Page 1641 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 30 April 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Our inquiries show that the rating applies to events between July 1989 and June 1990, yet they have been reported - and all who read it need to look at it again - as an assessment of current performance. Anyone listening to the radio and hearing those reports, even though the journalists' reports are accurate, would gain the impression that this is a current performance rating. If you look at the document, you will see that it covers the last six months of 1989-90. Certainly, it is an improvement on the D rating from 1988-89; but when the D rating was put on Ms Follett for that period, if you check the records, I did not make political capital out of it at the time. I did the right thing, because I knew that it was an inheritance, and the fact of the matter was that Ms Follett was not long enough in government to get the type of legislative reforms through and to get the structural reforms going that the consumer movement wants.
So, all I say is: I will stand judged on the year that is missing from this, and I am critical of a consumer affairs body - of all bodies, a consumer affairs body - that publishes documents like this which in themselves are misleading and demoralising to my staff. I believe that they should publish their ratings closer to the period in question, and not issue judgments on events which are two years earlier, for example, commencing at that date I said in July 1989.
Mr Speaker, it did contain some errors. For example, we had 12 prosecutions of people under our consumer laws, not six at the time, and there were various other errors. What I want to say is that it is only recently that the Opposition congratulated the Consumer Affairs Bureau for instituting Consumer Awareness Week or Trader of the Month. It was during a recent period when we had congratulatory messages to the staff across the floor.
I want to say to that association from Marrickville that they do not sit in the consumer affairs Ministers fora and, within the limits of the rules, I want to let them know a couple of things. The reason why uniform trade measurement legislation in Australia was delayed was that the Western Australian Minister opposed it - and I sat and pounded this out in Perth a year ago - yet she is at the top of the list. I think I am justified in revealing that stage of the conference. They remain opposed on States' rights issues. Their bales of wool have always been their size, and their scales and so on. In other areas - - -
Mrs Grassby: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: We know that it is a dorothy dixer put by Dr Kinloch, but do you not think it should be more relevant?
MR SPEAKER: No, I do not uphold your objection there, Mrs Grassby.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .