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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1856 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

Hospital implosion, it has turned out to be the jolt to government about ensuring that this office is maintained in the most independent way possible.

The model that I have foreshadowed, in my view, ensures that that will occur. It is a model that will guarantee the future of the Occupational Health and Safety Commissioner's independence and will ensure, one hopes, that tragedies such as the one which occurred with the Canberra Hospital are averted by preventing the political influence which is perceived to have been applied to people in this high office.

I am happy to leave it there and come back with the matter after the suspension of the sitting. I am sure that other people want to make a contribution to the debate as well, so I will leave it at that point, Mr Speaker.

MS TUCKER (8.00): I have been concerned about the incredible amount of work we have had to put into this legislation. It seems that Mr Berry and Mr Smyth could have got together and sorted it out. Problems emerged with the act passed last year, and the government has come forward with an alternative structure. Mr Berry has effectively proposed two amendments to his act. Both strategies seem to address the problem. I am sorry that the two gentlemen concerned did not work out the best way to do this. It appears that both camps want to provide for an independently resourced and managed office which would report to the minister and the Assembly.

Do both structures deliver a transparent process where any directions made by the minister are laid before the Assembly? Yes. Given this avowed commitment from both sides of the Assembly for the establishment of an independently resourced Occupational Health and Safety Commissioner, it has been frustrating and time-consuming exercise examining these bills in detail in order to determine the differences and so determine our course.

The argument, it appears, is one of structures. The models they propose have a different history and that history may affect the structure, but it is a fine line. The government's corporation sole has its origins in departmental functions and is used for the Commissioner for Housing and the Public Trustee. Mr Berry's legislation last year was modelled on that used for the Discrimination Commissioner and that used for the Commissioner for the Environment. They were found to have weaknesses when it came to employing staff. Hence, with regard to independence, Mr Berry has looked to the Auditor-General Act, and his amendments address the issue by deeming the commissioner to have the powers of a chief executive of a department, consistent with the Financial Management Act and Public Sector Management Act. The origins lie in scrutiny. On the other hand, the minister's corporation sole has its origins in departmental functions being modelled on the Housing Commissioner, the Registrar-General and the Public Trustee. This addresses the issue of functionality, although the particular instances I have mentioned are more focused on service delivery than audit and appraisal.

The corporation sole includes an interesting provision for the purchase and sale of property which could allow for the occupational health and safety commission delivering a raft of efficiencies and perhaps, through new activities, improving its income stream in

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