The Canberra Business Podcast
A podcast about all things Canberra Business.
The Canberra Business Podcast
ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr on Economic Growth, Infrastructure, and Political Longevity
Chief Minister Andrew Barr offers candid insights into the challenges and opportunities facing Canberra in this wide-ranging conversation about economic growth, budget pressures, and infrastructure development.
Having served as Chief Minister since 2014 and in the Assembly since 2006, Barr reflects on the secrets to his political longevity: "A combination of good policy being good politics, effective campaigning, and communication over an extended period." He explains how the ACT's proportional representation system eliminates safe seats, forcing politicians to perform not just as part of a team but as individual representatives.
Barr recognizes business frustrations with red tape while outlining the government's better regulation agenda. He advocates for a balanced approach where regulations serve clear purposes without stifling innovation, noting that "uniformity can stifle innovation" while acknowledging the benefits of consistency across jurisdictions.
This episode provides essential listening for anyone interested in understanding the economic and political forces shaping Canberra's future, delivered through the perspective of its longest-serving Chief Minister.
This episode is supported by CareSuper.
Hello and welcome to the Canberra Business Podcast. I'm Greg Harford, your host from the Canberra Business Chamber, and today I'm joined by none other than Chief Minister of the ACT, mr Andrew Barr. Chief Minister, thanks so much for joining us. My pleasure, thanks, greg. Now, chief Minister, you've been serving in the Assembly since March 2006. You've been Chief Minister since 2014, and Labour was re-elected last year for another four years. That's a very long and distinguished career. What's been the secret to that electoral success?
Speaker 2:Well look, I think in the end, a combination of good policy being good politics and then effective campaigning and communication over an extended period of time.
Speaker 2:The ACT's electoral system lends itself to multi-party government and minority governments and proportional representation systems like Herr Clark, really remove the concept of the safe seat and mean not only are candidates in elections contesting against other political parties, but there's also an internal contest in that the party would tend to put up a slate of candidates and voters could not only choose which party they like but which candidates within. And we've seen at almost every territory election over the history of self-government under Herr Clark. Anyway, voters keep a party representative but change who that is. So I think that puts a very sharp focus on not only being part of a team and a party brand, but also your own personal performance. But also your own personal performance and, I guess, as a local member or indeed as a minister or chief minister. So recognising that that no one can coast through on the coattails of the party, that you have to work hard as an individual, I think is the key to longevity in our political system. Yeah.
Speaker 1:And I mean it's a very long time to be in office. You're, I think, the last surviving head of government from the COVID era. Indeed, yes, Are you enjoying it still?
Speaker 2:Look, there are elements of every job that are very challenging, and there's probably no more high-profile job in the ACT than Chief Minister. You can't do the job unless you enjoy it on balance. But, like any job, there's going to be elements that are more enjoyable than others and parts of the job that that change over time, and so you know my answer to this question in 2025 is different from when I first started. I'm much more experienced, much, much better placed to know when and where to exert the influence of the Chief Ministership and how to deliver results and outcomes that I have learned over the journey. I think I'm better at the job now than I was when I started, and experience does obviously count, but equally, these sorts of jobs are not ones that you can do for decades and decades, so I'm also conscious that the clock is ticking in this term.
Speaker 2:Four years is a relatively short period of time in the end, and there's a lot we need to get done. So I'm focused on that, and something I'm sure we'll talk about over the course of our chat is really the things that will happen externally to the ACT that will determine how much we can get done in this term and, clearly, the result of the federal election is a pretty major factor, indeed yeah, and we'll come on and talk a little bit about the federal election a little bit later, and obviously I imagine there have been lots of challenges along the way, but perhaps at the moment the one that is focusing many people's minds, of course, is the budgetary challenges that the ACT Government has.
Speaker 1:We saw recently the budget deficit's going to be around 55% higher than forecast. That's $330 million or something more than expected. That's driven, I think, primarily by the health sector. But how is your government looking to close that gap and what's the plan for moving forward?
