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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3459 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

work up for presentation to the Assembly. I also note that regulatory impact statements will not be required for all pieces of subordinate legislation.

This bill is just part of an overall process of making government accountable for its decisions, and I think it is worthy of support. It is not just about making it accountable, I would add. In light, particularly, of the Auditor-General's report on Bruce Stadium, I think it might mean that certain processes that we would assume were occurring but have not been occurring might start to be introduced.

One issue of detail I would raise about the bill, however, is that the assessment of costs and benefits of implementing subordinate legislation and the regulatory impact statement is focused on quantifiable costs and benefits. I note that there is a condition on this that the quantification would occur only if practicable and appropriate. I also note that the definition of costs and benefits includes direct and indirect economic, environmental and social costs and benefits. I would like to put on the record that I think the government should provide comprehensive assessments that include non-quantifiable costs and benefits, such as impacts on the environment or on community well-being, rather than just focus on dollars and cents.

At this stage I am prepared to see how the legislation works in practice, but I will be watching very carefully the content of the regulatory impact statements to check whether they are too narrowly focused.

MR HARGREAVES (9.15), in reply: I am closing the debate and I await the consultation process. I would like to put on the record my appreciation of the government and the Greens for their support in principle for what this bill tries to do. As Mr Moore said, it is the latest in a suite of pieces of legislation intended to make more transparent the processes of government and the development of legislation so that we as members in this tiny Assembly can get information before we are asked to make a decision on it.

When I issued the consultation draft I did offer to show members examples of what had been put forward as regulatory impact statements in the states. As I said in my tabling speech, they vary from 400 or 500-page documents on very significant issues like the proposed Children's Services Regulation 97 in Victoria down to a couple of pages on certain issues in other jurisdictions. So it doesn't necessarily mean it is going to be a lot of work.

In fact, as the minister said, quite often these impact statements already have been prepared for government anyway. It just makes a lot of sense that they be made available to members so that we can get an idea of what impacts there will be on significant parts of the community. Often also, when we don't do it and we then stumble across these regulations and try to disallow them, a big blue ensues. It hits the press and the public arena, and the bureaucrats who would have to do it in the first place end up with three times the amount of work. If they do the work in the first place they probably will save themselves quite a lot. It would certainly save us a lot of angst.

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I am quite happy to entertain some minor amendments to this legislation, although I do not think they are necessary, if people have difficulties with the odd little bit here and there. As I have said before, this is modelled on the

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