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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1857 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

ways we would not expect now. I am not suggesting this is the intention of government, but we have seen that things do change over time. It is for that reason mainly that I am not drawn to the minister's model.

I note also the oversight in indemnifying the commissioner individually against liability in relation to the office. It may be that such indemnity is not an issue. However, such protection is included in the acts regarding the Housing Commissioner, the Public Trustee and the Registrar-General, as Mr Berry has pointed out. It may not be a big issue, but it seems to me that we are dealing with fine distinctions. It is about trust in this instance. We want to have trust in the commission, and we want to know that the independence of the commissioner is a focus of that office. A lot has been said in the last few years about instances where occupational health and safety inspectors have felt a long way short of that independence.

Those are the matters of substance. Mr Berry has demonstrated a commitment to occupational health and safety over a number of years, and I respect him for that. I believe both bills present a workable structure. I will support Mr Berry's bill, on the basis that I am confident that the independence of the Occupational Health and Safety Commissioner and the scrutiny of the commission's performance lie at the heart of the legislation.

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (8.06): I will speak only briefly. I wish to reiterate the points that have been made by my colleague Mr Berry and by Ms Tucker. It is important that we acknowledge the history of the process that we are engaged in here. Following the inquiry into the implosion at the Canberra Hospital, the coroner made a number of comments in relation to the operations of WorkCover. As a result of the exhaustive investigation of this matter by the coroner, issues around the operations and the independence of WorkCover were raised and became issues of significant moment.

On reading the coroner's report, I believe a significant number of interesting issues remain in relation to some of the findings of the coroner about the way WorkCover operated throughout that process. I do not want to revisit issues around the hospital implosion at this time. I ask that we comment and focus on some of the operational shortcomings identified by the coroner in his reporting on WorkCover.

The coroner's report contained detailed comments in relation to the overall responsibility for the actions of WorkCover, the extent to which WorkCover inspectors were able to pursue their obligations and their responsibilities on the hospital site, the degree of control which the head of WorkCover had, the extent to which WorkCover was independent from the head of the department and from the head of the Chief Minister's Department, which was regarded at the time as the client department.

There was a very interesting exchange of evidence between Moiya Ford, Jocelyn Plovits, Annabelle Pegrum and John Walker on those points. As a result of that my colleague Mr Berry was moved to pursue this matter to ensure that the coroner's recommendation that WorkCover should be established as an independent statutory authority completely removed from any departmental or government influence or control was implemented. The legislation which Mr Berry initially delivered and which he has refined is an attempt to respond directly to the coroner's report on this matter.

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