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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (1 July) . . Page.. 2037 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

The report also recommended that compliance with the Government's consultation protocol be included as a performance measure in the contracts of all senior executives. "Not agreed", said they, and they went on to explain that away by talking about senior executives being required to comply with all duties as directed by the employer. Then they said that this includes the Government's consultation protocol. What are they going to do about senior executives who do not comply?

This particular program was not well thought through and in fact was changed not far into the program. This demonstrated that the need for consultation had been passed over just to allow the Government to facilitate an ideological approach in relation to the unemployed in the ACT. Youth unemployment has become a prickly matter for the Government, and they wish to look as though they are doing something. But the ideological boundaries in which this Minister and this Government operate dictated to them that they ought to take the simplistic and populist approach of blaming the unemployed. Mr Stefaniak said in his speech:

It is abundantly clear that you are not capable of management, and I only want to cite Bruce Stadium. I do not want to go any further than that in relation to that matter. Insurance is a far more complex matter than Bruce Stadium, let me assure you. For the Government to claim that it is deeply wounded and hurt by our claim that there is a bit of a problem with their management is being just a little bit precious.

Mr Speaker, the Government says that it is going to go on with this work for the dole program, notwithstanding the committee's recommendation that there ought to be additional funding for the matter. That demonstrates that the Government has no interest in the quality of outcomes for those who might participate in the program or indeed the quality of outcomes which might apply in respect of the schools where this program is implemented.

It is a voluntary program, as they say, and I fear that cash-strapped schools might see this as an opportunity to have cheap labour around schools in order to allow them to have money available for other educational matters. I know of a school where paint is purchased and a parent does the painting outside for nothing. This is so that the school community will have more disposable income for educational purposes. The problem I see with the whole program is that the young unemployed are going to be exploited in this way as well in order that cash can be made available for other educational purposes. Mr Speaker, that is quite unsatisfactory.

One of the things that I found quite shocking in relation to the consultation process was the way the Government consulted with the business community. The Government boasted about the fact that it had the endorsement of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry in the Australian Capital Territory for this program. They produced a letter showing their endorsement for this program and they said, "What a jolly good program this is". Of course, when we delved into it a little bit further, we found out that the letter was drafted in the department. That is not consultation. That is just calling in your bets from your mates to get a bit of support for a controversial program. Minister, for you to

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