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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 2 Hansard (1 March) . . Page.. 414 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: But that is not what the committee says. The committee clearly was quoting a figure. Why were they quoting a $200 fee? Mr Berry is trying to tell us that they were actually quoting a two-year impost when they said $200.

Mr Berry: You are deliberately misleading us now.

MR HUMPHRIES: No, I am not deliberately misleading. It is clear from that that the committee thought that the figures were cumulative. Why would they refer to $200? Why did they not say $300, that is, one year's application fee, the next year's annual fee and the annual fee for the year after? Why did they not say that, Mr Berry? They could have, on your logic. They said $200 because they thought that that was the annual fee, the fee that persons would have to pay when they first entered the scheme in New South Wales. As we know, that is not the case. They have to pay $100 in New South Wales.

I turn to the final point, Mr Speaker. Mr Berry says that the reason nobody has complained in the ACT about employment agents is that people are frightened to make complaints, that people have dealt with employment agents and received a raw deal, being charged for the services that have been provided by the employment agents, and have been too frightened to come forward and complain to anybody about it. You would think that with the debate generated on this matter someone would have come forward to one of our officers and said, "Yes, you need to pass legislation. I got a really raw deal from an employment agent". You would think that one person would have come forward on that basis. Mr Rugendyke, have you had such a person come to your office? Ms Tucker, have you had someone come and tell you about the raw deal that they got from an employment agent?

Mr Wood: Yes, I have.

MR HUMPHRIES: You have, have you?

Mr Wood: I will tell you the story one day.

MR HUMPHRIES: Okay. Mysteriously, evidence that has not been advanced so far in this debate, now suddenly materialises. Labor now has an example which they are prepared to advance in the final five minutes of debate on this Bill. That is great. That is very convenient, Mr Wood. I am afraid that it is not very convincing. The people who are there to receive complaints about these sorts of matters - government agencies; the Bureau of Fair Trading and others - have received no complaints about employment agents in the ACT.

Mr Stanhope: Why would any working person in the ACT bother to go and see you, given your attitude?

MR HUMPHRIES: The fact of the matter is, Mr Stanhope, that they did not come and see your people when you were in office, either, because this provision has been around for some time. Why did they not go and see Labor Party when it was in office? I wonder.

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