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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2004) . . Page.. 4418 ..

small business, we believe there is some potential for the commissioner to enhance a competitive, cooperative and fair operating environment for small business in the ACT, which is the stated object of the act. As a result of consultation we have been encouraged to support this legislation.

Any review of the legislation should be thorough and include consultation with small businesses and any relevant advisory boards. It should also deal with any jurisdictional issues that might arise during the operation of this legislation. Obviously there is a potential for overlap and that is an issue that must be addressed. It would be silly if we duplicated our processes. It certainly would not be desirable if there were jurisdictional tension between agencies, which is something that could occur. That was one of the issues I raised before the last election when we called for a review of statutory oversight bodies—the review that was tabled today. It is interesting that the review took that long, but at least we have now received it.

If a review were conducted the Assembly would have an opportunity to examine the achievements of the Small Business Commissioner. We recognise that costs are involved—certainly not in the realm of millions of dollars—but the Assembly can hold the government accountable for any money that is spent on a review. There are some risks involved. It is important that the right person is selected as commissioner as he or she could make a lot of difference in that job.

As a proactive advocate for small business I imagine that experience as a small business operator would be a huge asset, not only because of knowledge of the sector but also because it would gain the trust of other small businesses in the ACT. Another risk would be if the commissioner were trapped within the mindset of the government or BusinessACT. If that occurred the commissioner would lose his or her ability to scrutinise policies effectively and to be a genuine advocate for small businesses. Essentially, the more independent a commissioner is, the better.

MRS CROSS (9.56): The Small Business Commissioner Bill provides for the establishment of an office of Small Business Commissioner with the functions of improving business-to-government relationships; the review and reform of regulations; dispute mediation; investigatory functions; and advisory functions. All those goals are admirable in themselves but, given the fact that we are debating this bill, it could be assumed that the present systems are inadequate or that they are failing to achieve those goals and that we need a new and dedicated organisation to address identified shortcomings.

It could also be assumed that there has been widespread pressure from the small business community for the establishment of such an organisation or that a government survey of the small business community has identified such a need. I am not aware of either of those circumstances. Recently my office received only one call from a business association group. Regardless of the triggers for the development of this proposed legislation, I welcome the government’s demonstration of specific concern for the health and wellbeing of the ACT small business community. I tend to think that it is better to improve what we already have in place so as to make it more capable rather than going to the trouble of setting up a new bureaucratic organisation.

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