Page 846 - Week 03 - Thursday, 30 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Mulcahy has made some dissenting comments in relation to a recommendation that was in the draft report that was not approved by the other members of the committee. I just want to expand on the reasons why I did not support that recommendation and to also refer to some of the recommendations that I would have liked in the report, and no doubt Ms MacDonald will also address her issues after me.
Mr Mulcahy has already spoken to his dissenting comments. I do not remember the committee considering any evidence that expressed concerns about the ACT private workers compensation scheme, and consequently I did not see how that recommendation should be in the committee report, because normally a report is made up of evidence put before the committee that is then discussed by the committee.
The ACT scheme did emerge from substantial work of a committee composed of employer and employee representatives and people from social services, the insurance industry and the medical profession. The process was driven by the ACT government of the time, a Liberal Party minority government, and the minister who saw that project through was the current Leader of the Opposition, Brendan Smyth. In terms of income support, the ACT scheme pays regard to the needs of both the injured worker and their family. To that extent, this new scheme caters much more reasonably for those people who are substantially affected by workplace injury, and their families and dependants, than did the previous regime or existing schemes in other states.
Several times in the past few months we have heard Mr Mulcahy attack the principles of the ACT workers compensation scheme in this Assembly, and no doubt outside it, and suggest that the costs we carry in the ACT reflect the mal-intent of workers looking for an easy life on compo. This led me to fear that his call for review in the next budget period was a reflection of an intent to unpick the constructive work that was done before he was here and a political agenda inappropriate as a recommendation from the Public Accounts Committee.
I did not support Mr Mulcahy in his recommendation for a review of the act within the next budget, but I do support a review of the act. It is, and always has been, seen as a necessary and significant part of the process of putting a new scheme into place. However, in doing so, I would seek the advice of the Occupational Health and Safety Council, a tripartite business, union and government advisory body, on any need for urgency on that review.
In relation to the issues that I pursued in the committee’s deliberations, I did hope for some stronger recommendations about sustainability reporting. While there are some recommendations regarding that, it is my belief that they should have been stronger. During our annual report hearings we were very pleased to hear that the Chief Minister said that he had already directed all agency heads to note the Actew annual report and its use of the global reporting initiative. The Auditor-General’s report No 3 of 2005, called Reporting on ecologically sustainable development, also sets out clear and achievable steps that government agencies can take to implement more sustainability reporting mechanisms. I think our recommendation No 3 would have been strengthened if we had referred to the Auditor-General’s report and backed up its recommendations by requiring each agency to comply with those recommendations. Also, recommendation 3 would have been strengthened had we recommended that we not only investigate but also
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .