Page 2245 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 31 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Now that is absolutely absurd. If I am an electrician and I go to your house to put in an additional power outlet, by that definition I am working on a construction site. Your house becomes a construction site. By no stretch of the imagination could that be a reasonable interpretation of what is or is not a construction site. I am not suggesting that the Minister has any ulterior motives. I believe that what he is trying to do is to achieve a useful purpose. But the definition goes way beyond what he intends to achieve. I do not know what the consequences of that are.
Mr Duby: You need 20 people. If I had 20 plumbers at my house, that would be a construction site, I can tell you.
MR KAINE: I am not talking about 20 people or anything else. Mr Duby obviously does not listen very well, Mr Speaker. I am talking about the definition of a construction site. The Minister's proposed amendments to the Bill go on from there, but the basic point is that he is defining a construction site. As I just explained, a construction site by that definition includes my house if I have got an electrician putting in a power point, because an electrician is one of the workmen specified as performing construction work and where he works is, by this definition, a construction site. I do not believe the Minister intended that.
I had just said before I was interrupted that I do not know what the ramifications of that broad definition are. I have not gone into trying to determine what the possible ramifications are in the context of this Bill that we are considering. But I am saying that I do not believe the Minister intended the definition to go that far. All I am suggesting is, as Mr Stefaniak has already suggested, that he should go away, review his definition and see whether that is what he really meant. I suspect that it is not.
Perhaps if he reaches that conclusion he may care to consider it. It is his Bill, not mine. He may care to consider what are the undesirable and unwarranted ramifications of a definition that is that broad. I agree with Mr Stefaniak that, until that definition is clarified and until the Minister is clear about what the definition means, this Assembly should not support it. Members should reject it and say to the Minister, as I am suggesting, "Go away and rethink it. When you have thought it through, come back and we will listen to your argument".
MR MOORE (8.38): On behalf of myself I thought I would comment here. It seems to me that the Liberals are quite confused about what is going on. If, by the definition, we have a construction site and your home becomes a construction site for one worker, the duty of care applies. It should apply. There is no question about that. The occupational health and safety laws should apply.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .