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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3914 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

quite amazing that the Government has not drawn on this expertise in reviewing and improving its proposals.

I have been advised that a consultant has been engaged to review the impact of the Government's Bill on the OH&S Council and the Insurers Advisory Committee after the Bill has been put to this place and passed. That is indeed a very strange process. The Government should have undertaken a review first and then tabled its legislation, informed and amended in response to the findings of that review. In that way the Assembly could properly scrutinise the Government's proposals, certain that the Government had figured out how the council and the advisory committee fit into the Government's broader legislative changes.

I am interested in the Government's Bill, particularly Division 2.1, which relates to the establishment, functions and powers of the Government's proposed WorkCover authority. Clause 6(b) of the Government's Bill lists one function as the power to collect payments under the WorkCover legislation for the Territory. What is this clause about? I look forward to Mr Smyth enlightening us on that. I think it is a really important question. We did accept a briefing from the Government on their legislation and I asked questions about why there was a need for a business plan to have the predominance that it does in the legislation. At first the government officials thought that the definition of "business plan" would include the broader brief and that maybe it would finish in the Financial Management Act, but it has not. That has been confirmed as well by the officials. There is a statement of intent in the Financial Management Act, but that is a quite different thing from a business plan.

I am interested in knowing what the function of collecting payments under the WorkCover legislation for the Territory is all about. Is that about some other proposal that Government is not putting to the Assembly at this stage, some revenue-gathering mechanism which is envisaged for the future but which we are not privileged enough to know about at this point or debate at this point? I do not know. Is it some kind of levy? What is it about? Perhaps the Government could clarify that issue for us tonight. I think that it certainly needs clarification if the Government is to have any hope of getting its proposal supported.

I am also concerned, as is Mr Berry, about the proposed structure and membership of the authority as defined in Division 2.2 of the Government's Bill and I will also revisit the coroner's recommendations regarding WorkCover and the Dangerous Goods Unit following his inquiry into the demolition of Royal Canberra Hospital. As Mr Berry said, and I will repeat it because I think it is important to stress it in this debate, the coroner recommended on page 294 of his report that WorkCover and the Dangerous Goods Unit should be an independent statutory authority, with appropriate funding and resources. He also recommended that both bodies should be created as one autonomous statutory unit independent of any departmental control and be answerable to a Minister of the Legislative Assembly, saying that this new body could be modelled on similar authorities in other States and that all relevant stakeholders should constitute its board, again accountable to the Assembly.

The Government is proposing the appointment of seven members to the authority, being the general manager and six directors. Clause 10 of the Bill states:

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