Speaker 2:Well, essentially we will need to grow revenue faster than expenditure for a sustained period of time. I think the key to that is ongoing economic growth. The larger the economy, the more revenue that will generate well for everyone but government included. Then there are some specific tasks on the expenditure side that we will need to look at, and you mentioned health. It is an area of expenditure now that accounts for one in three dollars in the territory budget.
Speaker 2:The rate of growth of demand for health services is unsustainable. Part of this challenge is where in the health system care is best provided, and preventative health investment and primary health care hasn't fared well in Australia for a decade and the result of that is being seen at the acute end of the health system, unfortunately at the most expensive point of health care, namely in hospitals. So I mentioned the federal election outcome. It's pleasing to see there would appear to be bipartisan support for further investment in Medicare and the primary healthcare system, so that coming from the Commonwealth will be timely. But it will take a few years for that to have a material impact on overall community health and wellbeing. But undoubtedly not being able to access bulk billing GP services in the ACT at the same level as elsewhere, is driving extra demand into more expensive forms of healthcare like hospital emergency departments.
Speaker 1:And obviously I mean I think everyone wants to make sure we've got a healthcare system here in the ACT that's fully functional and fit for purpose. But there will be some people listening to this perhaps, who hear you say, oh, we need to grow revenue faster than expenditure, and think, oh, does that mean there's going to be big tax hikes in the budget this year? Is that on the agenda?
Speaker 2:Well, I think it's certainly a function in large part of areas of the economy that are capable of growing and generating more revenue. So I wouldn't necessarily think of it in the context of increased tax rates, but increased volume of transactions or economic activity. And so across the Territory's revenue lines, the more people we have in employment, the more income is generated across the city. If that employment is in sectors that are subject to payroll tax, then that increases revenue there. The more economic activity we have in the construction and property sector, the more revenue will be generated through land sales. And then obviously once a property is built it becomes a rate-paying property and adds into the revenue base for the territory, whether that is residential or related to public infrastructure investment, then obviously the less pressure there is on the Territory's infrastructure budget.
Speaker 2:And infrastructure is another area that is in sharp focus for three reasons principally, one being just our total capacity within our construction and engineering and project management workforce as to just how much infrastructure is deliverable in our jurisdiction in any given year. Our financing capacity and then again pertinent in the context of the federal election what level of Commonwealth co-contribution there is towards projects. So I guess there's no surprise that projects that have a 50% funding contribution from the Commonwealth stand a better chance of being delivered and progressing. But there are certain types of infrastructure that the Commonwealth constitutionally just does not fund and get involved in and they become really the sole responsibility of the Territory. And then there are some other areas where, frankly, we think the Commonwealth could do a little more, and in some instances they have and we're pleased to see it. In others it's an ongoing conversation.
Speaker 1:Well, look, let's just come back to the Commonwealth in a moment. But it's good to hear you talking about the need to grow the economy as a means of growing the revenue base for government and everyone else here. Does that mean you're not looking at increasing, say, payroll tax rates in the upcoming budget?
Speaker 2:None of those decisions have been made yet. We only had our first Expenditure Review Committee meeting, but we have previously, in the last couple of budgets, made some decisions in relation to payroll tax. I mean, it is effectively the state and territory consumption tax. We have a big debate in this country about what rate the GST should be set at. I don't think there's a lot of appetite on either side of federal politics to change the rate of the GST or indeed largely what it applies to, the rate of the GST, or indeed largely what it applies to.
Speaker 2:And so payroll taxes are effectively the state or territory level equivalent of a GST. That's their economic incidence. They're largely passed on from businesses onto consumers, and the rate in the ACT is higher, but so too is the threshold, and there's sort of a deliberate policy design there to try and exempt as many local businesses from payroll tax. And the payroll tax burden falls principally on national and multinational organisations in terms of the volume of revenue collected, and businesses need to really have sort of hit medium size before they're captured in the ACT system. Other jurisdictions have a different model. They have a lower rate, but it kicks in at a much lower level and so captures much more small business activity, yeah.
