Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 412 ..
MR SMYTH (continuing):
Why are we putting imposts on people when the No. 1 complaint about growth and employment and the No. 1 complaint about keeping business viable is about red tape and the imposts that government puts on industry for no good reason. There is no good reason here. In looking at the critical issues that Mr Berry's Bill fails to address, we find that one is about how the administration of this scheme will be funded. He says, "It is your problem. I do not care. I have just come up with an idea; you fix it". That is why Mr Berry and his colleagues are on the Opposition benches. The second issue is that there is no reason, when you judge this proposal against national competition policy, for it to be put in place. There is no public benefit to be gained from having it. The third is that if there is a problem - we do not believe that there is a problem because the fair trading people in the ACT have had no complaint about it - the remedy for fixing it should be in a Commonwealth Bill. It is a Commonwealth issue. We should not be trying to fix perceived problems in Commonwealth legislation; the Commonwealth should. But I am sure that Federal Labor do not want to touch this issue either because they know what a furphy it is.
Mr Speaker, we get back then to consultation, the old consultation line, get out there and consult. The Government is always being slammed by those opposite about not consulting properly, but what do we have here? We have no consultation. Mr Berry said, "The chamber did not come and tell me that they were upset by this". Did he ask? Did he actually step out of the little cloister that he lives in up there, the sheltered workshop that he lives in, and ask somebody? No, he did not. Mr Humphries challenged Mr Berry to table the letters he received on it. Will he table them? No. Why? It is because he knows that the position is exactly what Mr Humphries is saying, that the industry itself does not want this to happen. Why? It is because the industry is functioning perfectly well. Mr Speaker, this is just another piece of legislation from Labor that uses a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. Actually, you have to give Mr Berry some credit. Mr Berry is the only one in the Labor Party who is actually putting forward legislation. It is a shame that it is of such low quality and of such low consequence and it is a shame that what it does is put just another impost on the taxpayers of the ACT. This legislation is flawed. It is unnecessary, it is unfunded and it is not about doing something that this Assembly should be doing.
Mr Speaker, the whole purpose of the new employment system is to make sure that those who choose to enter that industry to provide services for the unemployed actually get out there and work for the unemployed. It is not some sort of "self-maintenance of my business" system. The Federal Government is demanding outcomes and those outcomes are jobs, real jobs for real people. We understand the importance of making sure that people are employed. We should not be putting another impost, albeit small, on business when, firstly, there is no need; secondly, there is no evidence to suggest that it is necessary; and, thirdly, Labor cannot tell us how they would fund it, saying. "That is your problem. You are the government. We do not have to be financially responsible. We were not in the previous five years; why should we start now?". Mr Speaker, the legislation is flawed and it should be voted down.
MR HUMPHRIES
(Treasurer, Attorney-General and Minister for Justice and Community Safety) (11.21): I wish to make a couple of points briefly about this matter. I want to pick up Ms Tucker's point about consultation. Ms Tucker says that there has been consultation, that the Government has conducted consultation and therefore the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .