Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (24 May) . . Page.. 1747 ..
Debate resumed from 29 March 2000, on motion by Mr Berry:
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 Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Bill 2000 (No 2)? There being no objection, that course will be followed. I remind members that in debating order of the day No 2 they may also address their remarks to executive business order of the day No 1.
MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (9.45): Mr Speaker, on 7 December last year the Assembly considered two quite different approaches to giving effect to the recommendation of the coroner in his report into the death of Katie Bender that the WorkCover organisation be constituted as a statutory authority.
The government brought to the table a comprehensive approach. It was a bill for a statutory authority, a clearly defined organisation with all the powers and accountabilities necessary to enable the general manager and staff to get on with the work of making sure that the territory had safe workplaces. It fully met the coroner's recommendation on the structure for WorkCover. Employing staff and paying bills were all fully covered in our approach. Both the Financial Management Act and the Public Sector Management Act were included and applied.
Mr Berry came to the Assembly with a more simple concept-to create a single statutory position of commissioner under the Occupational Health and Safety Act with the commissioner to negotiate with a chief executive for resources to carry out the functions.
Mr Speaker, the government appreciates that the Assembly in passing Mr Berry's bill was attracted to an apparently uncomplicated approach which promised to give the commissioner independence in the daily delivery of this important regulatory function. We all know how important independence in this function is: the coroner made that clear. Mr Tom Sherman focused on it in his report. The need for real independence is beyond doubt.
As my department has sought to implement the legislation, serious problems have emerged with this approach in terms of achieving the independence for the commissioner that the Assembly expressly desired. Why? It is because the commissioner has no powers to engage and manage staff or to transact financial matters. The commissioner is completely reliant on a chief executive to provide all these resources. This does not separate the commissioner from departmental control, which was a key issue in the coroner's findings and report.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .