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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 6 Hansard (25 May) . . Page.. 1859 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

have been passed. The amending bill was brought into this place on 30 March this year. My bill came in on 9 May. For those who have not checked or who are unaware, the Statute Law Amendment Bill 2000 makes technical and housekeeping amendments to the laws of the territory to ensure that the ACT statute book is of the highest standard. The bill does so by amending and repealing acts and regulations for statute law revision purposes only.

My bill would omit "Authority" and substitute "Commissioner" and would commence immediately after commencement of section 10 of the Occupational Health and Safety (Amendment) Act (No 2) 1999. Unfortunately, we have got a little bit out of sync because of the way these bills have been done. The provision was drafted by PCO in anticipation of the Statute Law Amendment Bill being passed before the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Bill came into operation. It is a minor oversight. This bill is something that would have to happen anyway. If it passes, it will have no effect until the passage of the Statute Law Amendment Bill, which would also need a minor amendment to make it work. There is nothing sinister or untoward in that.

Mr Berry said that the legal advice I have tabled is not the advice that was initially given to the cabinet. That is because the initial advice that we sought was cabinet-in-confidence. This was explained to members. Mr Page got the Government Solicitor to give him a summary of the various options and to answer the relevant questions. Mr Berry was informed of that. Again, there is nothing sinister in that. The other document is cabinet-in-confidence, and we respect that confidentiality.

There was some query about the ability to own real estate. Ms Tucker raised that. Under English law a corporation sole was initially set up to protect church property. A bishop, for instance, would come into control of the property belonging to the church in his diocese and then it could be passed on in perpetual succession. If people are worried about that provision being in this legislation, it is in other acts. It can go if people wish to delete it by amendment. We have to appropriate money, so there is control over what the commissioner spends. The commissioner has to submit a business plan, so we will know what he is up to. There is nothing sinister or untoward in that. It is part of the historic origin of making a corporation sole. It gives the corporation the same rights and effects as a person. It is a historical thing more than anything else.

What does our bill seek to do? I am mindful of what the Assembly told me in December last year, and we have sought to achieve that. The Assembly did not want the large option that we put together. We thought it was worth having an independent statutory authority. The Assembly said, "No. Go the one-person version." That is fine. I am happy to implement that, but I want to implement something that works. We had the original amendments; we had a second set of amendments; and now we have a third set of amendments. I am not confident that, were we to pass Mr Berry's amendments tonight, we would achieve what all of us here in the Assembly want.

We would not meet what the coroner directed. He directed that we have an independent statutory authority to look after the rights of workers. My bill does meet that. That is the advice from the same source that found the errors which exist in Mr Berry's legislation and which he has brought forward amendments to attempt to rectify. It is confirmed, I believe, by the Government Solicitor.

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