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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1997 Week 11 Hansard (4 November) . . Page.. 3568 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

Yet when these people came to my office they said they knew nothing about the legislation but, on investigation, discovered they may face new charges of at least $22,000 a year. They then asked how long they had to examine the Bill and have input before it was passed. They nearly fell off their chairs when they were told they had less than a week. It may be that it is high time that golf courses paid for the groundwater they use. But I think it only fair that they have a chance to put their case before the Bill passes into law.

I am happy to say that I am not on my own in raising concerns about the COAG process, even in this place. The Attorney-General, Mr Humphries, has recognised the problems inherent in national systems of legislation. In his speech at the National Futures Conference on 29 September this year, he said that the principle of merit review was well entrenched in the ACT's way of doing business and governance, but that what threat there was came from "schemes of national legislation". He said:

The schemes of national legislation which are being developed around Australia ... will, over a period of time, I'm sure, produce a less open form of government - if they are not carefully controlled. I haven't got time to detail the risks that poses but I believe that it's an area that governments have to be very attentive to.

Yet not from Mr Humphries. I agree with Mr Humphries: There are serious threats to the democratic process in the way these decisions are manufactured. It is a fundamental requirement of our shared system of government that parliament scrutinises the work of the Executive. In COAG we have a super-executive operating without a parliament, without scrutiny.

I trust the Government has the wisdom to see that I do not take lightly the step of calling these Bills into question. It should reflect that I have not made a habit of pulling down its proposals just for the sake of it. The Government should reflect on the very real issues of concern I raise and seek to address them. I think I have made it clear that simply responding with, "Pass this or we lose the money" will not, in my view, constitute a very persuasive argument.

I want the Government to explain how the system will work in practice. I want to know how the poorest of consumers will be properly protected. I want to know what systems there are in place to stop speculation on the national water market. I want to know what the real timetable is for passing these Bills. From what date do we begin to lose the competition payments? I want to know whether there is any opportunity for community consultation on all or any of these Bills before that deadline falls due. If there is not, I want to know how the Government intends to raise with other governments the concern that the final point in the guiding principles of the policy has been ignored, that the community has not been involved in the reform process.

Whoever is going to speak should not bother saying that competition policy has been on the agenda since Hilmer delivered his report in the early 1990s. Competition policy has been an impenetrable academic discussion over the years since Hilmer raised it and Australian governments adopted it. There has been no real community debate and no real

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