Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 3 Hansard (9 March) . . Page.. 730 ..
MS TUCKER (continuing):
Michael Moore actually referred that issue to the Committee on Administration and Procedure. In the ACT the standing orders related to this issue are standing orders 241 and 242, but I will not go into any more detail in terms of what the committee has discussed on this matter because it would not be proper to do so at this point.
What I want to say is that this is the really key issue that has been raised here today. What is the role of Mr Hird as a Liberal Party person on this committee? In fact, he did agree - and it is minuted - with four out of the six recommendations, and the four that he agreed with were the substantial recommendations about this particular issue. The first two recommendations, which he did dissent from, related to consultation and called on the Government to work with its consultation protocol. It was quite peculiar that he would choose to dissent on that. Let me read recommendation 1 to you. It states:
The committee recommends that, in future, the Department of Education and Community Services comply with the Government's consultation protocol.
I would have thought that was pretty easy to support. In fact, if the Government claims they are doing it anyway they would not have a problem with it. The second recommendation he dissented from was:
The committee recommends that compliance with the Government's consultation protocol be included as a performance measure in contracts of all senior executives.
That is an accountability mechanism about consultation. Mr Hird chose not to support those two recommendations, which was his right, obviously. Recommendation 3 was:
The committee recommends that before proceeding with the project, the Department of Education and Community Services develop a detailed selection process.
That was agreed to by Mr Hird. Recommendation 4 was:
The committee recommends that:
the Department of Education and Community Services review the training to be offered to participants with a view to providing accredited or industry-recognised training;
schools be provided with resources to provide specific on-the-job training;
the per capita training budget be increased significantly.
That was agreed to by Mr Hird. Recommendation 5 was:
the committee recommends that the Department of Education and Community Services re-examine the level of projected support required and negotiate revised funding arrangements with the Commonwealth as appropriate.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .