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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 919 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

We have also made specific recommendations on the TAFE system. I think that it is very important to implement them because of the claims we get from government, such as the claim by the Federal Government that it looks after nursing homes. Everything is all fine there until something falls down. We do not see any really good quality assurance mechanisms being put in place. We are asking the Government to show us how they substantiate their claim that they have a high level of quality assurance for private providers, that they know what is going on, that they are monitoring and auditing the whole area thoroughly. They have claimed that they can assure us that it is of absolutely top quality there. The committee has asked for them to come up with justifications on that.

Mr Hird, in his dissenting report, expressed the belief that the Minister had not been given a fair go. I think I have covered that. We did choose, as a committee, to ask the Minister to speak first, which is entirely appropriate if that is the choice of the committee. I understand that it was the choice of Mr Hird's committee as well, so I am not quite sure why he is so incredibly offended by that. It will be of interest to members to know that 54 pages of response came from the Minister, although a couple still have not arrived. We did ask for some more information on the dollar implications of the work for the dole scheme and emergency relief services. We do not have an answer to those. (Further extension of time granted) Clearly, it is not correct to say that the Minister did not get a fair go. He did get a fair go - 54 pages of response, as I said. We were not necessarily satisfied with the quality of the responses and, as a committee, we have a right to make a judgment about that. I think that I have covered all areas. I look forward to listening to the debate.

MR BERRY (10.58): Are you going to have a go, Harold?

Mr Hird: No, I will wait for you to have a go. You are going to give it to me, so you might as well give it to me now.

MR BERRY: It would have been very interesting if you had got up and tried to argue your dissenting report. It would be refreshing, at least, to have had a chance to listen to it in here, because we never had a chance to listen to it in the committee. Not one issue on which there could be debate was raised in that committee by that member, Mr Acting Speaker.

Mr Humphries: You are the deputy chairman, Wayne. You should be going next.

MR BERRY: Mr Humphries interjects that I am the deputy chairman, as though I should be arguing Harold's case. He is big enough and gets paid enough to argue his own case, thank you very much, and I could not see any ideological similarities between him and me on education.

Mr Humphries: Thank goodness for that.

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