Speaker 1:Do you think, though, that it acts as a bit of a disincentive to growth? I think there's been some research by economics consultancy E61 around the South Australian experience, where they've increased their threshold and they've seen a big bump in the number of businesses employing more people up to the payroll threshold.
Speaker 2:Yeah, well, if the threshold and rate acts as a distortionary or has a distortionary impact on decision making. But I imagine that's a relatively small step change, because business would make a decision really on the amount of labour that they require to either deliver the services or the goods that they're producing. It's hard to see how a 6.85% tax is going to dramatically impact on that, given labour costs in some businesses might be as high as 80% to 90% of the business expenses, but in other parts of the economy they will be lower. So I would say I could see a circumstance where a business would go OK, well, that one extra employee means I'm going to be paying payroll tax on that portion of my payroll that is over the $2 million threshold. But to put some perspective on that, if a business had a payroll of $1,990,000 and then went over that by, say, $50,000, they'd be paying tax only on the $40,000 that took them over, and 6.85% of $40,000 would be their tax rate, so something like $2,500.
Speaker 2:At the other end of the spectrum, though, there are decisions that the business will make about, I guess, the balance of inputs being labour or capital, and in some instances technology is going to be driving those decisions potentially to invest more in capital and reduce sort of labour's share of output. When we look at trends in our economy and trends in society, there are some jobs that exist now that that won't in the future because I, I will, will take an increasing role on the I guess on the presumption that that will increase productivity but then there will be a whole range of new jobs that are created that would really go to the management of, of AI as a, as a factor of production for business.
Speaker 1:Yeah well, we certainly hope that job growth eventuates.
Speaker 2:Well, at the moment we have an unemployment rate of 3% and essentially the same number of job vacancies as we have unemployed people, so most economists would view the ACT labour market as at full employment at the moment, and so the challenge is often getting skills rather than there being a problem of surplus labour in our economy.
Speaker 1:Now, more generally, we've obviously had, you know, a stellar run of economic growth here in the ACT. I think it's 33, maybe 34 years. We've now clocked into where we've grown, which is a real strength. But how can we do better? Are we sort of sitting on our laurels and thinking, well, this is good enough? Are we striving, do you think, to grow as much as we can, and what is the plan to drive even more growth?
Speaker 2:uh. Well, look, I think some, some sectors, uh, of the economy have grown quite rapidly, uh, and they tend to be in the internationally tradable services area, uh. And then you know, almost incomprehensibly, the Australian Parliament has conspired to try and put a handbrake on some of that growth, and so the international education sector is one such example. But equally, at times it feels like there are a range of regulatory barriers that are being put in place that are slowing the rate of growth of the tourism sector as well. But I think the opportunities for growth in the ACT economy are selling services and goods into national and international markets.
Speaker 2:The ACT economy itself is a tad over $50 billion, and so from a business perspective, if your market is only the ACT market population 500,000 and an economy of about $50 billion then your capacity to grow is necessarily limited by the size of the market.
Speaker 2:So I think to grow faster than the sort of general rate of the ACT economy, we need to be accessing national and international markets.
Speaker 2:That's, I think, the sectors of the economy that can grow faster. And then I guess the other area where there is potential is there are sections of our economy that their economic fortunes and their market shares are driven a little by decisions around where public funds flow, and so the care economy is a good example there and anything related to healthcare, aged care, childcare. Ndis has grown much more rapidly than the rest of the economy over the last decade and it would seem in the current international policy environment that the defence and national security sector is going to be growing more rapidly than the rest of the Australian economy. So there would seem to be some really good opportunities for businesses in Canberra to tap into some of that national and international growth opportunity, particularly in defence and national security, and Canberra as a regional hub for pretty much everything south of Wollongong in southern New South Wales in the care economy would seem to be an opportunity as well.
Speaker 1:Are we doing enough, though? Do you think, as a territory, to be attracting other businesses to come here and set up operations and base teams here?
Speaker 2:Well, look, there are certain very compelling comparative advantages that the ACT has over some other economies, particularly the skills base of our workforce.
Speaker 2:So you know there isn't a better educated community in Australia than Canberra. We do see a number of businesses who need that high level of skill, preferring Canberra as either a headquarters or perhaps a more significant branch office than you would otherwise anticipate. The difficulty we face is just our comparative size as a jurisdiction. So when you're competing with labour markets of five million, three hours up the road or 45 minutes on the plane, that becomes a little more challenging for us. But equally, our geographic position between Sydney and Melbourne I think works to our advantage.
Speaker 2:Look, there are obviously challenges, but I guess when we benchmark the ACT against a similar-sized jurisdiction like Tasmania or even a slightly larger one like South Australia, our capacity to attract and retain young people to have graduate employment outcomes that are the best in Australia, I think that augurs well for the future of our economy. It is a compelling story internationally to talk about 33 years of consecutive economic growth and that very sound base that our economy has, principally due to the presence of the Australian government. But in certain sectors we have a comparative advantage. In others. Honestly, we are at a comparative disadvantage largely due to diseconomies of scale.
Speaker 1:And you've got to play to your strengths right and leverage those advantages that you've got Well, I think every economy does.
Speaker 2:I mean we don't have the same policy levers as a jurisdiction like Singapore. But if I was to sort of point to a benchmark of a comparatively small economy that seeks to play very much to its strengths, then there's a lot to like about Singapore's economic development journey and you know you get a bit of nodding of heads in agreement. That of any of the Australian jurisdictions, the ACT in Canberra is the Singapore of Australia, but we're only 112 years old too, so we lack a capital base that older places have, but throughout Australia's economic history it's been a net importer of capital most of the time. I guess the other part of the world that is perhaps an interesting case study that you would be particularly familiar with are our friends across the ditch in New Zealand. Get the policy settings right and small, open economies can flourish.
Speaker 1:Absolutely.
Speaker 1:And certainly I think the Chamber would really endorse the idea that Canberra should be the Singapore of Australia. You know, we want to see that economic growth and we want to see businesses thrive. So yeah, so obviously, excuse me, obviously Canberra is the national capital. We exist here as a territory because of federation and the need for Parliament to be somewhere that wasn't in New South Wales or Victoria. We've seen some support recently from the Commonwealth for some of the preparatory work around the convention centre and some of the light rail work, which is really positive. But do you think the Commonwealth really does do enough to be funding the ACT, given our strategic importance as the nation's capital?
Speaker 2:Well, look, if you take a long-run view of this, the Commonwealth's argument would be for, effectively, the first 75 years of Canberra's existence, they invested very heavily in the city's infrastructure Since self-government.
Speaker 2:It was obviously a deliberate decision taken by the Australian Parliament at the time with a degree of bipartisanship, even tripartisanship.
Speaker 2:I think, in the end, that the Territory should be self-governing and should take greater responsibility for its own infrastructure and service delivery. That's been a challenging journey. The Commonwealth did us a few favours, in that the asset base we inherited was pretty good, and they gave us one very significant thing, which was a big land endowment that has obviously been progressively sold off over time to facilitate the city's growth, but also to finance a lot of the infrastructure that's been built over the last 35 years. What they didn't do for us, though, was put in place a set of economic development parameters, indeed a taxation platform that would enable the Territory Government to perhaps operate at the same level as some of the larger state governments. Our economy is more diverse than it was just in terms of the number of industry sectors and the diversity of employment, but over the journey, the Commonwealth share of ACT economic activity is still a very seeming proportion. It's basically half of our economy Now. Absent that, well, we would be Wollongong or something smaller.
Speaker 2:Not that there's anything wrong with Wollongong, no, no no, but our economy would be Wollongong without government and without the industrial base. So I guess we are victims of our history and circumstance. But it's not all bad. The base on which we have, and the economic stability that we have as a result, is a pretty good platform to build on. But these things take time. I mean, our economy in the year 2000 was the same size as Tasmania's. We are now a significantly larger economy, even though our population is still smaller. Our economy has grown faster, in fact, than any other state or territory economy, which tells me that some things are going right and have done for an extended period.
