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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2004) . . Page.. 4419 ..

Most organisations can be reformed, reshaped, augmented and so forth to achieve greater efficiencies and to embrace new functions and responsibilities. In the business-oriented elements of the ACT bureaucracy we have—or we ought to have—the resourcefulness to undertake the sorts of changes and adjustments that would enable the assumption of the responsibility for handling proposed investigatory and dispute mediation activities by the office of the Small Business Commissioner. It seems to me that the other functions proposed for the commissioner’s work program are already the responsibility of the existing administration.

In essence, I am not in favour of creating a new organisation on the assumption that it is just what the small business community wants and, therefore, it might turn out to be a good thing. I would prefer it if the government first considered modifying or improving the capacity of the existing administration to assume new functions. I would also like to see the government consult more widely with all small business associations in the ACT and report back in the next Assembly on the feedback from those associations. Further work should be done in this area and this proposal should be resubmitted to the next Assembly for consideration.

MR PRATT (9.58): I oppose the Small Business Commissioner Bill.

Mr Wood: Tell us what this bill is about. Tell us what we already know. Everybody else is doing it.

MR DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR PRATT: I oppose the Small Business Commissioner Bill. Mr Smyth referred to ABS statistics that merely illustrated Labor’s business and commercial position in this town. Ordinarily, the proposal for a Small Business Commissioner would not be a bad idea but I think this is just a stunt to cover the government’s poor record of its support for small business, which is underwritten by its anti-business industrial relations program. It is important to make the point tonight that we might not have needed a Small Business Commissioner if this government did not have in place an anti-business industrial relations policy. Is the commissioner going to go around and clean up the mess that is left behind after a union has had the right of entry? Is that what the requirement is?

Whilst the government’s occupational health and safety policy is fairly positive overall, it contains a number of draconian elements. I refer to a union’s right of entry, to its ability to name and shame, and to its running down of WorkCover. I refer also to the inability of WorkCover to provide safety and education programs for small businesses. If that capability were further developed there might not be a need to fill the void relating to a union’s right of entry. I do not think government members have read the report of the Cole commission and I do not think they understood the presence of union abuse. If they were fair dinkum about supporting small business they would do something about their industrial relations policy. There would then not be a need for a Small Business Commissioner.

MR QUINLAN (Treasurer, Minister for Economic Development, Business and Tourism, and Minister for Sport, Racing and Gaming) (10.01), in reply: I thank

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