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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 5 Hansard (2 May) . . Page.. 1375 ..

MR BERRY (continuing):

That struck me as a particularly unfair charge for people who might be in poor circumstances. It would be a bad charge if it was against somebody who was well off. It is extremely cruel where it applies to somebody who is in poor circumstances. In this case, this person had a partner and some kids and could not afford the $44. I am not quite sure whether he has a job now. I suspect that he did not get a job with the department because he could not afford to pay the application fee.

At the earliest moment, I sought to have this matter raised in the Assembly. That is why it appears on the notice paper. What do you reckon has happened, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker? Eureka, I have hit the jackpot again! Bear in mind that the notice paper turned up at 10.30 this morning with my motion on it. I think the government could see the wisdom of the motion because, rather than going through the process of being literally wrestled to the ground, they tried to claw back some decency out of the process and Bill Stefaniak stuck out a press release at 1.38 pm today saying that the government had scrapped the police check fee within the education department. I reckon they figured, "We are going down on this, boys." The press release is headed "Government scraps police check fee within Education Department", and states:

Isn't that amazing? I have to say that I looked at the government's budget and saw their claims about social capital, which is one thing I was particularly interested in, and their new initiatives. I searched through the budget with a fine-tooth comb. I brought the budget papers down because I thought I might have missed it and would have been embarrassed if the government said, "You fool, look in the budget papers; it is in there." I thought, "Double check, Wayne, don't get caught." I checked the budget papers, thoroughly searched through them, and I still could not find anything about it, so I felt secure in the knowledge that the government had not done something about it, not even in social capital terms. Here we had a situation that deserved some social justice.

I am very pleased to claim credit for this matter. This is another victory; another win for Wayne, if you like. I know that I have overwhelming support in this place for this matter because sensible people in this place wonder why it is that the government has been so rusted on to this cruel charge for so long. Why would you want it? You would not want anything to do with it.

Mr Quinlan: Are you enjoying yourself?

MR BERRY: I am having a great time. This is good news for the community. Yes, the government has lost a bit of face over it, but we should rejoice in the fact that at last they have been wrestled to the ground by a motion which has such good sense attached to it. It just alarms me that it has taken so long for the message to sink in that this fee is unacceptable. I thank those members who have nodded their support on this matter and, in a quiet way, have been supportive of the motion.

Mr Rugendyke: It sounds like it is unanimous.

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