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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 13 Hansard (7 December) . . Page.. 3918 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

What we have in our Bill is a comprehensive safety framework which will deliver through coverage of all relevant legislation, including dangerous goods, scaffolding, lifts, machinery, workers compensation, et cetera. I notice that until Mr Berry's amendments were circulated he covered only OH&S. I am glad that he has picked up on what the Government has done, and he has broadened what it is that he is seeking to achieve. Already we can see through the simple structure of both these Bills that our Bill achieves an independent statutory authority, whereas Mr Berry's Bill has his commissioner enmeshed in the OH&S Act, under some sort of obligation to the department for resources, et cetera.

Let us look at the appointment process. Directors are appointed by the Minister, with recommendations made by the OH&S Council and the Insurers Advisory Committee to be taken into account. Mr Berry talks about people who have been disenfranchised. I do not see anywhere in his Bill where he has to consult with the OH&S Council on these appointments.

Let us look at direction by the Minister. Under our Bill, the Minister may direct the authority in writing on the performance of its functions. Under Mr Berry's Bill, the Minister directs the commissioner. Under our Bill, the Minister must table directions in the Assembly within six sitting days, not disallowable. Under Mr Berry's Bill, the Minister must table directions within five sitting days of giving the directions, not disallowable. Under our Bill, the Territory must pay the authority the cost of complying with direction, and I think Mr Berry has just changed that through his amendments to the requirement to fund the cost of any direction. I am pleased that he has picked up on the points that we make, but he still has not suggested anything to me that indicates that, one, he is setting up an independent statutory authority and, two, that he is meeting the coroner's needs.

You then need to talk about the independence of staff. Under our Bill, the staff answer to the general manager for the day-to-day functions of the authority and are not subject to ministerial control. Under Mr Berry's model, the staff still work for the department and therefore are subject to direct ministerial control. Under our model, the staff undertake delegated functions and regulatory roles within management frameworks of authority but without interference, including from the directors; whereas under Mr Berry's model, staff perform delegated functions and regulated activities. But, because they do not belong to the commissioner and they are not independent, because there is not an Act establishing an independent statutory authority, they could be directed by the department in conflict to the commissioner's directions.

When we get to the termination of the appointment of directors and the general manager, under our Bill the Minister may terminate a director for misbehaviour or physical or mental incapacity. Under Mr Berry's Bill, the Executive will suspend or remove from office the directors and the general manager for misbehaviour. Our Minister may terminate the appointment of a director if the director becomes bankrupt, is absent without leave for three consecutive authority meetings, does not comply with disclosure of interest provisions or is convicted of an indictable offence. Under Mr Berry's Bill, the commissioner must be removed from office by the Executive for bankruptcy. The Legislative Assembly may request the Executive to remove the commissioner from office on the above grounds.

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