Page 1251 - Week 04 - Thursday, 7 April 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
This is the first the Assembly has seen of this bill. The way the government is doing things, I have no doubt they will bring this back on in May. It is a just-in-time approach to legislation. I think it is excluding this place from suitable scrutiny of what the government is doing. It is certainly making it very hard for the committee system.
I note that Mr Rattenbury is a big fan of Latimer House. The review of the Latimer House principles clearly stated that more bills should go to committees for inquiry so that we can find out the full impacts, so that we can get differing views, apart from the brief of the government, so that people can be involved in the process of legislating, so that we actually get better legislation up front instead of, as is so often the case in this place, getting legislation that has to come back to be modified because the government did not do the work properly, the consultation was not listened to appropriately and the outcome has been less than successful for those who suffer because this place does not do its job properly.
The letter that I have has been signed by the chief executive of the Canberra Business Chamber, the chief executive of the Aged & Community Services New South Wales and ACT, the chief executive of Bupa, the chief executive officer of the Aged Care Guild and the Leading Age Services Australia CEO. That these people have such concerns I think warrants this bill going to the public accounts committee. There is no reason why the committee cannot act quickly. We have got a full agenda but then again I think all committees have got full agendas.
This is an important issue. I think we are all aware that, particularly as the ACT catches up to the rest of the nation in terms of the percentage of citizens in aged care, this will become a bigger and bigger problem for the ACT. I appreciate the notion that we have let the minister go out and consult. In fact, the minister has been out and consulted and spoken to some of these people. They have now gone public with their concerns. It would indicate that there is somewhat of an impasse in the consultation or in the negotiations.
If we are genuine about Latimer House, it is time now to let the Latimer House principles apply. They clearly state that the involvement of the committee system in legislation is a beneficial thing. Let us prove that that is correct. Accordingly, I have moved that this bill be sent to the public accounts committee for inquiry and report.
MR GENTLEMAN (Brindabella—Minister for Planning and Land Management, Minister for Racing and Gaming and Minister for Workplace Safety and Industrial Relations) (10.46): The government will not be supporting Mr Smyth’s motion today. We have done considerable consultation on this bill with the community and the employer groups, as I discussed in the presentation statement. It will continue, of course, until the resumption of debate. My office has spent time particularly with Bupa and the aged care sector to engage them. They will continue to engage with them as we move forward.
I am quite disappointed that if the opposition did have a view about sending this to committee, they could have advised my office or me prior to my standing to present the bill today.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video