April 27, 2025 • 51 mins
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.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Hello and welcome to the Canberra Business Podcast.
I'm Greg Harford, your hostfrom the Canberra Business
Chamber, and today I'm joined bynone other than Chief Minister
of the ACT, mr Andrew Barr.
Chief Minister, thanks so muchfor joining us.
My pleasure, thanks, greg.
Now, chief Minister, you'vebeen serving in the Assembly
since March 2006.
You've been Chief Ministersince 2014, and Labour was
(00:31):
re-elected last year for anotherfour years.
That's a very long anddistinguished career.
What's been the secret to thatelectoral success?
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Well look, I think in the end, a combination of good
policy being good politics andthen effective campaigning and
communication over an extendedperiod of time.
The ACT's electoral system lendsitself to multi-party
(01:01):
government and minoritygovernments and proportional
representation systems like HerrClark, really remove the
concept of the safe seat andmean not only are candidates in
elections contesting againstother political parties, but
(01:23):
there's also an internal contestin that the party would tend to
put up a slate of candidatesand voters could not only choose
which party they like but whichcandidates within.
And we've seen at almost everyterritory election over the
history of self-government underHerr Clark.
(01:44):
Anyway, voters keep a partyrepresentative but change who
that is.
So I think that puts a verysharp focus on not only being
part of a team and a party brand, but also your own personal
performance.
But also your own personalperformance and, I guess, as a
(02:08):
local member or indeed as aminister or chief minister.
So recognising that that no onecan coast through on the
coattails of the party, that youhave to work hard as an
individual, I think is the keyto longevity in our political
(02:29):
system.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
And I mean it's a very long time to be in office.
You're, I think, the lastsurviving head of government
from the COVID era.
Indeed, yes, Are you enjoyingit still?
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Look, there are elements of every job that are
very challenging, and there'sprobably no more high-profile
job in the ACT than ChiefMinister.
You can't do the job unless youenjoy it on balance.
But, like any job, there'sgoing to be elements that are
(03:04):
more enjoyable than others andparts of the job that that
change over time, and so youknow my answer to this question
in 2025 is different from when Ifirst started.
I'm much more experienced, much, much better placed to know
(03:26):
when and where to exert theinfluence of the Chief
Ministership and how to deliverresults and outcomes that I have
learned over the journey.
I think I'm better at the jobnow than I was when I started,
and experience does obviouslycount, but equally, these sorts
(03:50):
of jobs are not ones that youcan do for decades and decades,
so I'm also conscious that theclock is ticking in this term.
Four years is a relatively shortperiod of time in the end, and
there's a lot we need to getdone.
So I'm focused on that, andsomething I'm sure we'll talk
(04:12):
about over the course of ourchat is really the things that
will happen externally to theACT that will determine how much
we can get done in this termand, clearly, the result of the
federal election is a prettymajor factor, indeed yeah, and
(04:34):
we'll come on and talk a littlebit about the federal election a
little bit later, and obviouslyI imagine there have been lots
of challenges along the way, butperhaps at the moment the one
that is focusing many people'sminds, of course, is the
budgetary challenges that theACT Government has.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
We saw recently the budget deficit's going to be
around 55% higher than forecast.
That's $330 million orsomething more than expected.
That's driven, I think,primarily by the health sector.
But how is your governmentlooking to close that gap and
what's the plan for movingforward?
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Well, essentially we will need to grow revenue faster
than expenditure for asustained period of time.
I think the key to that isongoing economic growth.
The larger the economy, themore revenue that will generate
well for everyone but governmentincluded.
(05:29):
Then there are some specifictasks on the expenditure side
that we will need to look at,and you mentioned health.
It is an area of expenditurenow that accounts for one in
three dollars in the territorybudget.
The rate of growth of demand forhealth services is
(05:51):
unsustainable.
Part of this challenge is wherein the health system care is
best provided, and preventativehealth investment and primary
health care hasn't fared well inAustralia for a decade and the
(06:12):
result of that is being seen atthe acute end of the health
system, unfortunately at themost expensive point of health
care, namely in hospitals.
So I mentioned the federalelection outcome.
It's pleasing to see therewould appear to be bipartisan
support for further investmentin Medicare and the primary
(06:35):
healthcare system, so thatcoming from the Commonwealth
will be timely.
But it will take a few yearsfor that to have a material
impact on overall communityhealth and wellbeing.
But undoubtedly not being ableto access bulk billing GP
(06:56):
services in the ACT at the samelevel as elsewhere, is driving
extra demand into more expensiveforms of healthcare like
hospital emergency departments.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
And obviously I mean I think everyone wants to make
sure we've got a healthcaresystem here in the ACT that's
fully functional and fit forpurpose.
But there will be some peoplelistening to this perhaps, who
hear you say, oh, we need togrow revenue faster than
expenditure, and think, oh, doesthat mean there's going to be
big tax hikes in the budget thisyear?
Is that on the agenda?
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Well, I think it's certainly a function in large
part of areas of the economythat are capable of growing and
generating more revenue.
So I wouldn't necessarily thinkof it in the context of
increased tax rates, butincreased volume of transactions
(07:47):
or economic activity.
And so across the Territory'srevenue lines, the more people
we have in employment, the moreincome is generated across the
city.
If that employment is insectors that are subject to
payroll tax, then that increasesrevenue there.
(08:09):
The more economic activity wehave in the construction and
property sector, the morerevenue will be generated
through land sales.
And then obviously once aproperty is built it becomes a
rate-paying property and addsinto the revenue base for the
(08:29):
territory, whether that isresidential or related to public
infrastructure investment, thenobviously the less pressure
there is on the Territory'sinfrastructure budget.
(08:52):
And infrastructure is anotherarea that is in sharp focus for
three reasons principally, onebeing just our total capacity
within our construction andengineering and project
management workforce as to justhow much infrastructure is
(09:14):
deliverable in our jurisdictionin any given year.
Our financing capacity and thenagain pertinent in the context
of the federal election whatlevel of Commonwealth
co-contribution there is towardsprojects.
So I guess there's no surprisethat projects that have a 50%
(09:39):
funding contribution from theCommonwealth stand a better
chance of being delivered andprogressing.
But there are certain types ofinfrastructure that the
Commonwealth constitutionallyjust does not fund and get
involved in and they becomereally the sole responsibility
of the Territory.
And then there are some otherareas where, frankly, we think
(10:00):
the Commonwealth could do alittle more, and in some
instances they have and we'repleased to see it.
In others it's an ongoingconversation.
Speaker 1 (10:11):
Well, look, let's just come back to the
Commonwealth in a moment.
But it's good to hear youtalking about the need to grow
the economy as a means ofgrowing the revenue base for
government and everyone elsehere.
Does that mean you're notlooking at increasing, say,
payroll tax rates in theupcoming budget?
Speaker 2 (10:27):
None of those decisions have been made yet.
We only had our firstExpenditure Review Committee
meeting, but we have previously,in the last couple of budgets,
made some decisions in relationto payroll tax.
I mean, it is effectively thestate and territory consumption
tax.
We have a big debate in thiscountry about what rate the GST
(10:52):
should be set at.
I don't think there's a lot ofappetite on either side of
federal politics to change therate of the GST or indeed
largely what it applies to, therate of the GST, or indeed
largely what it applies to.
And so payroll taxes areeffectively the state or
territory level equivalent of aGST.
(11:14):
That's their economic incidence.
They're largely passed on frombusinesses onto consumers, and
the rate in the ACT is higher,but so too is the threshold, and
there's sort of a deliberatepolicy design there to try and
exempt as many local businessesfrom payroll tax.
(11:36):
And the payroll tax burdenfalls principally on national
and multinational organisationsin terms of the volume of
revenue collected, andbusinesses need to really have
sort of hit medium size beforethey're captured in the ACT
system.
Other jurisdictions have adifferent model.
They have a lower rate, but itkicks in at a much lower level
(11:59):
and so captures much more smallbusiness activity, yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
Do you think, though, that it acts as a bit of a
disincentive to growth?
I think there's been someresearch by economics
consultancy E61 around the SouthAustralian experience, where
they've increased theirthreshold and they've seen a big
bump in the number ofbusinesses employing more people
up to the payroll threshold.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
Yeah, well, if the threshold and rate acts as a
distortionary or has adistortionary impact on decision
making.
But I imagine that's arelatively small step change,
because business would make adecision really on the amount of
(12:42):
labour that they require toeither 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 labourcosts in some businesses might
(13:03):
be as high as 80% to 90% of thebusiness expenses, but in other
parts of the economy they willbe lower.
So I would say I could see acircumstance where a business
would go OK, well, that oneextra employee means I'm going
to be paying payroll tax on thatportion of my payroll that is
(13:23):
over the $2 million threshold.
But to put some perspective onthat, if a business had a
payroll of $1,990,000 and thenwent over that by, say, $50,000,
they'd be paying tax only onthe $40,000 that took them over,
(13:44):
and 6.85% of $40,000 would betheir tax rate, so something
like $2,500.
At the other end of the spectrum, though, there are decisions
that the business will makeabout, I guess, the balance of
inputs being labour or capital,and in some instances technology
(14:07):
is going to be driving thosedecisions potentially to invest
more in capital and reduce sortof labour's share of output.
When we look at trends in oureconomy and trends in society,
there are some jobs that existnow that that won't in the
(14:27):
future because I, I will, willtake an increasing role on the I
guess on the presumption thatthat will increase productivity
but then there will be a wholerange of new jobs that are
created that would really go tothe management of, of AI as a,
as a factor of production forbusiness.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
Yeah well, we certainly hope that job growth
eventuates.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Well, at the moment we have an unemployment rate of
3% and essentially the samenumber of job vacancies as we
have unemployed people, so mosteconomists would view the ACT
labour market as at fullemployment at the moment, and so
the challenge is often gettingskills rather than there being a
(15:10):
problem of surplus labour inour economy.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
Now, more generally, we've obviously had, you know, a
stellar run of economic growthhere in the ACT.
I think it's 33, maybe 34 years.
We've now clocked into wherewe've grown, which is a real
strength.
But how can we do better?
Are we sort of sitting on ourlaurels and thinking, well, this
is good enough?
Are we striving, do you think,to grow as much as we can, and
(15:43):
what is the plan to drive evenmore growth?
Speaker 2 (15:46):
uh.
Well, look, I think some, somesectors, uh, of the economy have
grown quite rapidly, uh, andthey tend to be in the
internationally tradableservices area, uh.
And then you know, almostincomprehensibly, the Australian
(16:07):
Parliament has conspired to tryand put a handbrake on some of
that growth, and so theinternational education sector
is one such example.
But equally, at times it feelslike there are a range of
regulatory barriers that arebeing put in place that are
slowing the rate of growth ofthe tourism sector as well.
(16:30):
But I think the opportunitiesfor growth in the ACT economy
are selling services and goodsinto national and international
markets.
The ACT economy itself is a tadover $50 billion, and so from a
(16:51):
business perspective, if yourmarket is only the ACT market
population 500,000 and aneconomy of about $50 billion
then your capacity to grow isnecessarily limited by the size
of the market.
So I think to grow faster thanthe sort of general rate of the
ACT economy, we need to beaccessing national and
(17:15):
international markets.
That's, I think, the sectors ofthe economy that can grow faster
.
And then I guess the other areawhere there is potential is
there are sections of oureconomy that their economic
fortunes and their market sharesare driven a little by
(17:38):
decisions around where publicfunds flow, and so the care
economy is a good example thereand anything related to
healthcare, aged care, childcare.
Ndis has grown much morerapidly than the rest of the
economy over the last decade andit would seem in the current
(18:01):
international policy environmentthat the defence and national
security sector is going to begrowing more rapidly than the
rest of the Australian economy.
So there would seem to be somereally good opportunities for
businesses in Canberra to tapinto some of that national and
international growth opportunity, particularly in defence and
(18:21):
national security, and Canberraas a regional hub for pretty
much everything south ofWollongong in southern New South
Wales in the care economy wouldseem to be an opportunity as
well.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
Are we doing enough, though?
Do you think, as a territory,to be attracting other
businesses to come here and setup operations and base teams
here?
Speaker 2 (18:45):
Well, look, there are certain very compelling
comparative advantages that theACT has over some other
economies, particularly theskills base of our workforce.
So you know there isn't a bettereducated community in Australia
than Canberra.
We do see a number ofbusinesses who need that high
(19:11):
level of skill, preferringCanberra as either a
headquarters or perhaps a moresignificant branch office than
you would otherwise anticipate.
The difficulty we face is justour comparative size as a
(19:32):
jurisdiction.
So when you're competing withlabour markets of five million,
three hours up the road or 45minutes on the plane, that
becomes a little morechallenging for us.
But equally, our geographicposition between Sydney and
(19:54):
Melbourne I think works to ouradvantage.
Look, there are obviouslychallenges, but I guess when we
benchmark the ACT against asimilar-sized jurisdiction like
Tasmania or even a slightlylarger one like South Australia,
our capacity to attract andretain young people to have
(20:20):
graduate employment outcomesthat are the best in Australia,
I think that augurs well for thefuture of our economy.
It is a compelling storyinternationally to talk about 33
years of consecutive economicgrowth and that very sound base
that our economy has,principally due to the presence
(20:42):
of the Australian government.
But in certain sectors we havea comparative advantage.
In others.
Honestly, we are at acomparative disadvantage largely
due to diseconomies of scale.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
And you've got to play to your strengths right and
leverage those advantages thatyou've got Well, I think every
economy does.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
I mean we don't have the same policy levers as a
jurisdiction like Singapore.
But if I was to sort of pointto a benchmark of a
comparatively small economy thatseeks to play very much to its
strengths, then there's a lot tolike about Singapore's economic
development journey and youknow you get a bit of nodding of
(21:26):
heads in agreement.
That of any of the Australianjurisdictions, the ACT in
Canberra is the Singapore ofAustralia, but we're only 112
years old too, so we lack acapital base that older places
have, but throughout Australia'seconomic history it's been a
(21:48):
net importer of capital most ofthe time.
I guess the other part of theworld that is perhaps an
interesting case study that youwould be particularly familiar
with are our friends across theditch in New Zealand.
Get the policy settings rightand small, open economies can
flourish.
Speaker 1 (22:08):
Absolutely.
And certainly I think theChamber would really endorse the
idea that Canberra should bethe Singapore of Australia.
You know, we want to see thateconomic growth and we want to
see businesses thrive.
So yeah, so obviously, excuseme, obviously Canberra is the
national capital.
We exist here as a territorybecause of federation and the
(22:29):
need for Parliament to besomewhere that wasn't in New
South Wales or Victoria.
We've seen some supportrecently from the Commonwealth
for some of the preparatory workaround the convention centre
and some of the light rail work,which is really positive.
But do you think theCommonwealth really does do
enough to be funding the ACT,given our strategic importance
as the nation's capital?
Speaker 2 (22:50):
Well, look, if you take a long-run view of this,
the Commonwealth's argumentwould be for, effectively, the
first 75 years of Canberra'sexistence, they invested very
heavily in the city'sinfrastructure Since
self-government.
It was obviously a deliberatedecision taken by the Australian
(23:12):
Parliament at the time with adegree of bipartisanship, even
tripartisanship.
I think, in the end, that theTerritory should be
self-governing and should takegreater responsibility for its
own infrastructure and servicedelivery.
That's been a challengingjourney.
(23:32):
The Commonwealth did us a fewfavours, in that the asset base
we inherited was pretty good,and they gave us one very
significant thing, which was abig land endowment that has
obviously been progressivelysold off over time to facilitate
the city's growth, but also tofinance a lot of the
(23:54):
infrastructure that's been builtover the last 35 years.
What they didn't do for us,though, was put in place a set
of economic developmentparameters, indeed a taxation
platform that would enable theTerritory Government to perhaps
(24:22):
operate at the same level assome of the larger state
governments.
Our economy is more diversethan it was just in terms of the
number of industry sectors andthe diversity of employment, but
over the journey, theCommonwealth share of ACT
(24:44):
economic activity is still avery seeming proportion.
It's basically half of oureconomy Now.
Absent that, well, we would beWollongong or something smaller.
Not that there's anything wrongwith Wollongong, no, no no, but
(25:04):
our economy would be Wollongongwithout government and without
the industrial base.