Speaker 1:Yeah. So how can we get better at leveraging the Commonwealth and encouraging them to get in behind really get in behind things like a new national convention centre, which should, by rights, be a national institution?
Speaker 2:Well, they have a dual responsibility and the current federal government inherited some infrastructure legacies and challenges within the Commonwealth-owned portfolio, some of them very high profile, like the roof of the National Gallery leaking on artworks worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Speaker 2:That sort of needed their immediate attention. They have to be fair to both sides of federal politics. Over the decade I've been Chief Minister, there have been some significant investments by the Commonwealth in their owned assets in the city, everything from the war memorial investment and expansion to some of the national cultural institutions. More recently, the national security precinct that they're building is very significant. There are multi-billions of dollars of investment there, but through the lens of a Canberran that is all about the national capital and a bit less about Canberra the city, about the national capital and a bit less about Canberra the city. One of the challenges over the years has been attracting at least our population share of Commonwealth investment in what I'd sort of describe as infrastructure for the city of Canberra as opposed to the national capital, and a number of federal governments and ministers have viewed any investment in Canberra as well. That's it, that's your share of the national infrastructure pie, even though they're not necessarily investing in things that that Canberrans would use or that might support further economic growth for our jurisdiction.
Speaker 1:Yeah, and certainly things like the Convention Centre though. Are a good example of you know that should be, I would argue, a big stage for the government to host big international meetings, Indeed.
Speaker 2:Well, certainly, at least big national meetings. Obviously, one of the challenges with very big international events depending on, of course, who's attending is number of hotel rooms and presidential suites, if you're wanting, you know leaders, events and those sorts of things. But I think that you know the bread and butter for the business events sector in the ACT is the association business. It's a lot of national and occasional international events, but not necessarily the you know once every decade or once every 20-year sort of big political thing like Commonwealth Heads of Government or G20 or that sort of thing, but shouldn't they be here as the nation's capital?
Speaker 1:I mean, I appreciate there's some challenges around hotels and so forth, but in the long run.
Speaker 2:Well, I mean sure, if Canberra, a city of five million people, and had all of the associated infrastructure with staging events on that scale, then yes, but reality is we're not there yet. It may be part of the city's future, but right at the moment, the issue is that there is significant demand for a lot of business events to be held in Canberra, with somewhere between 1,000 and 2,500 delegates, and the reality of the current convention centre is it can host that, but it can only host one at a time. And so, uh, you know, one of the I think, the compelling arguments in the end that got the commonwealth over the line, at least for this next stage of um, uh, of work, uh, is that the project we put forward was realistic, because we, 10 years ago, we went down the path of the Grand Australia Forum, and this was a very big and bold vision, but four Prime Ministers said no. We're now at the point where a Prime Minister has said yes to a project that I think is realistic. We're now on a pathway to get that project to a point that we can let a construction tender, and a key piece in that puzzle was, in terms of the preferred site was where you would move the swimming pool. And again the Prime Minister came to the table and said yes, you can have land in Commonwealth Park. He's given us the land and now made a $70 million contribution which pays for half the pool. So I feel like some progress has been made on that piece of infrastructure.
Speaker 2:You touched upon the transport infrastructure. Clearly that's an area the Commonwealth have a history of co-funding with states and territories. Light Rail is probably the highest profile project, but they're also half funding the bridge for the Molonglo Valley, the Monaro Highway upgrades. There are a number of transport projects around the city that the Commonwealth are contributing to. Obviously, we have a very long list of areas of infrastructure that we would welcome their support. It's detailed on the Built for CBR website. Absolutely, project by project, infrastructure category by infrastructure category. There is several decades' worth of infrastructure in that list, I mean. Interestingly, the Chamber and its predecessors and some other industry associations called for that long-term infrastructure thinking. It has been done, it is regularly updated and it is there for all to see. So we've got a good menu to choose from. We now just have to work our way through it.
Speaker 1:Now, chief Minister, we're recording this ahead of the 2025 federal election and I guess unless you're going to give me an amazing scoop here today that you're going to be hoping for the return of a new government. Well, I'm encouraged by the recent opinion polls, let me put it that way. But what happens if there's a change? How would you go about working with a Dutch and lead Liberal government?
