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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1850 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

matter. I know that the government-Mr Smyth in particular-is still seething from the defeat of the inappropriate model which the government put before this place once before. Mr Speaker, that is all in the past. I am thinking of the safety of workers in the territory and what will be the best model.

On looking at the government's model and the model I have proposed, which contains the amendments I have circulated, to provide for an employment capacity for the Occupational Health and Safety Commissioner along the lines of the one for the Auditor-General and provides for the Occupational Health and Safety Commissioner to have the same status as a departmental head, the ordinary person in the street might say, "What is the difference?" It goes back to the fundamental point that I raised at the very outset. The choice here is whether you want something which has as its origins an arm of government or something that has its origins based in scrutiny.

I know that the government will deny it, but the government has been desperate to get its scent on this issue from the beginning. People on the other side might say that I am playing the same game. I do not care because it was my idea. It was something that I put in place well before the coroner reported and it was dealt with subsequent to and arising from the coroner's report. I anticipated this problem, and anticipated it correctly, but I could not anticipate exactly what the coroner would say.

It is warming that the government, on the road to Damascus, has been converted all of a sudden to a commitment to having a single commissioner. That is a plus. We need to have a government which has been converted to that idea. Leaving aside the legislative framework, if we do not have the commitment from government to the idea it will not happen effectively and efficiently and workers will miss out. That, in itself, is warming.

Let us look now at how the government approached this matter. I think that its approach has been somewhat fraudulent. This piece of legislation looks as though it is weighty. Certainly, as you wade into it, you think that it is particularly weighty because it goes to all of the provisions which would apply to an Occupational Health and Safety Commissioner. Let us deal with them. Page 2 deals with the commencement of the act, the amendment of an act, the interpretation of a definition and the substitution of a part.

We come then to "Part 2A-Occupational Health and Safety Commissioner". All these provisions look like they are new provisions, all on advice from the minister's department. Proposed section 25A says that there is to be an Occupational Health and Safety Commissioner. That was dealt with in proposed section 25A of the bill I introduced which is now an act of this Assembly. Appointment of the commissioner was dealt with by proposed section 25A and is already part of an act of this Assembly. The term of appointment has been dealt with and is already a part of an act of this Assembly. Proposed section 25C(2) of this bill has already been dealt with in proposed section 25A of my bill.

I am advised that the provision whereby the minister may give the commissioner leave of absence is a belts and braces provision. It could be done without, but it is nice to have it there. I come to the conditions of appointment generally, which the minister mentioned in his speech. Again, he may well have misinformed the Assembly. The bill states:

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