So I guess we are victims ofour history and circumstance.
But it's not all bad.
The base on which we have, andthe economic stability that we
(25:26):
have as a result, is a prettygood platform to build on.
But these things take time.
I mean, our economy in the year2000 was the same size as
Tasmania's.
We are now a significantlylarger economy, even though our
population is still smaller.
(25:47):
Our economy has grown faster,in fact, than any other state or
territory economy, which tellsme that some things are going
right and have done for anextended period.
Speaker 1 (25:59):
Yeah.
So how can we get better atleveraging the Commonwealth and
encouraging them to get inbehind really get in behind
things like a new nationalconvention centre, which should,
by rights, be a nationalinstitution?
Speaker 2 (26:14):
Well, they have a dual responsibility and the
current federal governmentinherited some infrastructure
legacies and challenges withinthe Commonwealth-owned portfolio
, some of them very high profile, like the roof of the National
Gallery leaking on artworksworth hundreds of millions of
(26:38):
dollars.
That sort of needed theirimmediate attention.
They have to be fair to bothsides of federal politics.
Over the decade I've been ChiefMinister, there have been some
significant investments by theCommonwealth in their owned
assets in the city, everythingfrom the war memorial investment
(26:59):
and expansion to some of thenational cultural institutions.
More recently, the nationalsecurity precinct that they're
building is very significant.
There are multi-billions ofdollars of investment there, but
through the lens of a Canberranthat is all about the national
(27:22):
capital and a bit less aboutCanberra the city, about the
national capital and a bit lessabout Canberra the city.
One of the challenges over theyears has been attracting at
least our population share ofCommonwealth investment in what
I'd sort of describe asinfrastructure for the city of
Canberra as opposed to thenational capital, and a number
(27:44):
of federal governments andministers have viewed any
investment in Canberra as well.
That's it, that's your share ofthe national infrastructure pie
, even though they're notnecessarily investing in things
that that Canberrans would useor that might support further
economic growth for ourjurisdiction.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
Yeah, and certainly things like the Convention
Centre though.
Are a good example of you knowthat should be, I would argue, a
big stage for the government tohost big international meetings
, Indeed.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
Well, certainly, at least big national meetings.
Obviously, one of thechallenges with very big
international events dependingon, of course, who's attending
is number of hotel rooms andpresidential suites, if you're
wanting, you know leaders,events and those sorts of things
.
But I think that you know thebread and butter for the
business events sector in theACT is the association business.
(28:43):
It's a lot of national andoccasional international events,
but not necessarily the youknow once every decade or once
every 20-year sort of bigpolitical thing like
Commonwealth Heads of Governmentor G20 or that sort of thing,
but shouldn't they be here asthe nation's capital?
Speaker 1 (29:00):
I mean, I appreciate there's some challenges around
hotels and so forth, but in thelong run.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
Well, I mean sure, if Canberra, a city of five
million people, and had all ofthe associated infrastructure
with staging events on thatscale, then yes, but reality is
we're not there yet.
It may be part of the city'sfuture, but right at the moment,
(29:32):
the issue is that there issignificant demand for a lot of
business events to be held inCanberra, with somewhere between
1,000 and 2,500 delegates, andthe reality of the current
convention centre is it can hostthat, but it can only host one
at a time.
And so, uh, you know, one ofthe I think, the compelling
arguments in the end that gotthe commonwealth over the line,
(29:54):
at least for this next stage ofum, uh, of work, uh, is that the
project we put forward wasrealistic, because we, 10 years
ago, we went down the path ofthe Grand Australia Forum, and
this was a very big and boldvision, but four Prime Ministers
said no.
We're now at the point where aPrime Minister has said yes to a
(30:20):
project that I think isrealistic.
We're now on a pathway to getthat project to a point that we
can let a construction tender,and a key piece in that puzzle
was, in terms of the preferredsite was where you would move
the swimming pool.
And again the Prime Ministercame to the table and said yes,
(30:46):
you can have land inCommonwealth Park.
He's given us the land and nowmade a $70 million contribution
which pays for half the pool.
So I feel like some progresshas been made on that piece of
infrastructure.
You touched upon the transportinfrastructure.
Clearly that's an area theCommonwealth have a history of
(31:07):
co-funding with states andterritories.
Light Rail is probably thehighest profile project, but
they're also half funding thebridge for the Molonglo Valley,
the Monaro Highway upgrades.
There are a number of transportprojects around the city that
the Commonwealth arecontributing to.
Obviously, we have a very longlist of areas of infrastructure
(31:30):
that we would welcome theirsupport.
It's detailed on the Built forCBR website.
Absolutely, project by project,infrastructure category by
infrastructure category.
There is several decades' worthof infrastructure in that list,
I mean.
Interestingly, the Chamber andits predecessors and some other
(31:51):
industry associations called forthat long-term infrastructure
thinking.
It has been done, it isregularly updated and it is
there for all to see.
So we've got a good menu tochoose from.
We now just have to work ourway through it.
Speaker 1 (32:06):
Now, chief Minister, we're recording this ahead of
the 2025 federal election and Iguess unless you're going to
give me an amazing scoop heretoday that you're going to be
hoping for the return of a newgovernment.
Well, I'm encouraged by therecent opinion polls, let me put
it that way.
But what happens if there's achange?
How would you go about workingwith a Dutch and lead Liberal
government?
Speaker 2 (32:27):
Well, to be honest, it will be harder than the
alternative for two reasons.
Principally, the policy agendathat they have.
That would have a particularlysignificant impact on the ACT
economy, even if you know, atthe third or fourth iteration of
what 41,000 fewer publicservice jobs means, they've
(32:51):
talked about natural attritionand a five-year recruitment
freeze.
So what that would mean is thatwe would normally get an inflow
of young people into Canberraevery year, coming to work for
the nation, for the Australiangovernment.
That would stop for five yearsin a row.
(33:11):
Our economy would be, you know,whatever that share of pay
packets that would be lost wouldbe that much smaller as a
result.
That, would you know, wouldclearly have flow-on
implications for businesses.
Who, whose market is Canberra?
(33:32):
Consumers.
So there's those policychallenges.
And then, look, I mean, I'veknown Peter Dutton for a long
time.
I know a number of theCoalition shadow ministers, but
you know I don't have the samepersonal relationships with them
that I do with my federal Laborcolleagues.
(33:53):
But look, that said, I've beenChief Minister since 2014, with
the exception of the last threeyears.
That entire period was PrimeMinisters Abbott, turnbull and
Morrison.
So the territory didn't falloff a cliff.
We continued to grow, but therewere handbrakes in certain
(34:16):
instances on that growth.
So I think, for obvious reasons, it would be an easier pathway
to work with the Prime Ministerand his ministers, many of whom
I've known for 35 years.
Speaker 1 (34:34):
Well, we'll see what happens, I guess on the third of
.
May.
Let's just talk briefly, chiefMinister, about light rail.
Obviously, it's been acontroversial topic over time.
Clearly there's some long-termbenefits for the city, but
there's a lot of pain at themoment for businesses that are
impacted by the construction andthe disruption, particularly
around London Circuit and inCivic.
(34:55):
Why won't the government cometo the party with some rates
relief?
Speaker 2 (35:00):
Well, look, that's largely an issue of principle
that we do that on this projectand perhaps every single
infrastructure project oranything that a business could
claim has some external impacton them, you'd be up for some
(35:20):
form of relief.
That would, in effect, kill off, make infrastructure that's
already expensive even moreexpensive and basically be an
end to the ACT government'sinfrastructure program.
If a project involved anydisruption, because it would
just push the cost of doing itto a point that it wouldn't be
(35:41):
viable, that would then haveflow-on implications for the
construction sector in the city.
So no, there are consequencesfor any precedent that
government sets in this regard.
There is a difference, though,between Well, no, I think you
could mount an argument that anyroadworks that put hoardings up
(36:03):
anywhere near a business, anychange to car parking
arrangements, you can seearguments being mounted that
well, you did that in thisinstance.
So our approach has been toseek to work with those
businesses to mitigate impacts.
But we acknowledge that thereis disruption and that there are
(36:26):
.
There are impacts.
No one is denying that thereare impacts.
But you wouldn't undertakethese projects if you didn't
think there was longer termbenefit for the city, its
livability, its productivity.
And we would see and we do workvery actively with those
businesses in an effort tomitigate those impacts, get the
(36:47):
work done as quickly as possible.
But you know there are upsides,obviously, to construction work
and you know there's a lot ofextra money and employment that
comes into the economy duringthose infrastructure projects.
Speaker 1 (37:02):
So what's your message, then, to the businesses
down London Circuit who arereally feeling the pinch at the
moment.
Speaker 2 (37:08):
It is a disruptive time.
That part of the city ischanging and it's not just the
light rail project.
There are a number of privatesector projects that are
occurring.
The end result of all of thatis going to be improved public
transport, thousands more peopleliving and working in those
(37:30):
precincts.
So once we get through thisdisruptive few years, the
outlook is very positive forthat part of the city.
New investment has beenattracted into Canberra.
It will obviously generate moreeconomic activity and wealth
for everyone.
But it is understood that thisis a disruptive period.
(37:55):
We're doing our best tominimise the disruption and to
try and ensure that all of theworkers who are on site
undertaking the infrastructureactivities know particularly
about the businesses who canmeet some of their needs Now.
It's a diverse range ofbusinesses, from restaurants,
(38:15):
cafes, hospitality through tolaw firms.
Speaker 1 (38:18):
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (38:21):
So I accept that having construction workers on
site isn't necessarily going tobe of a benefit to a law firm,
but it certainly would be forsomeone selling coffee and lunch
.
Speaker 1 (38:31):
So, construction of Stage 2A is obviously well
underway.
Where are we at with 2B?
When are we going to have aplan for getting it across the
lake and down to Waterloo Sure?
Speaker 2 (38:42):
sure.
Well, there's a number ofdifferent elements to that.
The process that we're engagedin at the moment is one of a
number of Commonwealth approvalprocesses that need to be gone
through, and so this principallyrelates to the Environment
Protection and BiodiversityConservation Act, the EPBC, and
(39:04):
so we need to submit anenvironmental impact statement
that also touches on some of theheritage issues that the
National Capital Authority has aparticular view on, so that
process is nearing a point of aformal submission and a formal
assessment process.
There's a specific issue aroundthe bridging of the lake that
(39:31):
the National Capital Authorityhave a budget appropriation to
do works to strengthen theexisting bridge.
The light rail bridge would gobetween the two existing ones,
but we can't proceed withanything there until the NCA
have done their work in relationto the existing two bridges.
That has been delayed.
(39:53):
I think they were hoping toprocure a contractor to do that
work last year, but they haven'tdone that yet.
I'm told it will happen thisyear.
That, then, I think, triggers acouple of years of work on
those existing road andpedestrian bridges strengthening
(40:16):
, widening, et cetera.
Another thing that we areconscious about is just how much
disruption there is all at onetime and so trying to get some
other elements of the work,necessary work, completed.
Raising London Circuit, forexample.
The eastern side of thatproject will open next month and
(40:37):
so that will ease a bit of thecongestion.
And then obviously there's thelight rail, stage 2A
construction.
But we need to be conscious ofjust how much development
activity there is.
There's obviously a number ofboth commercial and residential
projects, principally, I think,being undertaken by the Capital
(41:02):
Property Group, but also MorrisConstruction, that's in that
sort of immediate precincts.
Most of that work should bedone in time for stage 2a
opening.
There'll be some things thatwill take a little bit longer,
and of course we've got our workon the Acton waterfront and the
(41:23):
Commonwealth Park swimming pool, amongst other things.
So there is a lot happening inthat corridor, so we just need
to be conscious also of timingand sequencing.
Speaker 1 (41:35):
Absolutely, and look, I'm sure everyone will be
looking forward to getting thatwork completed Now.
There was some talk last yearabout routing the tracks down
through Barton to try andfacilitate greater access to
public service offices and soforth, which seems, on the face
of it, to be a sensible idea.
How have those discussionsplayed out?
Speaker 2 (41:53):
Yeah, so look, those options are part of the
consideration the governmentwill put before the Commonwealth
approvals process.
Essentially, there's a trade-offas there normally is in public
transport between coverage sortof what sort of footprint your
(42:15):
infrastructure covers versusspeed.
So the more direct a service isis often the smaller the
coverage area.
In the case of light rail, itis principally where the stops
are located, and so you thensort of look for activity nodes
that are, you know, largelyspeaking within sort of six, six
(42:37):
hundred meters to a kilometer,from a light rail stop tends to
be the, and so in thinking aboutthe route alignment, we also
need to think about the stoplocations, because in a light
rail vehicle you can't get offor on other than at a stop, and
so the key decision there reallyis can we get the level of
(42:59):
coverage in terms of stoplocations that gives the maximum
access for National Triangleusers?
An important point in ourconsideration also is that that
precinct attracts millions oftourists every year, and so we
also want to be able to supportthe tourism economy by ensuring
(43:23):
that the stops are in locationsthat will enable tourists to
easily access those attractions.
It's complex, but it's possiblefrom the work I've seen, but
you know there are inevitablytrade-offs.
Speaker 1 (43:45):
As there are with everything.
Look.
Finally, chief Minister, I'djust like to sort of touch on
issues around regulation moregenerally.
Now the Chamber gets a fairlyconsistent message from members
that they feel besieged by redtape and compliance requirements
.
Some of that flows from theCommonwealth Government and
workplace relations laws and ATOrequirements and everything
(44:06):
else, but there's a fair bit offrustration with some of our
local ACT rules, regulations andrequirements.
How are you moving forward withthe better regulation agenda?
Speaker 2 (44:15):
Yes, so there's a dedicated team within government
ministers well, actually a leadminister, but some other
ministers for whom theirportfolio responsibilities are
impacted and they arenecessarily involved.
(44:37):
There's also, as I've announced, some machinery of government
changes in terms of thestructure of ACT government,
particularly to address issuesthat have emerged in the
development process aboutreferral entities and that being
a challenge to meet statutoryplanning timeframes for
(45:01):
decisions on developmentapplications.
There's a strong focus on thenight-time economy and Minister
Chain is leading that work,which touches upon some elements
of fees, some elements ofregulation of public space and,
in other instances, a delicatebalance, particularly around
(45:23):
liquor licensing, between, well,creating an environment that
allows for a diverse andinteresting nightlife and
different types of venues, withthe community safety elements
that come with.
Get that wrong and you'll havelots of after midnight
(45:49):
challenges in your entertainmentdistricts, if I can put it that
way.
Speaker 1 (45:53):
And look, I certainly agree that there's been some
good stuff done, and you look atsome of the changes that have
been made, to fees, for example,but a lot of it's been focused
on small venues and smallbusinesses.
Are we being bold enough?
Can we go further and reallysort of?
Speaker 2 (46:10):
Well, I mean, I guess a key part of the diversity,
for example, of our night-timeeconomy and our hospitality
industry, is smaller venues andwe have had a strong policy lean
into wanting to create anenvironment that supports
smaller bars and venues that canoffer quite a diversity of
(46:33):
experience and, if you like,have some more niche offerings.
So that has been a deliberatepolicy focus.
I mean there's always a rolefor larger venues.
But if I was to just take alook at the concentration of
(46:55):
venue ownership in someAustralian cities, you end up
with, yes, you get a lot ofdifferent venues, but they're
all owned by the one group and Idon't necessarily think that's
great for both competition anddiversity in your hospitality
economy.
There's not just abouthospitality.
(47:17):
Regulation obviously can impactmany other sectors.
I mean a statement of principlereally should be that if there
is a regulation in place, thereshould be a good reason for it.
It should be easy to understandand easy for whoever in
government is charged withpolicing that regulation.
(47:39):
That, hopefully, is relativelystraightforward and it's clear
to everyone why the regulationexists.
And you know, for most peoplethey would.
They would understand.
You know why we have fireregulations and why we have
responsible service of alcoholregulations.
You know those sorts ofquestions in other instances
(48:00):
there can be, you know,legitimate questions raised
about well, what does this?
What is this regulationattempting to do?
Is it actually working toachieve its stated objective?
And so that's some of the workthat's been tested, you know,
with impacted businesses on.