Speaker 2:Well, to be honest, it will be harder than the alternative for two reasons. Principally, the policy agenda that they have. That would have a particularly significant impact on the ACT economy, even if you know, at the third or fourth iteration of what 41,000 fewer public service jobs means, they've talked about natural attrition and a five-year recruitment freeze. So what that would mean is that we would normally get an inflow of young people into Canberra every year, coming to work for the nation, for the Australian government. That would stop for five years in a row. Our economy would be, you know, whatever that share of pay packets that would be lost would be that much smaller as a result. That, would you know, would clearly have flow-on implications for businesses. Who, whose market is Canberra? Consumers. So there's those policy challenges.
Speaker 2:And then, look, I mean, I've known Peter Dutton for a long time. I know a number of the Coalition shadow ministers, but you know I don't have the same personal relationships with them that I do with my federal Labor colleagues. But look, that said, I've been Chief Minister since 2014, with the exception of the last three years. That entire period was Prime Ministers Abbott, turnbull and Morrison. So the territory didn't fall off a cliff. We continued to grow, but there were handbrakes in certain instances on that growth. So I think, for obvious reasons, it would be an easier pathway to work with the Prime Minister and his ministers, many of whom I've known for 35 years.
Speaker 1:Well, we'll see what happens, I guess on the third of. May. Let's just talk briefly, chief Minister, about light rail. Obviously, it's been a controversial topic over time. Clearly there's some long-term benefits for the city, but there's a lot of pain at the moment for businesses that are impacted by the construction and the disruption, particularly around London Circuit and in Civic. Why won't the government come to the party with some rates relief?
Speaker 2:Well, look, that's largely an issue of principle that we do that on this project and perhaps every single infrastructure project or anything that a business could claim has some external impact on them, you'd be up for some form of relief. That would, in effect, kill off, make infrastructure that's already expensive even more expensive and basically be an end to the ACT government's infrastructure program. If a project involved any disruption, because it would just push the cost of doing it to a point that it wouldn't be viable, that would then have flow-on implications for the construction sector in the city. So no, there are consequences for any precedent that government sets in this regard.
Speaker 2:There is a difference, though, between Well, no, I think you could mount an argument that any roadworks that put hoardings up anywhere near a business, any change to car parking arrangements, you can see arguments being mounted that well, you did that in this instance. So our approach has been to seek to work with those businesses to mitigate impacts. But we acknowledge that there is disruption and that there are. There are impacts. No one is denying that there are impacts. But you wouldn't undertake these projects if you didn't think there was longer term benefit for the city, its livability, its productivity. And we would see and we do work very actively with those businesses in an effort to mitigate those impacts, get the work done as quickly as possible. But you know there are upsides, obviously, to construction work and you know there's a lot of extra money and employment that comes into the economy during those infrastructure projects.
Speaker 1:So what's your message, then, to the businesses down London Circuit who are really feeling the pinch at the moment.
Speaker 2:It is a disruptive time. That part of the city is changing and it's not just the light rail project. There are a number of private sector projects that are occurring. The end result of all of that is going to be improved public transport, thousands more people living and working in those precincts. So once we get through this disruptive few years, the outlook is very positive for that part of the city. New investment has been attracted into Canberra. It will obviously generate more economic activity and wealth for everyone. But it is understood that this is a disruptive period. We're doing our best to minimise the disruption and to try and ensure that all of the workers who are on site undertaking the infrastructure activities know particularly about the businesses who can meet some of their needs Now. It's a diverse range of businesses, from restaurants, cafes, hospitality through to law firms.
Speaker 1:Absolutely.
Speaker 2:So I accept that having construction workers on site isn't necessarily going to be of a benefit to a law firm, but it certainly would be for someone selling coffee and lunch.
Speaker 1:So, construction of Stage 2A is obviously well underway. Where are we at with 2B? When are we going to have a plan for getting it across the lake and down to Waterloo Sure?
Speaker 2:sure. Well, there's a number of different elements to that. The process that we're engaged in at the moment is one of a number of Commonwealth approval processes that need to be gone through, and so this principally relates to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the EPBC, and so we need to submit an environmental impact statement that also touches on some of the heritage issues that the National Capital Authority has a particular view on, so that process is nearing a point of a formal submission and a formal assessment process. There's a specific issue around the bridging of the lake that the National Capital Authority have a budget appropriation to do works to strengthen the existing bridge. The light rail bridge would go between the two existing ones, but we can't proceed with anything there until the NCA have done their work in relation to the existing two bridges. That has been delayed. I think they were hoping to procure a contractor to do that work last year, but they haven't done that yet. I'm told it will happen this year. That, then, I think, triggers a couple of years of work on those existing road and pedestrian bridges strengthening, widening, et cetera.
Speaker 2:Another thing that we are conscious about is just how much disruption there is all at one time and so trying to get some other elements of the work, necessary work, completed. Raising London Circuit, for example. The eastern side of that project will open next month and so that will ease a bit of the congestion. And then obviously there's the light rail, stage 2A construction. But we need to be conscious of just how much development activity there is. There's obviously a number of both commercial and residential projects, principally, I think, being undertaken by the Capital Property Group, but also Morris Construction, that's in that sort of immediate precincts. Most of that work should be done in time for stage 2a opening. There'll be some things that will take a little bit longer, and of course we've got our work on the Acton waterfront and the Commonwealth Park swimming pool, amongst other things. So there is a lot happening in that corridor, so we just need to be conscious also of timing and sequencing.
Speaker 1:Absolutely, and look, I'm sure everyone will be looking forward to getting that work completed Now. There was some talk last year about routing the tracks down through Barton to try and facilitate greater access to public service offices and so forth, which seems, on the face of it, to be a sensible idea. How have those discussions played out?
Speaker 2:Yeah, so look, those options are part of the consideration the government will put before the Commonwealth approvals process.
Speaker 2:Essentially, there's a trade-off as there normally is in public transport between coverage sort of what sort of footprint your infrastructure covers versus speed.
Speaker 2:So the more direct a service is is often the smaller the coverage area. In the case of light rail, it is principally where the stops are located, and so you then sort of look for activity nodes that are, you know, largely speaking within sort of six, six hundred meters to a kilometer, from a light rail stop tends to be the, and so in thinking about the route alignment, we also need to think about the stop locations, because in a light rail vehicle you can't get off or on other than at a stop, and so the key decision there really is can we get the level of coverage in terms of stop locations that gives the maximum access for National Triangle users? An important point in our consideration also is that that precinct attracts millions of tourists every year, and so we also want to be able to support the tourism economy by ensuring that the stops are in locations that will enable tourists to easily access those attractions. It's complex, but it's possible from the work I've seen, but you know there are inevitably trade-offs.
Speaker 1:As there are with everything. Look. Finally, chief Minister, I'd just like to sort of touch on issues around regulation more generally. Now the Chamber gets a fairly consistent message from members that they feel besieged by red tape and compliance requirements. Some of that flows from the Commonwealth Government and workplace relations laws and ATO requirements and everything else, but there's a fair bit of frustration with some of our local ACT rules, regulations and requirements. How are you moving forward with the better regulation agenda?
Speaker 2:Yes, so there's a dedicated team within government ministers well, actually a lead minister, but some other ministers for whom their portfolio responsibilities are impacted and they are necessarily involved. There's also, as I've announced, some machinery of government changes in terms of the structure of ACT government, particularly to address issues that have emerged in the development process about referral entities and that being a challenge to meet statutory planning timeframes for decisions on development applications. There's a strong focus on the night-time economy and Minister Chain is leading that work, which touches upon some elements of fees, some elements of regulation of public space and, in other instances, a delicate balance, particularly around liquor licensing, between, well, creating an environment that allows for a diverse and interesting nightlife and different types of venues, with the community safety elements that come with. Get that wrong and you'll have lots of after midnight challenges in your entertainment districts, if I can put it that way.
