how we could put that responsibility back on the Government in order to provide the sort of assistance that a business person might have. One example we came up with was that the occupational health and safety group would be the focus for an employer to bring a document - a training manual, or something like that - for translation. The employer would not have to go out and find the time and make the effort to seek to make a translation into Mongolian. It would be up to the occupational health and safety group to get that translation through the embassies or somewhere like that.
We went right through that procedure. We spent a tremendous amount of time discussing this point. I made that point in the in principle stage of the debate. I emphasised the sort of balance that the committee had tried to find in removing this. After a great deal of discussion - I see Mr Wood is not here, but he was part and parcel of that discussion - the result was that on balance we would do a disservice to those people who have English as a second language if we were to retain this phrase.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .