?Geagietatu Aeaembtg Wednesday, 18 September 1991

4851 ?Geagietatu Aeaembtg Wednesday, 18 September 1991 THE SPEAKER (Mr ichael Barnett) rook the Chair at 11.00 am, and read prayers. PETITION - MINERAL SANDS, BEENUP AND JANGARDUP Rail Transport Option Study MR BLAIKIE (Vasse) [11.06 am]: I have a petition couched in the following terms - To: The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Parliament of Western Australia in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens of Western Australia: I. We the ratepayers, taxpayers, voters and residents of Busselton and surrounding areas demand that the Western Australian Government conduct a comprehensive study on the movement of mineral sands and other products from the Beenup and Jangardup areas to Bunbury using the rail transport option. 2. This study should be as comprehensive as that carried out for the road option and should consider utilising existing rail reserves as a priority. 3. We further demand chat no irrevocable decision on the road option is made until the study on rail usage is completed and made available to the public. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest con sideration and your petitioners, as bound, will ever pray. The petition bears 1 991 signatures and I certify that it conforms to the Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly. The SPEAKER: I direct that the petition be brought to the Table of the House. [See petition No 100.] APPROPRIATION (CONSOLIDATED REVENUE FUND) BILL Second Reading - Budget Debate Debate resumed from 17 September. MRS EDWARDES (Kingsley) [11.12 am]: In continuing my contribution to this debate I will refer to compliance costs on small business. In the February issue of Brief magazine Alex Chernov, QC, who was then the President of the Law Council of Australia, made a statement I will quote to the House. The article is titled, "The Lawyer and Morality" and in it he quotes Jeremy Bentham as follows - Every law is an evil, for every law is an infraction of liberty. His article stares - But when you have what we have today - nine Parliaments suffering a kind of legislative madness - then the attack on our liberty comes not just from the content of the law, but from the overwhelming volume of it. We should ask ourselves, and our legislators should ask themselves, what is being achieved by this orgy of law-making. One thing that is being created is a massively expensive regulatory environment in which we all to have live and work. Compliance by small business with Government legislation and regulations imposes substantial costs on it. The subject of compliance costs must be reviewed because it has a great impact on employment, investment and the expansion of small business. A thorough identification of those compliance costs should be undertaken. The kinds of costs I anm talking about are the renewal of lice nces and the application for licences which are required 4852 [ASSEMBLY] for small business to operate; the application for renewal of patents, leases and permits; the preparation for the submission of annual reports; taxes such as the financial institutions duty, Federal bank account debit, wholesale tax and sales tax; remittances and their application; the completion of lengthy questionnaires from the Australian Bureau of Statistics; and the availability required for audits of various kinds, regardless of whether they are from income tax or sales tax. These costs include not only the administration costs of meeting the legal requirements, but also the costs associated with keeping themselves informed and the costs of fees for professional legal and accounting advice. If members talk to any small business person they will be told that compliance costs are a major disincentive for further expansion and investment. I advocate two steps in respect of this issue. Firstly, that the Government conduct a major review of the identification of compliance and its cost to small business. The costs should be assessed and at least meet the basic criteria; namely, fairness, equity, simplicity and efficiency. Simplicity is essential when considering the various Government department forms which have to be completed. It is a major disincentive to an efficient organisation. Where necessary those costs should be adjusted or even abolished if it is considered they are no longer effective. Secondly, I recommend that the Government establish a consultative mechanism to monitor future legislation and regulations and to continue the monitoring of existing legislation and regulations. Members would then be aware of the financial impact that legislation presented to the House will have on small business. Business impact statements must become an integral part of the legislative process. Members may be aware of the number of times I have stood in this place and asked the questions: "What is the cost benefit analysis? Has a cost benefit analysis been carried out? What will be the impact on business in respect of this legislation and regulations?" I have never received an adequate reply to those questions. I raised the same questions during the Estimates Committee debates last year and on many occasions in this House this year. It must become part of the legislative process. We cannot continue along the lines referred to by Alex Chernov; that is, enacting legislation and regulations which impose costs on small business without members in this place being made aware of those costs. I remind members of what he said - One thing that is being created is a massively expensive regulatory environment in which we all have to live and work. Members should at least be able to assess the impact of the cost imposed on small business by legislation and regulations debated in this House. I found it interesting, after my contribution to ibis debate last night, to read an article in this morning's The West Australian written by John McGlue entitled, 'State counts cost of executive privilege." The article reads- The shortcomings of the media in covering WA Inc are more truthfully attributable to an inability to access critical information - and inexperience in dealing with Government ministers or senior public servants telling bare-faced lies and smiling while they did it. I will pick up on public servants. Last night in this debate I referred to the Auditor General's report and the situation arose in which the Leader of the House actually criticised the Auditor General. The Auditor General's role is totally independent of the Executive Government, and it must be. In the past eight years the appointment of public servants - the Labor Government appointees - has contributed to the WA Inc scandal. By their sitting back and not taking any action and not questioning what the Government was doing they have aided and abetted this Government in its actions- We should be very aware when members criticise independent authorities- We have heard no criticism of the public servants who were silent at that time. Those public servants were silent about the actions of the Government when, in their professional role, they should have been impartial. They had a duty to exercise some professional integrity in that regard. Instead, those Labor Party appointees in the Public Service were more interested in keeping their masters in their jobs which, in turn, gave them job security. Shame on the Leader of the House for criticising the independence of a person such as the Auditor General. [Wednesday, 18 September 1991] 485385 Mr Pearce: I was not criticising them, I was criticising their judgment. They are wrong in the assertions they made. Several members inteijected. The SPEAKER: Order! It is inappropriate to interject at any time and, as it is apparent that some members are not await of the rules in this place, I will try to explain them. Inteijections are disorderly at any time, although 1 amn personally prepared to accept interjections to the person who has the call from time to time, so long as they are within the bounds of reasonable manners. However, I am not prepared to accept cross-Chamber shouting matches, interjections or conversations to the exclusion of the member on his or her feet. I draw that to the attention of members, in case there are any misunderstandings. Mrs EDWARDES: All members of Parliament are in this place to represent the people who elected them. Members have a right to put forward their views on behalf of their electorate and anybody else who contacts them in these matters. I wonder whether the Government takes that responsibility seriously. I have made several requests in this place on previous occasions, to which the Government has replied. I refer to two matters which I raised in the Address-in-Reply debate earlier this year. In one instance I referred to a children's crossing in Hepburn Avenue. The Minister said at the time that I would be pleasantly surprised because a police officer would go to the site the following day and a crossing would be supplied. The police officer went to the site the following day and soon afterwards I received a letter indicating that a crossing would be installed in Hepburn Avenue near Karuah Way, which is where the Greenwood community wished it to be located. I received a letter on 4 April 1991'stating that on 27 March 1991 the schools' crossing road safety committee had decided that a type A children's crossing was warranted. April, May and part of June passed with no crossing being installed, and a telephone call was made to find out what had happened. We were told that the allocation of funds for the payment of a warden to man the crossing was still under consideration. That occurred at the end of June and now, half way through September, there is still no children's crossing along Hepburn Avenue.

Load more