Well, we have this regulationhere because we think it does A,
(48:23):
b and C.
Do you agree that it does that,and is it well understood why?
And is it being effective?
In that I have found over theyears that there is regulation
creep and that often, for goodreason, new things are brought
(48:46):
in, but sometimes old things arenot removed, and so part of the
exercise that Minister Chain,in particular, is focusing on is
are there areas of the statutebook that you know, frankly, the
world's moved on and we don'tneed regulation in that area
anymore?
And then during the COVIDperiod, there was a lot of
(49:07):
innovation, a lot of things thatwere tried with a view that it
might help to keep businessesgoing during that difficult
period, and that worked reallywell, and so we want to keep
them, and we're focused on thatas well.
Speaker 1 (49:21):
You know, one question that sort of comes to
me is well, are we?
I mean, I appreciate the needfor regulation in some cases,
but are we big enough to sustainour own regulatory system?
Are we better off, in somecases, not building up statute
within ACT government butactually just piggybacking off,
say, new South Wales?
Yeah, well.
Speaker 2 (49:41):
certainly, harmonisation with New South
Wales is an obvious example, butthere are many efforts in fact
that have gone on to havenational consistency so that
businesses that operate in everystate and territory can operate
under a pretty similar set ofrules.
I mean, a big breakthrough inmy time has been mutual
(50:04):
recognition across the statesand territories of certain trade
skills and licenses, andresponsible service of alcohol
is sort of one such example, butthere are many others.
Where you know, for a long timeAustralia operated as eight
different countries.
Some of that has been resolved.
You see that in the applicationof Australian standards around
(50:29):
road rules, car parking, thosesorts of things.
Sometimes, though, uniformitycan stifle innovation, and so
you want to.
Speaker 1 (50:40):
There's always going to be a balance.
Yeah, you want to be careful.
Always going to be a balance,but.
Speaker 2 (50:42):
But I get careful sometimes that it's not just, uh
, well, just because anotherjurisdiction is doing, we just
have to copy that.
Uh, and you know, this is oneof the fascinating things about
our federation there's a, youknow, there's a healthy level of
competition and a good level ofcooperation, but probably the
element that you want to see isa bit more innovation, and
(51:05):
that's what we're hoping to do.
Speaker 1 (51:07):
We'll keep our fingers crossed, Chief Minister
Andrew Barr.
Speaker 2 (51:09):
thank you so much for joining us here on the Canberra
Business Podcast.
Speaker 1 (51:13):
I'm Greg Harford from the Canberra Business Chamber.
I've been talking to ACT ChiefMinister Andrew Barr and I hope
you've enjoyed listening to histhoughts.
Just a reminder that thisepisode of the Canberra Business
Podcast has been brought to youby the Business Chamber with
the support of Care Super, anindustry super fund with
competitive fees and returns,exceptional service and a focus
on real care.
You can learn more atcaresupercom and don't forget to
(51:35):
follow us on your favouritepodcast platform for future
episodes of the CanberraBusiness Podcast.
We'll catch you next time.
Hello and welcome to the Canberra Business Podcast.
I'm Greg Harford, your hostfrom the Canberra Business
Chamber, and today I'm joined bynone other than Chief Minister
of the ACT, mr Andrew Barr.
Chief Minister, thanks so muchfor joining us.
My pleasure, thanks, greg.
Now, chief Minister, you'vebeen serving in the Assembly
since March 2006.
You've been Chief Ministersince 2014, and Labour was
(00:31):
re-elected last year for anotherfour years.
That's a very long anddistinguished career.
What's been the secret to thatelectoral success?
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Well look, I think in the end, a combination of good
policy being good politics andthen effective campaigning and
communication over an extendedperiod of time.
The ACT's electoral system lendsitself to multi-party
(01:01):
government and minoritygovernments and proportional
representation systems like HerrClark, really remove the
concept of the safe seat andmean not only are candidates in
elections contesting againstother political parties, but
(01:23):
there's also an internal contestin that the party would tend to
put up a slate of candidatesand voters could not only choose
which party they like but whichcandidates within.
And we've seen at almost everyterritory election over the
history of self-government underHerr Clark.
(01:44):
Anyway, voters keep a partyrepresentative but change who
that is.
So I think that puts a verysharp focus on not only being
part of a team and a party brand, but also your own personal
performance.
But also your own personalperformance and, I guess, as a
(02:08):
local member or indeed as aminister or chief minister.
So recognising that that no onecan coast through on the
coattails of the party, that youhave to work hard as an
individual, I think is the keyto longevity in our political
(02:29):
system.
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (02:31):
And I mean it's a very long time to be in office.
You're, I think, the lastsurviving head of government
from the COVID era.
Indeed, yes, Are you enjoyingit still?
Speaker 2 (02:43):
Look, there are elements of every job that are
very challenging, and there'sprobably no more high-profile
job in the ACT than ChiefMinister.
You can't do the job unless youenjoy it on balance.
But, like any job, there'sgoing to be elements that are
(03:04):
more enjoyable than others andparts of the job that that
change over time, and so youknow my answer to this question
in 2025 is different from when Ifirst started.
I'm much more experienced, much, much better placed to know
(03:26):
when and where to exert theinfluence of the Chief
Ministership and how to deliverresults and outcomes that I have
learned over the journey.
I think I'm better at the jobnow than I was when I started,
and experience does obviouslycount, but equally, these sorts
(03:50):
of jobs are not ones that youcan do for decades and decades,
so I'm also conscious that theclock is ticking in this term.
Four years is a relatively shortperiod of time in the end, and
there's a lot we need to getdone.
So I'm focused on that, andsomething I'm sure we'll talk
(04:12):
about over the course of ourchat is really the things that
will happen externally to theACT that will determine how much
we can get done in this termand, clearly, the result of the
federal election is a prettymajor factor, indeed yeah, and
(04:34):
we'll come on and talk a littlebit about the federal election a
little bit later, and obviouslyI imagine there have been lots
of challenges along the way, butperhaps at the moment the one
that is focusing many people'sminds, of course, is the
budgetary challenges that theACT Government has.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
We saw recently the budget deficit's going to be
around 55% higher than forecast.
That's $330 million orsomething more than expected.
That's driven, I think,primarily by the health sector.
But how is your governmentlooking to close that gap and
what's the plan for movingforward?
Speaker 2 (05:07):
Well, essentially we will need to grow revenue faster
than expenditure for asustained period of time.
I think the key to that isongoing economic growth.
The larger the economy, themore revenue that will generate
well for everyone but governmentincluded.
(05:29):
Then there are some specifictasks on the expenditure side
that we will need to look at,and you mentioned health.
It is an area of expenditurenow that accounts for one in
three dollars in the territorybudget.
The rate of growth of demand forhealth services is
(05:51):
unsustainable.
Part of this challenge is wherein the health system care is
best provided, and preventativehealth investment and primary
health care hasn't fared well inAustralia for a decade and the
(06:12):
result of that is being seen atthe acute end of the health
system, unfortunately at themost expensive point of health
care, namely in hospitals.
So I mentioned the federalelection outcome.
It's pleasing to see therewould appear to be bipartisan
support for further investmentin Medicare and the primary
(06:35):
healthcare system, so thatcoming from the Commonwealth
will be timely.
But it will take a few yearsfor that to have a material
impact on overall communityhealth and wellbeing.
But undoubtedly not being ableto access bulk billing GP
(06:56):
services in the ACT at the samelevel as elsewhere, is driving
extra demand into more expensiveforms of healthcare like
hospital emergency departments.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
And obviously I mean I think everyone wants to make
sure we've got a healthcaresystem here in the ACT that's
fully functional and fit forpurpose.
But there will be some peoplelistening to this perhaps, who
hear you say, oh, we need togrow revenue faster than
expenditure, and think, oh, doesthat mean there's going to be
big tax hikes in the budget thisyear?
Is that on the agenda?
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Well, I think it's certainly a function in large
part of areas of the economythat are capable of growing and
generating more revenue.
So I wouldn't necessarily thinkof it in the context of
increased tax rates, butincreased volume of transactions
(07:47):
or economic activity.
And so across the Territory'srevenue lines, the more people
we have in employment, the moreincome is generated across the
city.
If that employment is insectors that are subject to
payroll tax, then that increasesrevenue there.
