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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (29 February) . . Page.. 376 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

Mr Speaker, the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety tabled the report on the Agents (Amendment) Bill 1998, proposed by Mr Berry, on 7 December. Mr Berry's Bill proposes to amend the Agents Act by introducing a licensing regime for all ACT employment agents. The Government lodged a submission with the inquiry opposing the introduction of a licensing system for employment agents in the Territory.

The standing committee's report contained seven recommendations from the inquiry. The Government is disappointed with the outcome of the inquiry, particularly its conclusions about the need to regulate this class of agents under the Agents Act. Other classes of agents are regulated under the Act because of a continuing social need to do so to protect the interests of the community. This is not the case, however, with employment agents. Neither the committee, ACTCOSS nor Mr Berry have been able to produce details of any unscrupulous operators out there exploiting unemployed people in the ACT. Even if there was one unscrupulous operator out there, is not having a costly licensing scheme a bit like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut? There are other ways, Mr Speaker, such as industry co-regulation, perhaps through a code of practice under the Fair Trading Act, or a negative licensing scheme to deal with that operator. Indeed, in the absence of industry exploitation of unemployed people, it would be preferable to monitor the conduct of the industry and act only when there is sufficient evidence to justify costly government intervention.

Notwithstanding this, Mr Speaker, the Government does not believe that the committee's proposal is warranted at all. There is not a tittle of evidence to show that ACT employment agents are charging genuinely unemployed people fees that could justify the imposition of Mr Berry's costly regulatory regime.

This is an industry which is unable to take advantage of economies of scale, unlike the bigger States, to fund government regulation. There are over 2,260 employment agencies in New South Wales to fund their regulation compared with 70 or fewer agencies in the Territory. None of the smaller jurisdictions have imposed this type of costly regulation on their communities unnecessarily.

The standing committee's recommendation that employment agents pay a $200 fee in parity with New South Wales is inconsistent. In fact, New South Wales employment agents only pay $100 per annum for a licence. Mr Speaker, in introducing a regulatory scheme it is essential to get the money right,. and yet here again Mr Berry's proposal has tripped up. The Government has estimated that the licensing regime will cost around $100,000. Based on Mr Berry's figures, assuming that there would be 100 corporate and individual licences issued, there will be an estimated shortfall of $90,000 if the licence fee is set at $100, or $80,000 if the licence fee is set at the committee's level, $200, that is, twice as high as New South Wales. Either way, there will be a significant shortfall in the cost of running the scheme of in the order of $800 to $900 respectively for each registered employment agent.

The Government cannot support the committee's endorsement of this regulation because it is unfair. It is unfair because it fails to discriminate between genuinely unemployed people and those people who can afford to pay for an employment agency

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