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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2004) . . Page.. 4412 ..

problems relating to government decisions—in the hope that it would reduce the time taken to resolve development issues. That position, which tended to increase those problems, was recently abolished when ACTPLA was created. The powers of and the system surrounding the Commissioner for Land and Planning were different, but it serves as a reminder that creating a position of commissioner does not necessarily solve all the problems we are trying to address.

Another issue I would like to raise relates to the consultation process that led to the development of the Small Business Commissioner. Despite that process there has not been loud, vocal opposition from businesses to this proposal, nor has it been met with overwhelming clamours of support. I am concerned that the needs of on-the-ground small business people have not been included in the development of this legislation. There was some urgency in bringing this legislation before the Assembly so that it was passed before the next election and so that the government’s commitment, which was included in the economic white paper and in the last budget, was honoured.

It might have been better to consult more widely in the development stage in order to better identify those areas that small businesses thought needed improving. It is interesting to compare the process leading up to this legislation with the process involved in developing the position of Commissioner for Children and Young People. A large number of stakeholders were involved in that proposal. The proposed commissioner’s powers were thoroughly researched to ensure that they were suitable for the ACT. There are several working models of children’s commissioners in other jurisdictions. I recognise that we cannot necessarily automatically transfer all those models to the ACT, but we must ensure that the position of a commissioner for children and young people fits in with what we are seeking to achieve.

By the same reasoning we cannot simply say that the position of a Small Business Commissioner, which was successful in Victoria, can be replicated in the ACT. The Treasurer, in media releases he issued relating to this topic, noted that there have been two red tape task forces in the last two terms of government, including the business regulatory review task force that reported two years ago. I do not agree with many of the recommendations of those two task forces, but it would be interesting to hear from the Treasurer how many recommendations he believes he has implemented over the past two years. If those two task forces have been cited as an example for the need for a Small Business Commissioner, I am not confident that that will have much effect.

If governments keep ignoring the recommendations of task forces—often with good reason, though sometimes with no good reason—why would they act on the recommendations of a commissioner? I am sure that the position of commissioner, which is what we are seeking to establish this evening, is basically seen as an ongoing task force. This idea has a number of problems. The government has asked us to pass urgently legislation that has not been completely thought through. I am not averse to the stated aim of the commissioner, which is to simplify and respond to the amount of government bureaucracy that businesses sometimes face. I believe that the government should be working on that very supportable aim.

However, we must rethink the best way in which to achieve that. The next time we have this discussion we must ensure that we have fully developed this proposal. I note that both Mr Smyth and Ms Tucker have circulated proposed amendments that seek a review

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