(08:09):
The more economic activity wehave in the construction and
property sector, the morerevenue will be generated
through land sales.
And then obviously once aproperty is built it becomes a
rate-paying property and addsinto the revenue base for the
(08:29):
territory, whether that isresidential or related to public
infrastructure investment, thenobviously the less pressure
there is on the Territory'sinfrastructure budget.
(08:52):
And infrastructure is anotherarea that is in sharp focus for
three reasons principally, onebeing just our total capacity
within our construction andengineering and project
management workforce as to justhow much infrastructure is
(09:14):
deliverable in our jurisdictionin any given year.
Our financing capacity and thenagain pertinent in the context
of the federal election whatlevel of Commonwealth
co-contribution there is towardsprojects.
So I guess there's no surprisethat projects that have a 50%
(09:39):
funding contribution from theCommonwealth stand a better
chance of being delivered andprogressing.
But there are certain types ofinfrastructure that the
Commonwealth constitutionallyjust does not fund and get
involved in and they becomereally the sole responsibility
of the Territory.
And then there are some otherareas where, frankly, we think
(10:00):
the Commonwealth could do alittle more, and in some
instances they have and we'repleased to see it.
In others it's an ongoingconversation.
Speaker 1 (10:11):
Well, look, let's just come back to the
Commonwealth in a moment.
But it's good to hear youtalking about the need to grow
the economy as a means ofgrowing the revenue base for
government and everyone elsehere.
Does that mean you're notlooking at increasing, say,
payroll tax rates in theupcoming budget?
Speaker 2 (10:27):
None of those decisions have been made yet.
We only had our firstExpenditure Review Committee
meeting, but we have previously,in the last couple of budgets,
made some decisions in relationto payroll tax.
I mean, it is effectively thestate and territory consumption
tax.
We have a big debate in thiscountry about what rate the GST
(10:52):
should be set at.
I don't think there's a lot ofappetite on either side of
federal politics to change therate of the GST or indeed
largely what it applies to, therate of the GST, or indeed
largely what it applies to.
And so payroll taxes areeffectively the state or
territory level equivalent of aGST.
(11:14):
That's their economic incidence.
They're largely passed on frombusinesses onto consumers, and
the rate in the ACT is higher,but so too is the threshold, and
there's sort of a deliberatepolicy design there to try and
exempt as many local businessesfrom payroll tax.
(11:36):
And the payroll tax burdenfalls principally on national
and multinational organisationsin terms of the volume of
revenue collected, andbusinesses need to really have
sort of hit medium size beforethey're captured in the ACT
system.
Other jurisdictions have adifferent model.
They have a lower rate, but itkicks in at a much lower level
(11:59):
and so captures much more smallbusiness activity, yeah.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
Do you think, though, that it acts as a bit of a
disincentive to growth?
I think there's been someresearch by economics
consultancy E61 around the SouthAustralian experience, where
they've increased theirthreshold and they've seen a big
bump in the number ofbusinesses employing more people
up to the payroll threshold.
Speaker 2 (12:20):
Yeah, well, if the threshold and rate acts as a
distortionary or has adistortionary impact on decision
making.
But I imagine that's arelatively small step change,
because business would make adecision really on the amount of
(12:42):
labour that they require toeither 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 labourcosts in some businesses might
(13:03):
be as high as 80% to 90% of thebusiness expenses, but in other
parts of the economy they willbe lower.
So I would say I could see acircumstance where a business
would go OK, well, that oneextra employee means I'm going
to be paying payroll tax on thatportion of my payroll that is
(13:23):
over the $2 million threshold.
But to put some perspective onthat, if a business had a
payroll of $1,990,000 and thenwent over that by, say, $50,000,
they'd be paying tax only onthe $40,000 that took them over,
(13:44):
and 6.85% of $40,000 would betheir tax rate, so something
like $2,500.
At the other end of the spectrum, though, there are decisions
that the business will makeabout, I guess, the balance of
inputs being labour or capital,and in some instances technology
(14:07):
is going to be driving thosedecisions potentially to invest
more in capital and reduce sortof labour's share of output.
When we look at trends in oureconomy and trends in society,
there are some jobs that existnow that that won't in the
(14:27):
future because I, I will, willtake an increasing role on the I
guess on the presumption thatthat will increase productivity
but then there will be a wholerange of new jobs that are
created that would really go tothe management of, of AI as a,
as a factor of production forbusiness.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
Yeah well, we certainly hope that job growth
eventuates.
Speaker 2 (14:50):
Well, at the moment we have an unemployment rate of
3% and essentially the samenumber of job vacancies as we
have unemployed people, so mosteconomists would view the ACT
labour market as at fullemployment at the moment, and so
the challenge is often gettingskills rather than there being a
(15:10):
problem of surplus labour inour economy.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
Now, more generally, we've obviously had, you know, a
stellar run of economic growthhere in the ACT.
I think it's 33, maybe 34 years.
We've now clocked into wherewe've grown, which is a real
strength.
But how can we do better?
Are we sort of sitting on ourlaurels and thinking, well, this
is good enough?
Are we striving, do you think,to grow as much as we can, and
(15:43):
what is the plan to drive evenmore growth?
Speaker 2 (15:46):
uh.
Well, look, I think some, somesectors, uh, of the economy have
grown quite rapidly, uh, andthey tend to be in the
internationally tradableservices area, uh.
And then you know, almostincomprehensibly, the Australian
(16:07):
Parliament has conspired to tryand put a handbrake on some of
that growth, and so theinternational education sector
is one such example.
But equally, at times it feelslike there are a range of
regulatory barriers that arebeing put in place that are
slowing the rate of growth ofthe tourism sector as well.
(16:30):
But I think the opportunitiesfor growth in the ACT economy
are selling services and goodsinto national and international
markets.
The ACT economy itself is a tadover $50 billion, and so from a
(16:51):
business perspective, if yourmarket is only the ACT market
population 500,000 and aneconomy of about $50 billion
then your capacity to grow isnecessarily limited by the size
of the market.
So I think to grow faster thanthe sort of general rate of the
ACT economy, we need to beaccessing national and
(17:15):
international markets.
That's, I think, the sectors ofthe economy that can grow faster
.
And then I guess the other areawhere there is potential is
there are sections of oureconomy that their economic
fortunes and their market sharesare driven a little by
(17:38):
decisions around where publicfunds flow, and so the care
economy is a good example thereand anything related to
healthcare, aged care, childcare.
Ndis has grown much morerapidly than the rest of the
economy over the last decade andit would seem in the current
(18:01):
international policy environmentthat the defence and national
security sector is going to begrowing more rapidly than the
rest of the Australian economy.
So there would seem to be somereally good opportunities for
businesses in Canberra to tapinto some of that national and
international growth opportunity, particularly in defence and
(18:21):
national security, and Canberraas a regional hub for pretty
much everything south ofWollongong in southern New South
Wales in the care economy wouldseem to be an opportunity as
well.
Speaker 1 (18:36):
Are we doing enough, though?
Do you think, as a territory,to be attracting other
businesses to come here and setup operations and base teams
here?
Speaker 2 (18:45):
Well, look, there are certain very compelling
comparative advantages that theACT has over some other
economies, particularly theskills base of our workforce.
So you know there isn't a bettereducated community in Australia
than Canberra.
We do see a number ofbusinesses who need that high
(19:11):
level of skill, preferringCanberra as either a
headquarters or perhaps a moresignificant branch office than
you would otherwise anticipate.
The difficulty we face is justour comparative size as a
(19:32):
jurisdiction.
So when you're competing withlabour markets of five million,
three hours up the road or 45minutes on the plane, that
becomes a little morechallenging for us.
But equally, our geographicposition between Sydney and
(19:54):
Melbourne I think works to ouradvantage.
Look, there are obviouslychallenges, but I guess when we
benchmark the ACT against asimilar-sized jurisdiction like
Tasmania or even a slightlylarger one like South Australia,
our capacity to attract andretain young people to have
(20:20):
graduate employment outcomesthat are the best in Australia,
I think that augurs well for thefuture of our economy.
It is a compelling storyinternationally to talk about 33
years of consecutive economicgrowth and that very sound base
that our economy has,principally due to the presence
(20:42):
of the Australian government.
But in certain sectors we havea comparative advantage.
In others.
Honestly, we are at acomparative disadvantage largely
due to diseconomies of scale.
Speaker 1 (20:54):
And you've got to play to your strengths right and
leverage those advantages thatyou've got Well, I think every
economy does.
Speaker 2 (21:00):
I mean we don't have the same policy levers as a
jurisdiction like Singapore.
But if I was to sort of pointto a benchmark of a
comparatively small economy thatseeks to play very much to its
strengths, then there's a lot tolike about Singapore's economic
development journey and youknow you get a bit of nodding of
(21:26):
heads in agreement.
That of any of the Australianjurisdictions, the ACT in
Canberra is the Singapore ofAustralia, but we're only 112
years old too, so we lack acapital base that older places
have, but throughout Australia'seconomic history it's been a
(21:48):
net importer of capital most ofthe time.
I guess the other part of theworld that is perhaps an
interesting case study that youwould be particularly familiar
with are our friends across theditch in New Zealand.
Get the policy settings rightand small, open economies can
flourish.
Speaker 1 (22:08):
Absolutely.
And certainly I think theChamber would really endorse the
idea that Canberra should bethe Singapore of Australia.
You know, we want to see thateconomic growth and we want to
see businesses thrive.
So yeah, so obviously, excuseme, obviously Canberra is the
national capital.
We exist here as a territorybecause of federation and the
(22:29):
need for Parliament to besomewhere that wasn't in New
South Wales or Victoria.
We've seen some supportrecently from the Commonwealth
for some of the preparatory workaround the convention centre
and some of the light rail work,which is really positive.
But do you think theCommonwealth really does do
enough to be funding the ACT,given our strategic importance
as the nation's capital?
Speaker 2 (22:50):
Well, look, if you take a long-run view of this,
the Commonwealth's argumentwould be for, effectively, the
first 75 years of Canberra'sexistence, they invested very
heavily in the city'sinfrastructure Since
self-government.
It was obviously a deliberatedecision taken by the Australian
(23:12):
Parliament at the time with adegree of bipartisanship, even
tripartisanship.
I think, in the end, that theTerritory should be
self-governing and should takegreater responsibility for its
own infrastructure and servicedelivery.
That's been a challengingjourney.
(23:32):
The Commonwealth did us a fewfavours, in that the asset base
we inherited was pretty good,and they gave us one very
significant thing, which was abig land endowment that has
obviously been progressivelysold off over time to facilitate
the city's growth, but also tofinance a lot of the
(23:54):
infrastructure that's been builtover the last 35 years.
What they didn't do for us,though, was put in place a set
of economic developmentparameters, indeed a taxation
platform that would enable theTerritory Government to perhaps
(24:22):
operate at the same level assome of the larger state
governments.
Our economy is more diversethan it was just in terms of the
number of industry sectors andthe diversity of employment, but
over the journey, theCommonwealth share of ACT
(24:44):
economic activity is still avery seeming proportion.
It's basically half of oureconomy Now.
Absent that, well, we would beWollongong or something smaller.
Not that there's anything wrongwith Wollongong, no, no no, but
(25:04):
our economy would be Wollongongwithout government and without
the industrial base.
So I guess we are victims ofour history and circumstance.
But it's not all bad.
The base on which we have, andthe economic stability that we
(25:26):
have as a result, is a prettygood platform to build on.
But these things take time.
I mean, our economy in the year2000 was the same size as
Tasmania's.
We are now a significantlylarger economy, even though our
population is still smaller.
(25:47):
Our economy has grown faster,in fact, than any other state or
territory economy, which tellsme that some things are going
right and have done for anextended period.
Speaker 1 (25:59):
Yeah.
So how can we get better atleveraging the Commonwealth and
encouraging them to get inbehind really get in behind
things like a new nationalconvention centre, which should,
by rights, be a nationalinstitution?
Speaker 2 (26:14):
Well, they have a dual responsibility and the
current federal governmentinherited some infrastructure
legacies and challenges withinthe Commonwealth-owned portfolio
, some of them very high profile, like the roof of the National
Gallery leaking on artworksworth hundreds of millions of
(26:38):
dollars.
That sort of needed theirimmediate attention.
They have to be fair to bothsides of federal politics.
Over the decade I've been ChiefMinister, there have been some
significant investments by theCommonwealth in their owned
assets in the city, everythingfrom the war memorial investment
(26:59):
and expansion to some of thenational cultural institutions.
More recently, the nationalsecurity precinct that they're
building is very significant.
There are multi-billions ofdollars of investment there, but
through the lens of a Canberranthat is all about the national
(27:22):
capital and a bit less aboutCanberra the city, about the
national capital and a bit lessabout Canberra the city.
One of the challenges over theyears has been attracting at
least our population share ofCommonwealth investment in what
I'd sort of describe asinfrastructure for the city of
Canberra as opposed to thenational capital, and a number
(27:44):
of federal governments andministers have viewed any
investment in Canberra as well.
That's it, that's your share ofthe national infrastructure pie
, even though they're notnecessarily investing in things
that that Canberrans would useor that might support further
economic growth for ourjurisdiction.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
Yeah, and certainly things like the Convention
Centre though.
Are a good example of you knowthat should be, I would argue, a
big stage for the government tohost big international meetings
, Indeed.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
Well, certainly, at least big national meetings.
Obviously, one of thechallenges with very big
international events dependingon, of course, who's attending
is number of hotel rooms andpresidential suites, if you're
wanting, you know leaders,events and those sorts of things
.
But I think that you know thebread and butter for the
business events sector in theACT is the association business.
(28:43):
It's a lot of national andoccasional international events,
but not necessarily the youknow once every decade or once
every 20-year sort of bigpolitical thing like
Commonwealth Heads of Governmentor G20 or that sort of thing,
but shouldn't they be here asthe nation's capital?
Speaker 1 (29:00):
I mean, I appreciate there's some challenges around
hotels and so forth, but in thelong run.
Speaker 2 (29:07):
Well, I mean sure, if Canberra, a city of five
million people, and had all ofthe associated infrastructure
with staging events on thatscale, then yes, but reality is
we're not there yet.
It may be part of the city'sfuture, but right at the moment,
(29:32):
the issue is that there issignificant demand for a lot of
business events to be held inCanberra, with somewhere between
1,000 and 2,500 delegates, andthe reality of the current
convention centre is it can hostthat, but it can only host one
at a time.
And so, uh, you know, one ofthe I think, the compelling
arguments in the end that gotthe commonwealth over the line,
(29:54):
at least for this next stage ofum, uh, of work, uh, is that the
project we put forward wasrealistic, because we, 10 years
ago, we went down the path ofthe Grand Australia Forum, and
this was a very big and boldvision, but four Prime Ministers
said no.
We're now at the point where aPrime Minister has said yes to a
(30:20):
project that I think isrealistic.
We're now on a pathway to getthat project to a point that we
can let a construction tender,and a key piece in that puzzle
was, in terms of the preferredsite was where you would move
the swimming pool.
And again the Prime Ministercame to the table and said yes,
(30:46):
you can have land inCommonwealth Park.
He's given us the land and nowmade a $70 million contribution
which pays for half the pool.
So I feel like some progresshas been made on that piece of
infrastructure.
You touched upon the transportinfrastructure.
Clearly that's an area theCommonwealth have a history of
(31:07):
co-funding with states andterritories.
Light Rail is probably thehighest profile project, but
they're also half funding thebridge for the Molonglo Valley,
the Monaro Highway upgrades.
There are a number of transportprojects around the city that
the Commonwealth arecontributing to.
Obviously, we have a very longlist of areas of infrastructure
(31:30):
that we would welcome theirsupport.
It's detailed on the Built forCBR website.
Absolutely, project by project,infrastructure category by
infrastructure category.
There is several decades' worthof infrastructure in that list,
I mean.
Interestingly, the Chamber andits predecessors and some other
(31:51):
industry associations called forthat long-term infrastructure
thinking.
It has been done, it isregularly updated and it is
there for all to see.
So we've got a good menu tochoose from.
We now just have to work ourway through it.
Speaker 1 (32:06):
Now, chief Minister, we're recording this ahead of
the 2025 federal election and Iguess unless you're going to
give me an amazing scoop heretoday that you're going to be
hoping for the return of a newgovernment.
