Page 3294 - Week 12 - Thursday, 19 November 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
a 7 per cent surcharge to cover for the fund. That surcharge was taken away in 1986, thus reducing workers compensation premiums. When I listen to Mr Berry talk about occupational health and safety legislation being the major reason why workers compensation premiums go down in this town, I sit back and chuckle, to say the least.
This Bill purely and simply means, in terms of paying for the management of that fund, that, instead of the money going out of the ACT revenue per se, the fund itself now has so much money in it that the money to pay for the manager should quite rightly come out of that fund. Might I also say in supporting the Bill, except for the amendment which I propose to move later on, that due accolade should be given to the way the fund is managed by Mr Jim Collier, who has been in the workers compensation area for the ACT Government for quite a time. As some members would realise, I had something to do with the insurance industry in this city for a number of years. The Liberal Party, as I said, will not be opposing the Bill, but we will be moving an amendment to clause 5 later on.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health, Minister for Industrial Relations and Minister for Sport) (4.12), in reply: This Bill is not something of great moment in the scheme of things in the ACT. It tidies up a machinery matter to ensure that the fund can be called upon to pay for services which are provided in government. I understand that Mr De Domenico is going to move an amendment in relation to the matter. Have you done that?
Mr De Domenico: I have given notice. It has been circulated.
MR BERRY: I will have a look at the amendment. I understand that he wants to rule out the provision for retrospectivity which appears in clause 5 of the Bill. The Government will be opposing that. I will refer to that a little later on. The Bill is principally a machinery matter which tidies up a whole range of issues in the Act, including sexist language. In particular, it provides the ability to call on the fund to pay for services which might be provided to it by the Government. I will deal with the amendment when it turns up, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail Stage
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole
MR DE DOMENICO (4.15): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move:
Clause 5, page 2, line 16, omit "1991", substitute "1993".
The amendment purely and simply removes the retrospectivity aspect of this Bill. I so move for a number of reasons. Even the Scrutiny of Bills Committee commented on this. I quote:
It is suggested that a relevant question under the Committee's Terms of Reference is whether the retrospective operation of the Bill would prejudicially affect the rights of any person.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .