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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1858 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

As Ms Tucker has just said, Mr Berry put an awful lot of effort into his legislation. He used as a model for his amendments provisions in the Auditor-General's legislation which we think are quite appropriate and are a good model. I commend Mr Berry's bill to the members of the Assembly.

MR SMYTH (Minister for Urban Services) (8.10), in reply: Mr Speaker, I will close the debate on my bill, then we will move on to Mr Berry's bill if necessary. I would like to pass comment on something Mr Berry said towards the end of his speech. He said that he was not afraid to boast that he had a greater commitment to this issue than anybody else in this place. He is probably right. I do not think any of us doubt that Wayne Berry is passionate about occupational health and safety. He was kind enough to go on to say that the original legislation which was brought into this place in 1989 was passed with the support of "the conservatives opposite", as he called us, and therefore he saw some commitment from this side of the house as well.

This is not about ego; it is not about who wins; it is not about who got there first. I was given a directive by the Assembly to put in place occupational health and safety legislation that would protect the rights of workers. I had two overriders on that. The first was that I had to meet the needs of the Assembly. The second was that I had to satisfy the recommendations of the coroner. I thank Mr Berry for saying that he did not doubt our commitment to occupational health and safety. Although we chose different paths to get to where we are today, the intent of both pieces of legislation was to achieve the same things.

Mr Berry saw it as amendments. We saw it as setting up a statutory authority under its own act. I thank Ms Tucker for acknowledging that both of us are trying to make the legislation work. I genuinely wish to make it work. That we have chosen a different path and that the Assembly initially selected Mr Berry's path does not mean that I will not make the legislation work as best I can.

That is why I have had my public servants working on it. That is why the officers from the department have attempted to make this work. I would publicly praise the officer who has been working on this, Mr Brad Page. Brad has given briefings and advice to many members and has a commitment to making this legislation work because it is important.

We have two options. Option one, as listed in the advice from the Government Solicitor, is to create the corporation sole. Option 5 is to accept Mr Berry's amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act. It is important that we achieve the best model for those we seek to protect. Mr Berry raised some difficulties with option one. I have some difficulties with option 5, and it is important that we look at those difficulties.

Mr Berry raised the issue of indemnity and liability. I have checked with the PCO. The commissioner ceases to exist as a person; he becomes a corporation sole. As such, he cannot be sued as an individual. That is the advice of the PCO. I hasten to add that he will still have a soul. It just happens that it will be of a different kind. Indemnity is not an issue. It is covered.

Mr Berry made reference to amendment of the Statute Law Amendment Bill 2000. When we drafted my bill, it was expected that the Statute Law Amendment Bill 2000 would

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