Page 1071 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 5 April 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
However, amongst these revisions is a group that could have a significant effect beyond what could normally be considered appropriate for an omnibus bill—that is, schedule 1, which refers to the University of Canberra. We will be opposing those provisions in the detail stage of the debate, in essence, seeking to have them excluded from the legislation. I will talk to our concerns now but also in the detail stage.
In schedule 1 the government refers to the effect of supporting greater flexibility to the University of Canberra in undertaking significant development. This legislation follows previous legislation that we debated last year that, in essence, allows UC to make significant developments on its campus, both commercial and residential, that we have previously raised concerns with. We did not support the previous legislation, and I refer members to that debate. With what has been passed by this Assembly previously and with this current legislation on top, in the worst circumstances it is open season on the university campus. That is a serious change. These are very serious issues and certainly go beyond what would normally be in an omnibus bill.
I accept that it is a worst case scenario, but these legislative changes on the back of the ones made last year provide the University of Canberra with some really significant advantages that other businesses, other competitive developers and so on just do not enjoy. It is creating an unfair and unlevel playing field.
Technically, the explanatory statement notes that the bill amends the University of Canberra Act 1989 to remove a disincentive to third parties considering participating in the formation of a company for the establishment of a joint venture with the University of Canberra. It states that these amendments also lessen the University of Canberra’s administrative burden.
Whilst the opposition might support arrangements that simply reduce the administrative burden, this clearly goes beyond that. We would not lessen something if this means significant lessening of oversight on this significant territory institution. The upshot is, as I said previously, that this potentially gives the UC an unfair commercial advantage over other commercial operators, and the UC is essentially turning into a commercial operator. That is not what red tape reduction is about.
This bill is not creating a level playing field. UC is a singular entity. It is certainly not a small business; we are talking about an institution that is unique in its relationship to Canberra and with the government, and it has a portfolio and budget in the tens of millions of dollars. This is a shift in the way that UC is operating and one I think we need to be cautious about. We need to very cautious, before reducing oversight.
The government’s explanation is that the bill:
… contains modifications to the Financial Management Act 1996 (FMA) in its application to the University of Canberra to simplify the undertaking, by UC, of a range of activities.
I am concerned that the lessening of this administrative burden, as it is so called, actually provides the University of Canberra with a more favourable approval and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video