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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 9 Hansard (2 September) . . Page.. 2781 ..

Mr Moore: Even a decision by the AAT forcing the Minister is reviewable?

MR BERRY: That is how it appears. There is some question about some of the provisions of the AAT Act and whether, in fact, that would always be the case if the AAT were to make that sort of a decision or if a version of that decision caused the Minister to reverse his decision somehow or replaced his decision with a decision of their own. Those are issues which I would like the Minister to investigate.

On the face of it, I am prepared to support the legislation, as it is outlined at this point, because it does offer to the community something which was not offered in the earlier legislation where somebody could make an application. The prospect of somebody getting an exemption from the occupational health and safety legislation is one which I find a little worrying, but then the advice that I have been given by departmental officials points to some specific issues where it might be applied and which are relevant. I will be watching the issue very closely because I will be able to see whatever happens coming back through this place.

The exemptions under the previous legislation, from my memory of it, have not led to an instrument coming back to this place. I could be wrong on that, but I do not recall an instrument coming back to this place. In any event, had that been the case, it is not something that Assembly members have been concerned about; it has passed through without debate. In the current circumstances, it would be of more interest to members if a disallowable instrument came back to this place after a decision of the AAT, because we would then have to take note at least of the decision of the AAT before we were to make a decision, as well as the circumstances which the applicant had put forward for the exemption. I will not be supporting Mr Moore's amendment in this case.

Mr Moore got a little, I thought, puffed up this morning about the crossbenchers' position in relation to this matter and how they were doing such a good job in scrutinising things. The amendments which Mr Moore put this morning give me no trouble, though the original clause gave the Occupational Health and Safety Council no trouble. I know now that the Government is not particularly worried about the amendments which were put through, and that is okay. But one could say in relation to this one that Mr Moore has overreacted to the provision. Labor is not prepared to support it but will be keeping its eye on the issue, as the occupational health and safety legislation is a child of the Labor Party. That is how we see it anyway; and we are very proud of it as an instrument for the protection of workers.

MS TUCKER (5.31): I think it was quite legitimate for Mr Moore to be pleased at the things that he has found in this legislation. I just heard Mr Berry say that he would be concerned to think that a Minister could just grant exemption from what you would think would be fairly basic requirements of occupational health and safety. I must say that I was very pleased that Mr Moore and his office had done the work of looking carefully at this legislation and coming up with the amendments which he did come up with. Basically, as it was, the Minister had unchecked power to decide. We see the key of disallowability as very important, and that is why we were happy to support the amendments this morning.

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