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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 411 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

about this matter. There is no history of abuse of people seeking jobs through agencies in the ACT; but, because Mr Berry has an ideological bias against everybody in business, he wants to put regulation in place to make sure that we do not have Rafferty's rules. But do we have Rafferty's rules?

Mr Berry: You sure have.

MR SMYTH: Where is the evidence? Mr Berry says that we do, but where is the evidence that we have Rafferty's rules out there? There is none. There is no evidence that, for some odd reason, the businesses involved in employment as an industry are doing things that are hurting those that they should be looking after. Mr Berry throws a blanket coverage over all of it and says that all the other States and Territories have done so. When Mr Humphries asks which Territories have done so, Mr Berry retracts and says that the States have done so, but when Mr Humphries asks which States have done so we get back to New South Wales having done so.

My understanding is that the smaller States have not done so, that they have rejected it because there is no need for it. What we have out there now is an industry which, instead of just taking loads of money from Federal governments, only gets paid on performance. The industry is actually being paid to look after people and it is doing so. We have had a dramatic change in the numbers unemployed and we are now seeing them being looked after with a view to getting them a job instead of the view that we can continue to take Federal government money to maintain them in their unemployment. That is the whole point of the new system. It is about outcomes, it is about finding a job, and it is about looking after the individual.

Mr Berry, in one of his retorts to Mr Humphries about the fee structure, said that it is up to the Government to find the money to fund this proposal. He does not care. He is talking about charging only $100 and there are about 100 agents, which would bring in $10,000. If it costs $100,000 to administer, it is not his responsibility to find the money. This is the all care and no financial management policy that we see so often from the Labor Party. They lost two elections because people knew that they could not balance the books. They will not be re-elected because they are willing to do things to protect somebody but just do not care who pays for it. The taxpayers have to pay for it and they know, they care and they understand that the lot over there are totally incapable of running any sort of reasonable financial management. That is why they are over there.

The mathematics are very easy. Mr Humphries has been told that it would cost approximately $100,000 to administer such a system. You are saying that for 100 agents at $100 each you will get $10,000 and the taxpayer can pick up the other $90,000. That would be for something that is not necessary. That is why under the lot opposite we had blowouts in our budgets and that is why the lot opposite will not get re-elected. What was the name of the document they put out - "Working Capital"? Did the figures add up? Did it balance then? No. Everybody knows that you cannot balance the figures. This is just another example of that. What does Mr Berry say? He says, "That is your problem. Find it in the budget; it is only money. Let the taxpayers pay".

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