Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 4 Hansard (16 April) . . Page.. 899 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
The question of regulation, legislative review and the competitive neutrality provisions of the competition principles agreement was also of concern to the committee. We recommended that there be much greater public input when implementing competitive neutrality principles, restructuring public monopolies and reviewing legislation for any competitive effects. The Federal Government has an independent body which looks at this review of legislation, and we have recommended something similar in our report. I think it is one of the very important recommendations of this report. I certainly hope that it is received favourably by the Government. (Extension of time granted)
I would like also to mention the last recommendation which Mr Kaine mentioned - intergovernmental agreements and input from the Assembly. I think it is obviously important, particularly with a minority government, that we have a much greater ability to have input into these sorts of agreements. That is not just about minority governments; that is about supporting the people who conduct negotiations on our behalf for the ACT. I heard from Ms Follett that there had been some quite inappropriate processes in the past that all Chief Ministers and heads of state were subjected to by the Federal Government. I would say that it is probably time that States and Territories got together on that and said, "This process is not appropriate. We want to have a more considered process when we are having to make these very significant decisions".
In conclusion, I repeat that I hope that the Government looks at this report carefully and does support the recommendations, because it was a unanimous report. What we are asking for is nothing more than reasonable.
Debate (on motion by Mr De Domenico) adjourned.
Debate resumed from 17 October 1995, on motion by Mr De Domenico:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR SPEAKER: Is it the wish of the Assembly to debate this order of the day concurrently with the Workers' Compensation (Amendment) Bill (No. 2) 1995? There being no objection, that course will be followed. I remind members that, in debating order of the day No. 1, they may also address their remarks to order of the day No. 2.
MR BERRY (11.13): Mr Speaker, this Bill has its origins in a private members Bill that was introduced into this chamber and is mentioned at page 495 of the notice paper. It proposed to set up the Workers' Compensation and Occupational Rehabilitation Council. The original purpose was to give some legislative backing to an advisory body that would advise the Minister in respect of workers compensation amendments. The reason behind that was that a conservative government had been elected in the ACT, and there were some concerns in the work force about the way that this Government would deal with workers compensation. It was Labor's view that we needed to stiffen up the advisory arrangements to ensure that they had some sort of legislative backing, which had not previously been the case.