Page 2249 - Week 11 - Tuesday, 31 October 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Whalan: Temporarily.
MR BERRY: With the sunset clause.
Mr Whalan: The temporary sunset clause.
MR BERRY: No. I think the amendment must be supported.
MR COLLAERY (8.51): The Rally agrees with the thrust of most of the arguments put forward to have proposed section 38A brought into law so that all building and construction sites have a statutory duty of care applied to them. But the fact is that the wording of the legislation, where it says '"construction site" means a workplace at which building and construction work is, or is to be, performed', is awkward. If it was meant to cover all building, as it clearly does in law, as Mr Stefaniak says, it should have said on its face what its effect was. It should really have said "building and construction site" and we would all have been clear. Hopefully, in due course the legislation will be tidied up and consequential amendments will be made to put in the words "building and" to make it clear, because to most of us in the ordinary usage of the language "construction site" means a building site, an intensive building site where construction takes place. To go across to the Long Service Leave (Building and Construction Industry) Act, the definition can involve an addition to a home, a one-bedroom addition to a home, and on the day five contractors could turn up with their apprentices and two workers.
Mr Duby: It seems to be a place where construction workers are working. Fancy that!
MR COLLAERY: Yes. So really the Rally does not object to the notion that the statutory duty of care should apply at all workplaces. We support the amendment, but we do point out that the draftsman's wording is, on the face of it, awkward. It seems to suggest the sort of twist that Mr Kaine saw in it, which was presented to me, too. That is, by using the term "construction site" and going back to a definition, you are roping in domestic working arrangements and minor repair jobs if X number of people happen to turn up. I say that, if and when we reduce the size of the clause 36 required number down to zero - hopefully when there is industrial harmony and it is clearly going to work - or down to 10 or 11, this will become very relevant to the smaller jobs.
Proposed section 38A embraces that. So, Mr Speaker, we support the amendment but we do draw attention to those wording anomalies and to the long-term effect of the provision, which will be to extend the statutory duty of care. This is far better and far safer than the common law duty of care to sites. Both employers and employees will know where they are. Someone said that the Rally wants two bob each way. I think those are very mealy-mouthed
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .