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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 12 Hansard (24 November) . . Page.. 3586 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

not know. They do not think that far ahead. They stand for nothing. We see this time and time again in this place.

Mr Stanhope then asked why we had not done what Labor had done and brought forward a statutory authority to make WorkCover independent. Now, isn't this curious, because when I brought forward the regulations that changed the use of explosives in the ACT I was criticised soundly by Mr Berry for doing it a couple of weeks before the coroner was meant to bring down his report. Now I am being criticised for not having brought forward something that they had the foresight to see. Now, isn't it curious that if the Liberal Party does it, if the Government does it, it must be bad; but if the ALP does it before the coroner brings down his report it is okay. It is not as easy as that.

What they do time and time again is ignore the truth. In fact, what Mr Berry has proposed in his Bill is to establish an independent commissioner. What we have done in our Bill is establish the WorkCover Authority, the independent statutory authority that the coroner has suggested. The reality is that our reform process has got it right, theirs has not.

Mr Speaker, the major issues that I should cover today are improvements to WorkCover and the contracting and tendering assessment processes. These were both subject to criticism by the coroner. Mr Speaker, the review of WorkCover commenced on 2 July 1997, more than a week before the implosion of 13 July 1997, and was conducted by Ian Ramsay, a former Chief Executive Officer of New South Wales WorkCover. That review was completed on 12 September 1997.

The terms of reference of the review were to undertake a review of the management and operations of ACT WorkCover in order to determine the most effective and efficient means of delivering high quality services to the ACT community. The review examined the objectives of the legislation administered by ACT WorkCover, the needs of ACT WorkCover clients, the appropriate standard and means of delivering ACT WorkCover services, and the organisation, management and staffing arrangements for ACT WorkCover. The review was undertaken to enable ACT WorkCover to provide services efficiently and effectively and to deliver a significant leadership role in the area of workplace injury, prevention and management.

In summary, the review found that all areas of WorkCover's activities needed improvement. The key issues were a low level of community awareness of the legislative requirements of OH&S and workers compensation, a low level of inspectorial enforcement, a paucity of data about OH&S and workers compensation performance, and a poor organisational structure and processes.

The recommendations related to these findings were aimed at improving every aspect of WorkCover's performance, a process that had started before the implosion. From August 1997 through to now, a comprehensive reform agenda has been put in place and the Government has implemented a significant amount of change. Considerable improvements have been made and continue to be made in ACT WorkCover, and research conducted for the Bender inquest has also contributed to these improvements.

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