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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 405 ..

MR HUMPRHIES (continuing):

The provision requiring the number and outline of the nature and outcome of complaints made to the board shows a misunderstanding of the procedural operation of the Act. Complaints are not made to the Agents Board; they are received by the registrar of the board. The registrar filters complaints and conducts his own investigations, including investigations of agents, and only refers appropriate matters to the board for inquiry. Disciplinary hearings conducted by the board represent only a subset of all the complaints that may be made to the registrar.

Mr Berry's provisions also require all agents who were the subject of an inquiry by the board to be publicly named. The Government opposes this provision on the basis that it would be inappropriate for the board's annual report to name those agents against whom no wrongdoing has been found. I want to emphasise that. Mr Berry's amendment would name in a public report people who have been found innocent through a process of investigation.

Mr Berry: No.

MR HUMPHRIES: I am sorry, Mr Berry, your amendment does do that. Everybody who is investigated is named. Read your own bloody Bill and your amendments. Every person who is investigated is named.

Mr Berry: That is right. Even if they are found innocent, that is right.

MR HUMPHRIES: Even if they are found innocent, that is right. So it is the case that people who are innocent in this process are going to be named in an annual report - - -

Mr Berry: That is fine.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Berry says that that is fine. The Agents Board does not do that in respect of any other class of agent in the ACT. There is no other class of agent who is in this position. Agents are regularly investigated and a number are found guilty of offences. I gather that most are exonerated or at least given very minor penalties, such as warnings. We do not have people being named in legislation for other sorts of agents. Why should we do it in respect of employment agents? What has Mr Berry got against employment agents in this town that he seeks to bring in these sorts of provisions.

I want to put it on the record that employment agents in the ACT have a good record; they have an excellent record. As of the last report to me from the Bureau of Fair Trading there are no complaints outstanding about employment agents in this Territory. For as far back as anyone in that bureau can recall there has not been one complaint. Today, we are going to pass legislation which imposes a costly and cumbersome regulatory regime on those employment agents for which not one iota of justification has been advanced.

Mr Speaker, the Government opposes Mr Berry's amendment to clause 26 of the Bill on the basis that it is a duplication of existing provisions in the Fair Trading Act. I think that a more appropriate legislative framework for the development of a code of practice for employment agents is the Fair Trading Act itself. Certainly, it is a less costly method of achieving the goals Mr Berry seeks. I can say to the Assembly that, if Mr Berry's Bill

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