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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3912 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

he is appointed by the Minister, but any ministerial directions have to be tabled in this place and any ministerial attempts to discipline the commissioner have to be confirmed in this place, otherwise they have no effect. This place can directly call on the Government, pray to the Government, to remove such a person, in much the same way as it can for, I think, the Ombudsman.

My model is an amalgam of the Discrimination Commissioner provisions, which reek of independence, and the Ombudsman provisions, which, of course, provide for total independence, and that is what is needed here. People will say that the most contemporary recommendations that we have in relation to this matter come from the coroner and they are all we should consider. I say no to that, because you cannot ignore the precedent which has been set in this place by a Minister of the ACT Government in directing staff to interfere in the arrangements of a workplace in the ACT. So, Mr Speaker, I have set out to ensure that Ministers stay out of the action. I have set out to ensure that, where they are about issuing any instructions to any independent body, they will have to account for it and they will be held accountable.

Mr Speaker, when you look at both models, you can only come down in favour of the model which was put forward on 30 June 1999 because it accommodates both areas of concern. If the coroner had been able to hear evidence in relation to the atmosphere towards political interference which had developed in WorkCover as a result of that first ministerial interference, he might have had more things to say in his recommendations in relation to WorkCover. As far as I can make out, Mr Speaker, the coroner was not able to consider that sort evidence, which is a pity as he may well have had a different view about the atmosphere under which WorkCover officers had to work and he may well have had a different understanding of the potential impact of interference with WorkCover inspectors' duties by a senior officer of the Government. It is important in considering this legislation to accommodate all of the separations which are necessary to ensure that proper workplace safety is provided for workers in the Australian Capital Territory.

Mr Speaker, I said that I would refer to some proposed amendments which I have had prepared in the wake of the coroner's report. (Extension of time granted) I circulated those amendments a couple of days ago, following a briefing from government officers in relation to their legislation. Mr Speaker, associated laws are described in the Occupational Health and Safety Act as the Dangerous Goods Act 1984; the Dangerous Goods Act 1975 of the State of New South Wales in its application to the Territory; the Dangerous Goods Regulation 1978 of the State of New South Wales in its application to the Territory; the Machinery Act 1949; the Boilers and Pressure Vessels Regulations; the Machinery Regulations; the Scaffolding and Lifts Act; the Scaffolding and Lifts Act 1912 of the State of New South Wales in its application to the Territory; the regulations under the Scaffolding and Lifts Act 1912 of the State of New South Wales in their application to the Territory; and such other laws, if any, as are prescribed.

The Government has come up with a more contemporary list of what might be described as associated laws in the WorkCover Authority Bill. Following the briefing, I issued instructions for the preparation of some amendments which would apply to the legislation I have put forward which would bring it more up-to-date about what is an associated law in relation to occupational health and safety in the Australian Capital

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