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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 12 Hansard (11 November) . . Page.. 3971 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

I think the more important issue in terms of this amendment is that the TLC has its own overarching interest, has its own role to play in the ongoing employment and management of employment centres in the ACT, and has a very important role to play in the nature of accreditation and the types of vocational training courses and training centres that are offered in the ACT. It is an equal partner to the Chamber of Commerce and Industry on many other committees.

My reason for putting this amendment forward is not simply to allow a place for the IEU. In my opinion, it is neither here nor there whether the IEU takes up that spot. It is to put the in-principle case that, wherever the Chamber of Commerce and Industry sits, so should the TLC. Whoever the nominee of the TLC is should then represent the interests of the ACT Trades and Labour Council in a technical way, as do all other members who are nominated by their various organisations. Although they come with their own individual expertise, they are on the board to represent the interests of the member organisations that they come from. I commend the amendment to the Assembly.

MR MOORE (6.12): Mr Speaker, it is interesting that Ms McRae presents this, in one sense at least, as a counterpoise to the new position on this board of the ACT and Region Chamber of Commerce and Industry. I think that is a valid way to present it. I think my preferred option would be to have neither of them on there. However, I can see that these are people who are appointed after consultation. This whole board is operating because the people on it can offer something here. These people are not appointed to represent the interests of, double-check and report back to, a particular body. I think there is an important distinction to be made there. Sometimes that is an appropriate way to go for some bodies. In this case it is not. In those circumstances I will support this amendment.

MS McRAE (6.13): Mr Speaker, I forgot to speak to the other part of my amendment. It is a double whammy sort of amendment and maybe, logically, I should have put it in two parts. I understand what Mr Stefaniak and his advisers say, namely, that they have found in the past that a person who does not live in the ACT can be a valuable member of the board. I do not think that in this day and age we need that person anymore. Part of my move here is to make a place for the TLC, rather than to expand the number of members of the board. So my amendment requires the removal of that person and the inclusion of the TLC person. I had not said that in my speech.

I have no problem with this because I sincerely believe that if the board needs advice from anybody interstate it can simply ring them up and invite them to come and talk to the board, or they may distribute their papers and ask for comment.

Mrs Carnell: You would not be paying for oral advice, would you?

MS McRAE: Never, never, never, Mrs Carnell. I think it is absolutely absurd to argue that because a person lives in New South Wales they provide valuable feedback about courses and the management of courses in other States. Where are we going to pick from? Emerging and interesting work is being done in Tasmania at the moment, but maybe next year the emerging and interesting work will be done in other places. So I just do not see the point anymore.

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