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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 1 Hansard (21 February) . . Page.. 133 ..

MR DE (continuing):

The report proposes a package of systematic or structural reforms - the blueprint referred to in its title - that will assist in removing government procedural and regulatory impediments to business development and will improve the design and operation of regulations in the future. However, the task force was also pleased to discover that in a considerable number of areas government agencies are already implementing reviews of their regulatory processes. In general, the task force found a very positive attitude among agencies about the need to reform processes which were complex or overly bureaucratic.

One of the main areas of business concern about red tape raised by the report relates to planning and land development approval processes. For example, the task force found that under the Land (Planning and Environment) Act a single application may require up to five separate public notifications relating to a policy proposal, change of lease purpose, design and siting, environment, and heritage. The task force recommended that the Act undergo significant revision to reduce its complexity and that consideration be given to a single public notification and consultation process. Mr Speaker, the task force also made a number of other related recommendations concerning notification and consultation procedures, transparency and approval, and on changes to distribution of functions between the ACT Planning Authority and the Department of Urban Services. Mr Speaker, the Government has already announced that a full response to these recommendations will be undertaken in the context of reforms to the planning and land administration system in response to the task force report, the Stein Report into the Administration of the ACT Leasehold and the Mant/Collins Review of ACT Planning Functions and Structures. In broad terms, the report also advocated that more emphasis be put on obtaining voluntary compliance and gaining the understanding and commitment of the business sector.

The task force considered that a multifaceted approach based on good regulatory design principles was more effective than central agency review and challenge of individual proposals. This approach needs to be bolstered by continuing to develop a culture of service within the agencies as well as a culture of regulatory reform. The task force rejected the legislative approach to regulatory reform that has been implemented in a number of States. As I mentioned earlier, the task force recommended a package of reforms - a blueprint - that will assist in removing government procedural and regulatory impediments and will improve the design and operation of regulations in the future. It should be emphasised that these measures will not result in public interest concerns such as environmental, community or consumer protection receiving less attention. They are directed at improved public policy decision-making and a more efficient public administration. Put simply, they are part and parcel of good practice in government and are intended to benefit all members of the community, not just the business sector.

The 10-point program recommended by the task force comprises the following: A Minister responsible for regulatory reform; a panel of business representatives to provide advice on regulatory reform issues; developing the Business Regulation Review Unit with a central focus of coordinating and fostering best practice in regulatory reform on a whole-of-government basis; a regulatory needs analysis process and a business impact assessment process; a staged review of existing regulations; agency regulatory plans; consultative mechanisms between the private and public sectors; effective enforcement of regulations; developing a culture of service; and developing a culture of regulatory reform.

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