Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 409 ..
MR BERRY (continuing):
the Chamber advised our recruitment members of this and suggested the industry may wish the Chamber to organise an industry meeting to discuss the issue. We received no response at that time. We understand the ACT Government received only one submission from the industry opposing the amendment.
Mr Humphries: That is not true.
MR BERRY: Hang on a minute. Mr Peters was talking about a year ago. He went on to say:
The ACT Government has been opposing the amendment. The Chamber has also been opposed to the amendment -
they did not ever tell me that -
on the basis of unnecessary regulation or "red tape".
Who is surprised? He said that every concerned business should fax the Attorney-General, the Independents and so on expressing their opposition to this Bill. I received, I think, about 10 form letters which had been geed up by this letter from the chamber. Essentially, they said that they wanted clarification of the proposed fee structure. That is a matter for the Government. The Government has decided that it wants $1,000. The committee has recommended $100 a year and the Government is saying, "If you introduce this, we are going to feel miffed about it and we are going to hit them with a fee of $1,000". You will have to include it in your budget and see if your budget survives the place. If you are not prepared to accept the committee's recommendation, be it on your own head.
Requests for a copy of earlier correspondence and documentation and a further adjournment of four weeks to allow further advice and input were generally the proposals put to me by about 10 of these people. I assume, therefore, that there are about 60 or so out there who are not that troubled about this issue. Indeed, I think that there has been adequate opportunity for consultation. There will always be an opportunity for the Chamber of Commerce and Industry predictably to argue the case for unnecessary regulation and red tape. Nobody in business wants to be regulated. I have not seen too many of them come forward and say that they want to be regulated. They never rush forward for that sort of thing. Indeed, some have said on the public record - I have seen them say it on television - that there are some advantages in this Bill because it provides a level playing field for all of them and they know that the rules for everybody will be the same, whereas right now we have Rafferty's rules.
Mr Speaker, in recent years there have been significant changes to the way that employment agents operate in this country. In other States and Territories, particularly in New South Wales, employment agents have been regulated. The last legislation in New South Wales was - - -
Mr Humphries: In which Territories have they been regulated, Wayne?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .