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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 10 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3346 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

In the initial instance, when I saw that definition it did cause me some concern. It appeared to me that there would be a significant transfer of power from the current legislation. After carefully discussing it and going through it, I think it is actually a very wise definition. It does allow for sensible management of people, at the same time recognising that sometimes action that is taken in normal management does cause people stress. It is not stress that should mean that you cannot take action to promote somebody because they are going to get terribly stressed about it, and of course people do. If they do get terribly stressed about it, are they entitled to compensation? I think it is particularly important to clarify this position. Without the position being clarified in this way, it would seem to me that management would have to get more and more difficult. It was something that needed to be left open, so it was a good move.

Similarly, in clause 6, paragraphs (a) and (b), the cost of conveyance of a worker and other costs of accommodation, which up until now have been fairly open as to individual claims, can be set by regulation, and I think Mr Berry made that point. However, that is a disallowable instrument and, if there is a particularly unfair proposal, then in the normal course of its scrutiny this Assembly has the prerogative to modify it under the Act.

The final thing I would like to raise, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the issue of infringement notices. I notice that the heading in Mr Kaine's Bill is "On-the-Spot Fines". I think I mentioned to this Assembly on a previous occasion that we probably should move away from the term "on-the-spot fines" and use the term "infringement notices" or "offence notices". On-the-spot fines imply that somebody says, "You are fined", and you reach into your pocket and you give them money. I think that implication needs to be removed, particularly as we are now moving to use them so widely. At some stage, when we look at the whole issue of offence notices - and it is, quite clearly, going to be looked at by this Assembly and probably by the next Assembly - we should begin to use a common term across them. It seems to me that the best common term that is already used in some of the language is "offence notices". Madam Deputy Speaker, those are the issues I wanted to raise in supporting this legislation.

MR KAINE (Minister for Urban Services and Minister for Industrial Relations) (5.19), in reply: I appreciate the support from members for this Bill. I understand that there are some reasonable reservations about some aspects of it, and there always will be, because it is legislation that gets to the heart of the entitlements of workers. I made the point when I tabled the Bill that I thought this would provide a fair and equitable compensation scheme for injured workers. There are other interests. The employers, of course, are major stakeholders in this, and the insuring companies have a stake in it; and we are seeking to strike a balance in the interests of all of those people and, at the end of the day, produce a fair and equitable system. I think we have gone close to that.

The fact that some issues have been raised as potentially being of concern, I think, simply indicates a requirement that the Government and others should monitor the implementation of the amendments and the changes that will flow from them, to see whether there are any unintended adverse consequences. If there are any, of course the Government would discuss them with the stakeholders to see whether some changes were desirable. Again, I thank members for their support. I think it is a worthwhile Bill.

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