Page 4855 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I welcome the amendment. I think it is the sort of thing that we will see in a lot of legislation. It is a matter that, as a legislature, we need to pay more attention to. I congratulate Ms Hunter on the amendment.
MS BURCH (Brindabella—Minister for Community Services, Minister for the Arts, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Women and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs) (11.32): The government will not be supporting the Greens’ amendment. With reference to subclause (2) of the amendment, the government agrees in principle to subclause (1), but it does not alter the policy position of the bill. Rather, it establishes a reasonable time frame and is in line with open and transparent government. However, we do not agree with subclause (3). One of the key objectives is to create a nationally consistent approach.
This amendment changes the policy position and creates a situation whereby over time the ACT can deviate from the national quality framework and create confusion in the sector and loss of confidence from the sector. The current processes will ensure that the ACT will not be a silent jurisdiction. There needs to be an agreement by consensus at the ministerial council and, therefore, there is a safeguard to ensure decisions are made to ensure there is no adverse effect on the ACT. This amendment is contrary to the national partnership and could jeopardise funding arrangements from the commonwealth that may dilute our ability to negotiate future amendments at the ministerial council.
Both Victoria and New South Wales have passed this law without the need for this type of amendment. Both of these jurisdictions have approximately 70 per cent of Australia’s education and care services. The ACT will be out of step with these two jurisdictions and it may make the ACT a less attractive place to establish services for national providers. Existing and new national providers may experience an increase in regulatory burden because they will need to be across different versions of a similar law. This effectively creates the exact situation that the national partnership was an attempt to resolve—that is, a unified system.
The government does not agree to subclause (4) for the same reasons as cited for subclause (3). Apart from the fact that the amendment proposed by Ms Hunter is a deviation from the process agreed to in the national partnership, it also has the potential to contribute to the inconsistency nationally. By effect, in such circumstances the ACT would not adopt an amended law, meaning that it would be operating with a different legislative framework to other jurisdictions. This could undermine the objectives of the new system and contribute to confusion in the education and care sector, particularly for providers who operate services across multiple jurisdictions.
There may be further confusion created with the ACT services being required to refer to differing versions of the law. It is important to note that the ACT sector has been calling for this reform for some time and that we may experience a loss of confidence in the regulatory authority and government should this amendment proceed.
In relation to subclause (5), we believe that there is potential that the ACT can on its own disallow certain regulations, in effect leading to the ACT operating with its own
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video