Page 800 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 9 April 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
drafted in this place, there would be some evidence that went to why a board of inquiry would be needed. This motion goes straight to “Let us have a board of inquiry to look into these things.” Normally a motion in this place would be drafted in a way that reflects some of the issues that actually trigger it. Until I came to this place this morning, it was not entirely clear what was driving Mr Coe’s particular view that we needed a board of inquiry.
That said, I think there are other mechanisms that would be more suitable to investigate these issues, such as an Assembly committee inquiry.
There are Auditor-General performance audit issues. I think they are better starting points. I know that the Auditor-General has written to all MLAs in the last month or so seeking feedback on potential future performance audits. I hope that Mr Coe has put some of these suggestions forward through that process as well. I expect that the Standing Committee on Planning, Environment and Territory and Municipal Services would be well suited to look into some of the issues related to planning and public works in the construction sector and that the public accounts committee might be able to address issues of economic and business development, regulatory reform, public sector management, taxation and revenue.
It is interesting that the Canberra Liberals do not seem to be inclined to refer these matters to Assembly committees, which are, of course, the formal system we have in this place to look at these issues in detail. That perhaps reflects that the opposition does not really see the committees as a place to work in a collegiate manner with their committee colleagues to resolve some of these questions for the benefit of the Canberra community and to find the common ground on policy issues that need to be resolved.
Let me turn to some of the specific points raised in the motion. They go to the detail of why I am not convinced that a large-scale, broad-ranging board of inquiry is in fact the best answer. If we look at the issues specifically raised by Mr Coe, and I know there are some important issues in here, we can see that we do not need a full-scale board of inquiry, because many of the issues are being dealt with through specific mechanisms already.
In relation to the regulation of fees, fines, charges and taxes paid by the industry to government, there have been a number of moves in this area in recent times. And we have seen changes to the extension of time fees and lease variation charges through the recently announced stimulus package that has just been negotiated with industry. The feedback I have seen in the public domain is that the industry has been supportive of those changes and sees them as an important improvement. On that basis, I think that progress has been made and work has been done.
In relation to the level of regulatory burden and the comprehensibility of government-issued rules, codes, plans and laws, I believe that many of these issues are being addressed by the Treasurer’s red tape reduction task force, which is working across directorates and with key stakeholders. I know, for example, that in my own directorate, within Territory and Municipal Services, there is a significant piece of work going on, in partnership with industry, to look at design standards to ensure that
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video