Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 9 Hansard (1 September) . . Page.. 2754 ..
MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):
I will take these three concerns in turn. The first, lack of consultation, goes to the way in which Mr Berry has handled this legislation. When he tabled his Agents (Amendment) Bill, the Government thought it was curious that the people we spoke to had no inclination of its coming down the pipeline to become law and seemed unsure about what it meant and how it would operate. We took the step of writing to all 73 ACT employment agents, as we could best determine the number, seeking their views on the implications of the Bill for their agencies. We asked whether they had any comments in favour or against the Bill and generally gave them the chance to comment on this, for them, very significant piece of legislation. Of the 73 agents contacted, only one of those that responded supported the introduction of the licensing regime.
Mr Berry: How many responded?
MR HUMPHRIES: About 20 per cent of those who were written to responded. All of those who responded, but one, opposed the introduction of this licensing regime. The one agency which did support the proposal did so on the understanding that the licensing fee would be the same as for New South Wales, about $100. In a minute I will explain why it will not be anything like $100. It will be much greater than that. That ought to be a matter of concern to members in this place who have argued before about not making significant decisions imposting on an industry unless the industry has a chance to be consulted about the matter. I can cite endless examples of members citing these very kinds of criteria in rejecting proposals, as often as not, from government when Bills have been put forward.
This is a very significant change for the operation of employment agents in the ACT and, to the best of our observation, nobody was consulted before the Bill was introduced. Mr Berry has a chance in his summing-up to tell me who was consulted. No-one who responded to the Government's invitation indicated that they had been previously consulted. That should send a warning signal to us, and I would urge members to consider that as a basis, if not for rejecting this legislation outright, for giving an appropriate committee of the Assembly a chance to consider whether this is fair legislation for employment agents.
The second reason I put forward for opposing the legislation is the cost involved. There are 73 employment agents, more or less, in the ACT. The basis on which schemes for the regulation of industries like this have been determined in the past is that the cost of the provision of the licensing or registration scheme is borne by the industry.
Mr Berry: Not always.
MR HUMPHRIES: Generally speaking, that is the case. It is more or less the case, as I understand it, with respect to the Agents Act, and the opportunity for people to be - - -
Mr Berry: More or less?
MR HUMPHRIES
: Yes, more or less. The important thing is that we not ask the taxpayers, members of the public, to subsidise a scheme of this kind. It ought to be self-supporting. The cost of operating the scheme has been estimated by my department
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .