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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 407 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

amount of money we are talking about compared with what they are prepared to dish out for V8 car races or sports events of various kinds. This Bill is about ensuring that there is accountability and it is ensuring that a good system is in place for an industry that is often dealing with the most disadvantaged people in our community, people who are not necessarily able to pursue complaints mechanisms if they happen to exist.

One of the issues raised with me recently by a recruitment agency was that Mr Berry's Bill was dragging them in and they had not been consulted. Apparently that is an issue generally about who was sent the correspondence by Mr Humphries. If recruitment agencies feel somehow that their existence is not being acknowledged, that is something that needs to be taken into account in the consultation processes. From the phone calls I have had in the last couple of days, the main issue that they are concerned about is that they will be dragged in and they will not be able to charge employers to do recruitment work. Mr Berry assures me that these amendments to the legislation do not do that. For those reasons, the Greens are quite happy to support Mr Berry's amendments. However, I will take on board what Mr Humphries said about the annual reports. I will listen to the argument, but I think it sounds reasonable to support Mr Berry's amendment on that.

MR BERRY (11.01): The first issue that I think I should go to is the principle of this piece of legislation. Mr Humphries was careful to skirt around the issue of protection for those who are seeking employment and the need for it. He was also careful to skirt around the fact that in New South Wales identical legislation applies in relation to the protection of employees who are seeking employment. The system in New South Wales is different in the sense that the employment agents are dealt with quite separately from agents generally, whereas the legislation I have proposed for the ACT seeks to incorporate employment agents in the general scheme of administration of agents in the ACT.

Another issue on which Mr Humphries complained was the amendment about annual reports of the board in proposed new clause 8A of the Agents (Amendment) Bill, an amendment which I tabled in this place following the committee's report on the matter. I have already spoken about the impact of the committee's report on the amendments I have put forward. I have reflected the committee's wishes in relation to that matter by seeking to ensure that the committee's recommendations are included. Mr Humphries referred to what he described as some weakness in proposed new clause 8A. I suggest that he make out a case for amending it if he thinks that it wrong. I am quite happy to entertain the argument if he is prepared to make it. If he is not prepared to make it, I will support that which has been put forward.

Mr Speaker, some other things need to be discussed. I go firstly to the issue of funding in the ACT. I think that it has been quite disingenuous of Mr Humphries to reflect badly on the committee's report by suggesting that the committee had recommended a $200 fee in parity with New South Wales. That is quite inaccurate. The committee, in its comments, said:

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