Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3919 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

Under our Bill, the Minister may terminate the general manager's contract in circumstances specified in the contract, but not on the grounds of personal incompatibility, and must table a notice of termination in the Assembly within three sitting days of issuing the notice to the general manager. Under Mr Berry's Bill, if the Executive suspends the commissioner, Assembly approval is required for the removal of the commissioner. I think it is quite clear, when you look at it in this format, that what Mr Berry is arranging is somewhat ad hoc. He has simply got it wrong.

When business plans are put together - and some people seem to be upset by the term "business" - they are not solely financial. They must display the activities and the priorities of the organisation for the year ahead. They must enhance the transparency of the authority by openly displaying the coming year's activities and costs. Ms Tucker spoke about clause 16, which provides for the collection of payments by the authority. This enables the authority to collect the levies already charged under various pieces of existing legislation, for example, the Dangerous Goods Act or the Occupational Health and Safety Act. There is nothing sinister there. They are functions that are already carried out.

The crux of all this, as you can see from the comparisons I have made, is an independent statutory authority. Independent statutory authorities are normally set up under their own Act. They have their own Act to ensure their independence. They are not inserted in an ad hoc arrangement inside another piece of legislation. The real issue is how a single officer is able to be independent when he or she has no organisation to administer, they are beholden to the department for resources to carry out their functions and they have to continually enter into negotiations with the department for the staff and facilities to do the job that they should do. It should not be like that.

The coroner has said that it should be at arms length, and our model clearly provides for that. Mr Berry, in jumping the gun and getting his Bill out early, got it wrong. No amount of gloss or floss from Mr Berry can change the fact that his Bill does not create an independent statutory authority. He can assert that as much as he likes, but it is not the case. What we have put together does that. The comparison between the two Bills shows that.

What we are debating today is the WorkCover Authority Bill, which is a comprehensive piece of legislation developed by the Government to ensure the independence of the Territory's key workplace safety regulator. I think there are three essential cornerstones in our Bill. Firstly, we have the framework. This Bill ensures that the regulatory functions associated with the various pieces of legislation to be administered by the authority can be conducted with independence. They are independent of the department and independent of the Minister. This is achieved by providing for the appointment of suitably qualified and independent directors to oversight the authority's operation. They have the power necessary to direct the operation of the authority without fear or favour.

Secondly, the individual staff of the authority charged with the various day-to-day responsibilities of administering WorkCover legislation will do so independently because they work within the management framework established by the authority, not

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .