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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (2 September) . . Page.. 2716 ..

Debate resumed from 19 June 1997, on motion by Mr Kaine:

That this Bill be agreed to in principle.

MR BERRY (Leader of the Opposition) (10.52): Mr Speaker, since this matter came before us last, I have had the opportunity to talk to a range of people. The Minister generously provided me with a briefing late yesterday afternoon. I was just traversing some advice from the Minister, which I expect is now in my office, which goes to some of the issues which I dealt with in respect of the exemptions. In dealing with this matter, I think I should also deal with some amendments to be moved by Mr Moore in the context of the proposed legislation.

I have been troubled somewhat by the exemptions clause. I was at first informed that the Occupational Health and Safety Council had approved of it. To see provisions within legislation which exempt the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act - for example, for an employer, a class of employers, an employee, a class of employees, a workplace or a class of workplaces - to me, is a very serious business. One can imagine that, in those circumstances, the entire Occupational Health and Safety Act might not apply in respect of that range of employers and employees.

I note that the legislation provides for a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 10 of the Subordinate Laws Act. Mr Moore, with his amendments, has addressed the issue of whether the disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 10 of the Subordinate Laws Act should apply to all of the proposed areas of exemption. I am inclined to agree with Mr Moore in respect of that, unless I hear some substantial evidence to the contrary from the Minister in response to these amendments once they are moved. I feel that, if there is to be an exemption, it is something that ought to be able to be pursued by this Assembly when it occurs. My difficulty is that, in some of these cases, the exemption might not hit the Assembly until after the event, if it is in relation to a particular event or the use of a particular piece of equipment or to exempt particular actions by employers or employees. So, I am troubled by the proposal to provide the disallowable instrument only in respect of those groups. At this point, I am inclined to support the move by Mr Moore.

Mr Moore raised another matter, in relation to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and I would like to hear an explanation of this issue as well. I will put a hypothetical to the Minister, which he may wish to respond to. The Minister receives an application for an exemption from this legislation, which has been passed by this Assembly and is law in the Territory. The Minister refuses to grant the exemption because he does not believe that it is appropriate, for a range of reasons. The matter ends up in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the decision of this Assembly to apply occupational health and safety laws to a workplace or that range of possible exemptions included in this Bill, or that refusal to give an exemption, is overturned by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

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