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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1764 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

You can enter into an arrangement for a number of employees at the beginning of a year and then at the end of the year, even if your employee numbers have grown, still pay the premium rate for the smaller number of employees. That might be illegal, but the incentive is there to do it. There are large savings if employers choose to follow that path.

That is something we are told is occurring throughout the ACT, more so in the building industry according to the evidence that we received. It is therefore appropriate for us to change the reporting frequency to get the employers into a position where they have to make repeated declarations of their employee numbers against the background of the law, which ought to be pointed out to them through the constant distribution of information which can be accommodated within the government arrangements as they now stand.

The committee supported the Workers Compensation Amendment Bill 1999 introduced by Mr Osborne as a means of further deterring dishonest employers from adopting underreporting practices. We received a last-minute submission from the government on this issue. I would like to draw particular attention to this matter. The submission from the government was received at the 11th hour. It was similar to the government's original submission to the committee, which also was late. That held up the deliberations of the committee.

What we found surprising about the submission in response to Mr Osborne's bill was that the government had it in its hands some time before February of this year and sat on it. We received it in April or May. That is non-cooperation from the minister in particular, again. He prevented us from receiving information which would have been relevant to our report. The submission referred to a report in relation to workers compensation that was in the minister's hands, according to a letter, in about February of this year. The committee asked for a copy of that report but was advised that it would not be receiving one because the government did not feel it was appropriate. That is another example of non-cooperation from the minister. Our job was not made easier by the minister's performance and it is becoming evident that something has to be done about the way the minister treats the committee system.

The committee was also concerned by the fact that only four ACT WorkCover inspectors are available to inspect the estimated 13,500 business operating in the ACT, and has recommended that employee organisations be able to inspect wage and salary records and that more inspectors be employed to carry out the inspections. It was the view of the committee that, without effective scrutiny, employers have very few obstacles in their path to stop them engaging in the practice of underreporting. The current system invites underreporting because significant savings can flow to employers if they choose to do so.

The committee went further. (Extension of time granted.) The committee recommended that an 80:20 rule be incorporated into the legislation as a test for determining the employment status of employees and workers versus contractors. This is often a bone of contention which ends up in the courts. It was put to us that an 80:20 rule would clarify the situation and result in fewer contested items finding their way into the courts and that it would make it pretty obvious who was and who was not an employee in the context of the workers compensation legislation.

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