Speaker 1:And look, I certainly agree that there's been some good stuff done, and you look at some of the changes that have been made, to fees, for example, but a lot of it's been focused on small venues and small businesses. Are we being bold enough? Can we go further and really sort of?
Speaker 2:Well, I mean, I guess a key part of the diversity, for example, of our night-time economy and our hospitality industry, is smaller venues and we have had a strong policy lean into wanting to create an environment that supports smaller bars and venues that can offer quite a diversity of experience and, if you like, have some more niche offerings. So that has been a deliberate policy focus. I mean there's always a role for larger venues. But if I was to just take a look at the concentration of venue ownership in some Australian cities, you end up with, yes, you get a lot of different venues, but they're all owned by the one group and I don't necessarily think that's great for both competition and diversity in your hospitality economy. There's not just about hospitality.
Speaker 2:Regulation obviously can impact many other sectors. I mean a statement of principle really should be that if there is a regulation in place, there should be a good reason for it. It should be easy to understand and easy for whoever in government is charged with policing that regulation. That, hopefully, is relatively straightforward and it's clear to everyone why the regulation exists. And you know, for most people they would. They would understand. You know why we have fire regulations and why we have responsible service of alcohol regulations.
Speaker 2:You know those sorts of questions in other instances there can be, you know, legitimate questions raised about well, what does this? What is this regulation attempting to do? Is it actually working to achieve its stated objective? And so that's some of the work that's been tested, you know, with impacted businesses on. Well, we have this regulation here because we think it does A, b and C.
Speaker 2:Do you agree that it does that, and is it well understood why? And is it being effective? In that I have found over the years that there is regulation creep and that often, for good reason, new things are brought in, but sometimes old things are not removed, and so part of the exercise that Minister Chain, in particular, is focusing on is are there areas of the statute book that you know, frankly, the world's moved on and we don't need regulation in that area anymore? And then during the COVID period, there was a lot of innovation, a lot of things that were tried with a view that it might help to keep businesses going during that difficult period, and that worked really well, and so we want to keep them, and we're focused on that as well.
Speaker 1:You know, one question that sort of comes to me is well, are we? I mean, I appreciate the need for regulation in some cases, but are we big enough to sustain our own regulatory system? Are we better off, in some cases, not building up statute within ACT government but actually just piggybacking off, say, new South Wales? Yeah, well.
Speaker 2:certainly, harmonisation with New South Wales is an obvious example, but there are many efforts in fact that have gone on to have national consistency so that businesses that operate in every state and territory can operate under a pretty similar set of rules. I mean, a big breakthrough in my time has been mutual recognition across the states and territories of certain trade skills and licenses, and responsible service of alcohol is sort of one such example, but there are many others. Where you know, for a long time Australia operated as eight different countries. Some of that has been resolved. You see that in the application of Australian standards around road rules, car parking, those sorts of things. Sometimes, though, uniformity can stifle innovation, and so you want to.
Speaker 1:There's always going to be a balance. Yeah, you want to be careful. Always going to be a balance, but.
Speaker 2:But I get careful sometimes that it's not just, uh, well, just because another jurisdiction is doing, we just have to copy that. Uh, and you know, this is one of the fascinating things about our federation there's a, you know, there's a healthy level of competition and a good level of cooperation, but probably the element that you want to see is a bit more innovation, and that's what we're hoping to do.
Speaker 1:We'll keep our fingers crossed, Chief Minister Andrew Barr.
Speaker 2:thank you so much for joining us here on the Canberra Business Podcast.
Speaker 1:I'm Greg Harford from the Canberra Business Chamber. I've been talking to ACT Chief Minister Andrew Barr and I hope you've enjoyed listening to his thoughts. Just a reminder that this episode of the Canberra Business Podcast has been brought to you by the Business Chamber with the support of Care Super, an industry super fund with competitive fees and returns, exceptional service and a focus on real care. You can learn more at caresupercom and don't forget to follow us on your favourite podcast platform for future episodes of the Canberra Business Podcast. We'll catch you next time.