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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1849 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

The Auditor-General has set out in his act provisions which enable him to scrutinise the government in relation to financial and other matters. Mr Speaker, that seemed to me to be the ideal model to provide for an independent statutory officer as the Occupational Health and Safety Commissioner.

Mr Speaker, the government-Mr Smyth, in particular, with the speech he gave yesterday-may have misinformed the Assembly. Mr Smyth went to great lengths to say that he was acting in accordance with the coroner's report in relation to the tragic hospital implosion which killed Katie Bender and which discovered, amongst other things, attempted interference by departmental officers in the work conducted by occupational health and safety officers. That prompted me to look at the coroner's report and refresh myself on what he actually said. He said:

Mr Smyth has come out with a model which is essentially for an arm of government, as is the case with the Commissioner for Housing, the Public Trustee and the Registrar-General. They are clearly arms of government, Mr Speaker. They are established as corporations sole for the purpose of their operations. I will come back to that a little later, Mr Speaker.

Also, in the debate yesterday, Mr Smyth came in here with a legal advice which he said placed the option that I had put forward last, or words to that effect, to paraphrase him for the purposes of this debate. Mr Speaker, the last time the government came into this place with a legal advice it was a legal advice that they said showed that the union picnic day claim would fail in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, the ACT Supreme Court and the Federal Court. It did not in any of them. It survived several times. Legal advice is just that-legal advice. It is an attempt to determine what courts might or might not say in relation to a matter, Mr Speaker. It is merely advice prepared at the request of the government.

Let us test the origins of the legal advice which was provided for the eyes of Assembly members. Mr Speaker, that arose because I requested to see the legal advice that was given to the government and a separate set of legal advice was prepared for members' eyes, including mine. I never did get the legal advice which was provided to the government. The government claimed professional privilege and those sorts of things. If they were serious about the open and consultative approach that they often go on about, then they might well have come to see me in relation to the matter.

Mr Speaker, the piece of legislation which has been put forward by the government has to be considered against the background of some amendments which I will foreshadow if the legislation is defeated, which it should be. The appropriate model for the scrutiny of occupational health and safety is a model more closely aligned with that for the Auditor-General, that is, a model which has scrutiny as part of its origins, not a model which has an arm of government as part of its origins.

Mr Speaker, those are the clear distinctions and the clear choices that members have to make. Forget the rhetoric uttered in this place yesterday by Mr Smyth in relation to the

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