Page 2247 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 31 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
work group. For Mr Kaine to suggest that there could be plumbers, drainers, electrical people, et cetera, working at his property and therefore this requires that it be defined as a construction site and DWGs be formed simply is not the case. That only applies, Mr Kaine, if there are more than 20 people involved on the job, and that is the truth of the matter.
Mr Stevenson: Full-time or part-time?
MR DUBY: Well, it is really immaterial to me whether they are full-time or part-time. If I have got 20 workmen crawling around a place, to me it is a dangerous site. It does not matter whether it is my backyard or yours. Nevertheless, if the job entails that many workers being present on a site, clearly it is a major job. Do not forget, Mr Speaker, that we extended the definition of a work group from 10 persons to 20 persons. We can have the ludicrous situation, as the Minister pointed out, of construction sites where you could have a series of subcontractors each with 10, 12, 15 or even 18 employees working on the site and yet there would be no - - -
MR SPEAKER: Order! Would the members on my right please hold the level of their discussion down. I can hardly hear the member speaking. Please proceed, Mr Duby.
MR DUBY: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I know you want to hear what I am saying because it is a tremendously interesting point.
Mrs Grassby: And important.
MR DUBY: And important, what is more; yes, how true. So what we have got is the situation where it is quite possible that you could have five or six employers each employing 15 workmen under the amendments that we have made to this Act; we would have 75 to 80 people working on the site, but no requirement to bring in DWGs. Now, I think that situation is clearly ridiculous. The argument that seems to be raised, and I think Mr Stefaniak has said it, is that the Liberal Party does not oppose that concept. They accept that that is clearly out of the question - beyond the pale - and they are happy with that. They are worried about single sites where a number of employees come in and perform work, but because the number of employees then rises above 20, but in dribs and drabs of six or seven or lots of three or four each, they are concerned that this would be an undue imposition on the principal contractor for the extensions or whatever work is being done on someone's private home.
I do not accept that argument. If you have got a job that requires that many workmen - more than 20, as we have now determined - to perform particular jobs, it is clearly a place where occupational health and safety should be taken into consideration. Accordingly, I support the amendment and I fail to understand the logic behind those who oppose it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .