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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 1 Hansard (21 February) . . Page.. 126 ..

MRS CARNELL (continuing):

Today I formally table the report of the government reform advisory group. Last week I released the report for a period of public comment. I intend that it be a discussion paper, and I am keen to hear what the community has to say about the ideas presented in it. The government reform advisory group was chaired by the head of my department, John Walker, and drew on the expertise of a broad cross-section of skilled individuals. The membership included well-known academics Peter Coaldrake, David Hughes, Philip Selth and Patrick Weller, consultants John Mant and Annie Austin, public servant Stephen Hunter, and community representatives Elizabeth Morgan and Bob Sutherland. I thank them all for their contribution.

The group's terms of reference were to investigate, and recommend improvements to, our system of government in the ACT so that it was more participatory and accessible to the community. The group were not given resources for research and consultancies. They have drawn on the broad range of skills and local and national experience within the group and have come up with a range of recommendations that should be very easy for everyone to understand. I do not measure content by the kilogram.

I am pleased that the group has come up with practical recommendations rather than ideas requiring legislative change and that they have presented complex ideas with great simplicity. You will recall that at the end of the first year of self-government a select committee from the Assembly inquired into the most appropriate form of government, the electoral system and the Commonwealth's reserve powers. The most significant outcome from this process was the entrenchment of the Hare-Clark electoral system with Robson rotation. Seven years after the ACT was given self-government it is time to look at whether there are changes that can be implemented to improve the system. The report is a discussion document aimed at sparking debate within both the community and the ACT Assembly. It provides a useful summary of the unique nature of ACT self-government and its combination of State and local responsibilities.

It suggests changes, including a greater role for all Assembly members in the decision-making processes of the Government through a revised Assembly committee system; direct input from the community in the revised committee process to increase the participation of the community in decision-making; streamlining administrative arrangements and ministerial portfolio responsibilities so that each department head reports to only one Minister; involving expert advisers in Cabinet discussions in order to allow Ministers to draw on outside expertise; and greater recognition of Canberra's role in the region, especially as a service provider to a large number of New South Wales residents. The advisory group's approach has been to build on the current system rather than to dismantle it. The group's report seeks to enhance our capacity to engage the community in the process of decision-making, recognising the reality of how the system has evolved since self-government.

Many changes have occurred in the ACT since self-government. I believe that the advisory group was right in its assessment of the Assembly's strengths - that it is a single layer of government combining State and municipal functions - and its weaknesses, particularly that it is difficult to run a full-scale parliament with just 17 members, even if there were a majority party of eight. There is just not a huge pool of talent to draw on and it demands much of government members.

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