Page 3458 - Week 09 - Thursday, 20 August 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Had the Greens been satisfied with the thorough national approach through the Council of Australian Governments that every Australian government is involved in—if that process is not enough, why seek to substitute an inferior process and then get upset when the government does not support you substituting an inferior process? We have a national process—a process that involves all Australian governments, that involves multiple government portfolios, a detailed regulatory impact statement, detailed consideration, partnership with industry and partnership with consumers and retailers—to institute what we all agree is an important change.
Let us face it: all that Ms Le Couteur’s bill was about was the ACT Greens trying to get in and say, “We did it one or two months before the rest of the nation.” You do not like being called on that fact because it labels you just what you are: politicians—politicians seeking to dance in the limelight. Heaven forbid that the Greens party ever gets called on that, because if you strip that away, one of the key elements of your political manifesto, your reason for being and your ability to sell yourself as a political party is stripped away. You are politicians. Accept it. Accept getting called on the politics from time to time. Grow up, learn the lesson from this, and perhaps work constructively—and we will get a good outcome.
It is still my view that we can get a good outcome in relation to this important policy reform, but what I will not cop is a lecture from the Greens party on playing politics. They have had their grubby little political hands all over this issue. It is interesting that the dinosaurs over here spend all of their time—
Mr Coe: Have you had too much—
MR BARR: What, you want your little bit of the limelight as well?
MR SPEAKER: Ms Bresnan, a supplementary question?
MS BRESNAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Will the minister give the Assembly an undertaking that he will make all regulatory impact statements that he receives for his legislation available to the Assembly?
MR BARR: It is government practice that regulatory impact statements are prepared, and that is part of the legislative process. It is, of course, standard practice, particularly on matters that involve interstate and intergovernmental agreements. For example, in another one of my portfolios we are at the moment engaged in a significant reform process around childcare. That does involve a regulatory impact statement. It is being prepared. All jurisdictions have input to that. It is something that, as part of a COAG reform process, is sponsored at a national level; and all jurisdictions have that input. It is standard practice. There are many public policy analysts who believe that it is clearly the best way to go, particularly when seeking to make significant reforms in important areas of public policy that have significant implications for people outside this place.
It is all well and good for you to come in here and feel as though we will just whack a piece of private members legislation in and a couple of months later we will pass it. Never mind its implications for everyone else; you’ll feel good and we’ll be a couple of months ahead of the national process.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .