Page 4860 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 14 December 2005

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

It has to be independent. It is a strong advocate; it cannot be the government advocating against itself; so it must be independent. Also, it must be focused because its focus is on the City Hill precinct. I continue:

ii. The delivery vehicle should operate within a robust governance framework;

That sounds like “by law” to me. That sounds like independent and by law. I continue:

iii. It should ensure that there is a continuous, dedicated and focused attention, and effective action;

It is somebody with authority who has to take action in developing the City Hill precinct. This is quite specific. It cannot be any other government body. What is described there is something quite specific. I continue:

iv. The vehicle’s cost should be minimised, with any chosen model not duplicating the functions and authorities of existing government agencies and departments, but it must add value and complement the existing capacity;

It must be cost effective. We all know that this government is not cost effective through its current vehicles in delivering such services. I continue:

v. The delivery vehicle should have a strong commercial focus, with non-commercial objectives being determined by government and where necessary and appropriate, funded by Government; and

It is a commercial body at heart; it is a body that is there to deliver. I continue:

vi. In the context of current legislation, it could not be a planning authority.

That might as well have read, “It should not be ACTPLA.” If it cannot be the current planning authority, it has to be an independent statutory authority as proposed by Mr Seselja. We then go to the next one:

b. Note that, while not concluded, the majority of Taskforce members currently consider that the following additional principles might also be applied to the vehicle to best meet local circumstances:

i. The vehicle should be one with a clear status—

A clear status, not a committee; that is what it is saying—

which is readily recognised by both Government and the private sector;

I do not think committees have that status. Something defined with a clear status is clearly some sort of statutory authority. It then goes on:

ii. It should have responsibility—

it should be given the tools to do its job—

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