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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1853 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

and Safety Commissioner. (Extension of time granted.) It creates a new department in much the same was as is provided to the Auditor-General, which goes back to the general question of what you want. Do you want a model which is similar to other arms of government or do you want a model which has drawn its origins from the provisions for the Auditor-General?

The amendment on page 2 speaks for itself-"a reference in those provisions to a department includes a reference to the commissioner and the staff assisting the commissioner" and "a reference in those provisions to the responsible chief executive includes a reference to the commissioner". My advice is that the Occupational Health and Safety Commissioner could operate reasonably independently within the Department of Urban Services, or wherever he or she is placed, with the provisions which were initially introduced; but, given the newborn enthusiasm of the government to a stronger sense of independence, I had a look at the Auditor-General Act. This is about scrutiny, not about being an arm of government involving commercial activities, and I thought that the appropriate model to draw from was the one for the Auditor-General. There is no better model of scrutiny which one could rely on. That is why I chose it.

Mr Smyth criticised my legislation because there has had to be two amendments. I can explain that. The bill was introduced well before the coroner reported and nobody could anticipate the exact words of the coroner and nobody-

Mr Smyth: No, these are technical things. You just got it wrong. It could not operate. It is just gloss, Wayne.

MR BERRY: What did you say?

Mr Smyth: It is just gloss.

MR BERRY: What have I lost?

Mr Smyth: No, gloss, you are just glossing over the fact that you have got it wrong twice.

MR BERRY: What is that? Mr Speaker, these amendments complete the picture.

I go back to the choice as to origins in an arm of government or origins in a scrutiny function. At the end of the day, that is the issue that will swing members' minds in relation to the matter and they have to make a choice about that issue. They also have to consider the approach that the government has been taking in relation to this matter from the beginning. It has always been one of catch-up politics.

This is about a government that was severely embarrassed. Leaving aside all of the evidence that was given in the coronial inquiry and the significant embarrassment that that caused the government, they were significantly embarrassed when legislation had to be changed in the territory in order that the Dangerous Goods Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act would have some relevance after the inquiry. Thankfully, members supported and endorsed the move that I took in this place, which was about making sure that those pieces of legislation had application to the territory.

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