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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 07 Hansard (Tuesday, 29 June 2004) . . Page.. 2928 ..

WorkCover inspectors clearly have an educative focus around their work. I think that is probably a very positive measure. Education activity in the workplace and all businesses in the ACT is being facilitated by WorkCover inspectors, instead of this activity being left to what I understand was a very small unit of one or two people.

There have been some changes around communication with workplaces, including the new electronic WorkCover newsletter that, from feedback I have received, has gone down very well. They have increased their contacts in terms of their database that they send that newsletter out to.

I do not want to reflect on debate that has taken place in the Assembly, but Mr Pratt argued that we are looking only at punitive measures for OH&S breaches. That certainly is not the case with the legislation that will be enacted in late July. The focus of that whole compliance mechanism was rather on voluntary compliance and cooperative relations in the workplace. But, in the end, punitive measures are there if breaches are of a serious nature, and we certainly stand by that.

We are moving forward with OH&S reform. I feel that the position taken by the Liberals on that legislation shows that they are determined to stay in the past and not look at a very modern, robust compliance framework which supports workplaces, encourages compliance, but, yes, has a very realistic and fair penalty regime should breaches occur.

In relation to dangerous substances and comments about ammonium nitrate, COAG is looking at that issue. I understand it has been dealt with at heads of government level. I should say that it is very useful for us to have a dangerous substances act in place. Many states do not have such a modern piece of legislation. We can make very minor legislative change and incorporate regulations around ammonium nitrate, and that work is certainly being done.

I note Mr Smyth’s interest in the workers compensation supplementation fund. I do not want to say too much other than that the Auditor-General is looking at this. I received yesterday probably similar correspondence to that received by Mr Smyth confirming that the Auditor-General will be conducting quite a wide-ranging audit into the operations of the supplementation fund, and that is entirely appropriate.

Mr Smyth read out some of my comments in estimates, and I still stand by what I said. As I gave that evidence, that was my understanding of the situation. As we have seen in advice subsequent to the estimates appearance, which I have been providing to Mr Smyth, the contracts were not on the BASIS web site, and Mr Smyth is aware of the reasons for that.

The issue around the contracts and the use of the nominal insurer legal panel to provide legal advice for the workers compensation supplementation fund was, as I am advised, a decision taken following the HIH collapse in March 2001, prior to this government’s coming in and arrangements that were agreed by the fund manager at the time. Again, I made some comments in estimates about whether it was appropriate for one administrative unit to provide legal advice to the other. I did make the comment that the nature of the work in terms of legal advice around the management of claims was very similar.

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