Governing the City State - Chief Minister and Treasury Directorate ...

other business for consideration by the Assembly. Indeed, it was suggested by onecontributor that the centrality to the ACT’s system of governance of the work of theAssembly risks, in a city state, a focus on legislating rather than on service delivery. This isnot to denigrate the work of the Assembly, or to deny the need for laws to be made. Theissue for the ACTPS in supporting the government of the day is to balance – given constraintsof size, need, capability and capacity, as well as political appetite – the direction of efforttowards development of an appropriate legislative framework underpinning the sort of citythe citizenry wants Canberra to be, and which balances individual and collective rights andresponsibilities, with the crucial core function of delivering services to the community.Potentially further reducing the volume of legislation for consideration by the Assembly isthe increasing trend towards harmonisation of national regulatory or licensing schemes,especially in relation to business regulation, but across the Council of AustralianGovernments (COAG) Reform Agenda. This work builds on existing mutual recognitionframeworks, but goes further in seeking to institute national registration or licensingarrangements. The Review notes the ACT Government’s achievement of these reforms istied to reward funding from the Commonwealth under relevant intergovernmentalagreements.Transacting the municipal business of a city state through a Westminster style parliament isarguably highly inefficient because of the proper formality and nature of that form ofbusiness. Asking a question on notice is, for example, a convoluted way for a localrepresentative to seek information about municipal-type matters. Options might therefore beexplored with the Assembly to allow a more immediate and less formal response to matterssuch as this modeled on local council rather than national parliament procedures.There is an inherent risk to the quality of legislation in rushing its development, and ofimposing an unnecessary and ultimately uncompetitive legislative and regulatory burden oncitizens living and businesses operating in the ACT from an approach to law reform that isdriven by the need to occupy the Assembly, rather than a genuine need for new legislationand regulations.Engaging the Assembly in Policy DevelopmentOne aspect of the Parliamentary Agreement that has proven problematic involves proposalsfor collaborative Assembly Committee processes under which Committees would:meet at regular intervals with Ministers and officials, to be briefed on the activities of theportfolio, and to be consulted on new legislative proposals in the early stages, prior to Cabinetdecision-making. The Committees would also be briefed on emerging portfolio issues,provide feedback on possible policy responses, and advise the Minister of issues needing tobe addressed. 4545 Parliamentary Agreement. Appendix 1, Clause 2.2.Governing the City State: 56