Well, I'm encouraged by therecent opinion polls, let me put
it that way.
But what happens if there's achange?
How would you go about workingwith a Dutch and lead Liberal
government?
Speaker 2 (32:27):
Well, to be honest, it will be harder than the
alternative for two reasons.
Principally, the policy agendathat they have.
That would have a particularlysignificant impact on the ACT
economy, even if you know, atthe third or fourth iteration of
what 41,000 fewer publicservice jobs means, they've
(32:51):
talked about natural attritionand a five-year recruitment
freeze.
So what that would mean is thatwe would normally get an inflow
of young people into Canberraevery year, coming to work for
the nation, for the Australiangovernment.
That would stop for five yearsin a row.
(33:11):
Our economy would be, you know,whatever that share of pay
packets that would be lost wouldbe that much smaller as a
result.
That, would you know, wouldclearly have flow-on
implications for businesses.
Who, whose market is Canberra?
(33:32):
Consumers.
So there's those policychallenges.
And then, look, I mean, I'veknown Peter Dutton for a long
time.
I know a number of theCoalition shadow ministers, but
you know I don't have the samepersonal relationships with them
that I do with my federal Laborcolleagues.
(33:53):
But look, that said, I've beenChief Minister since 2014, with
the exception of the last threeyears.
That entire period was PrimeMinisters Abbott, turnbull and
Morrison.
So the territory didn't falloff a cliff.
We continued to grow, but therewere handbrakes in certain
(34:16):
instances on that growth.
So I think, for obvious reasons, it would be an easier pathway
to work with the Prime Ministerand his ministers, many of whom
I've known for 35 years.
Speaker 1 (34:34):
Well, we'll see what happens, I guess on the third of
.
May.
Let's just talk briefly, chiefMinister, about light rail.
Obviously, it's been acontroversial topic over time.
Clearly there's some long-termbenefits for the city, but
there's a lot of pain at themoment for businesses that are
impacted by the construction andthe disruption, particularly
around London Circuit and inCivic.
(34:55):
Why won't the government cometo the party with some rates
relief?
Speaker 2 (35:00):
Well, look, that's largely an issue of principle
that we do that on this projectand perhaps every single
infrastructure project oranything that a business could
claim has some external impacton them, you'd be up for some
(35:20):
form of relief.
That would, in effect, kill off, make infrastructure that's
already expensive even moreexpensive and basically be an
end to the ACT government'sinfrastructure program.
If a project involved anydisruption, because it would
just push the cost of doing itto a point that it wouldn't be
(35:41):
viable, that would then haveflow-on implications for the
construction sector in the city.
So no, there are consequencesfor any precedent that
government sets in this regard.
There is a difference, though,between Well, no, I think you
could mount an argument that anyroadworks that put hoardings up
(36:03):
anywhere near a business, anychange to car parking
arrangements, you can seearguments being mounted that
well, you did that in thisinstance.
So our approach has been toseek to work with those
businesses to mitigate impacts.
But we acknowledge that thereis disruption and that there are
(36:26):
.
There are impacts.
No one is denying that thereare impacts.
But you wouldn't undertakethese projects if you didn't
think there was longer termbenefit for the city, its
livability, its productivity.
And we would see and we do workvery actively with those
businesses in an effort tomitigate those impacts, get the
(36:47):
work done as quickly as possible.
But you know there are upsides,obviously, to construction work
and you know there's a lot ofextra money and employment that
comes into the economy duringthose infrastructure projects.
Speaker 1 (37:02):
So what's your message, then, to the businesses
down London Circuit who arereally feeling the pinch at the
moment.
Speaker 2 (37:08):
It is a disruptive time.
That part of the city ischanging and it's not just the
light rail project.
There are a number of privatesector projects that are
occurring.
The end result of all of thatis going to be improved public
transport, thousands more peopleliving and working in those
(37:30):
precincts.
So once we get through thisdisruptive few years, the
outlook is very positive forthat part of the city.
New investment has beenattracted into Canberra.
It will obviously generate moreeconomic activity and wealth
for everyone.
But it is understood that thisis a disruptive period.
(37:55):
We're doing our best tominimise the disruption and to
try and ensure that all of theworkers who are on site
undertaking the infrastructureactivities know particularly
about the businesses who canmeet some of their needs Now.
It's a diverse range ofbusinesses, from restaurants,
(38:15):
cafes, hospitality through tolaw firms.
Speaker 1 (38:18):
Absolutely.
Speaker 2 (38:21):
So I accept that having construction workers on
site isn't necessarily going tobe of a benefit to a law firm,
but it certainly would be forsomeone selling coffee and lunch
.
Speaker 1 (38:31):
So, construction of Stage 2A is obviously well
underway.
Where are we at with 2B?
When are we going to have aplan for getting it across the
lake and down to Waterloo Sure?
Speaker 2 (38:42):
sure.
Well, there's a number ofdifferent elements to that.
The process that we're engagedin at the moment is one of a
number of Commonwealth approvalprocesses that need to be gone
through, and so this principallyrelates to the Environment
Protection and BiodiversityConservation Act, the EPBC, and
(39:04):
so we need to submit anenvironmental impact statement
that also touches on some of theheritage issues that the
National Capital Authority has aparticular view on, so that
process is nearing a point of aformal submission and a formal
assessment process.
There's a specific issue aroundthe bridging of the lake that
(39:31):
the National Capital Authorityhave a budget appropriation to
do works to strengthen theexisting bridge.
The light rail bridge would gobetween the two existing ones,
but we can't proceed withanything there until the NCA
have done their work in relationto the existing two bridges.
That has been delayed.
(39:53):
I think they were hoping toprocure a contractor to do that
work last year, but they haven'tdone that yet.
I'm told it will happen thisyear.
That, then, I think, triggers acouple of years of work on
those existing road andpedestrian bridges strengthening
(40:16):
, widening, et cetera.
Another thing that we areconscious about is just how much
disruption there is all at onetime and so trying to get some
other elements of the work,necessary work, completed.
Raising London Circuit, forexample.
The eastern side of thatproject will open next month and
(40:37):
so that will ease a bit of thecongestion.
And then obviously there's thelight rail, stage 2A
construction.
But we need to be conscious ofjust how much development
activity there is.
There's obviously a number ofboth commercial and residential
projects, principally, I think,being undertaken by the Capital
(41:02):
Property Group, but also MorrisConstruction, that's in that
sort of immediate precincts.
Most of that work should bedone in time for stage 2a
opening.
There'll be some things thatwill take a little bit longer,
and of course we've got our workon the Acton waterfront and the
(41:23):
Commonwealth Park swimming pool, amongst other things.
So there is a lot happening inthat corridor, so we just need
to be conscious also of timingand sequencing.
Speaker 1 (41:35):
Absolutely, and look, I'm sure everyone will be
looking forward to getting thatwork completed Now.
There was some talk last yearabout routing the tracks down
through Barton to try andfacilitate greater access to
public service offices and soforth, which seems, on the face
of it, to be a sensible idea.
How have those discussionsplayed out?
Speaker 2 (41:53):
Yeah, so look, those options are part of the
consideration the governmentwill put before the Commonwealth
approvals process.
Essentially, there's a trade-offas there normally is in public
transport between coverage sortof what sort of footprint your
(42:15):
infrastructure covers versusspeed.
So the more direct a service isis often the smaller the
coverage area.
In the case of light rail, itis principally where the stops
are located, and so you thensort of look for activity nodes
that are, you know, largelyspeaking within sort of six, six
(42:37):
hundred meters to a kilometer,from a light rail stop tends to
be the, and so in thinking aboutthe route alignment, we also
need to think about the stoplocations, because in a light
rail vehicle you can't get offor on other than at a stop, and
so the key decision there reallyis can we get the level of
(42:59):
coverage in terms of stoplocations that gives the maximum
access for National Triangleusers?
An important point in ourconsideration also is that that
precinct attracts millions oftourists every year, and so we
also want to be able to supportthe tourism economy by ensuring
(43:23):
that the stops are in locationsthat will enable tourists to
easily access those attractions.
It's complex, but it's possiblefrom the work I've seen, but
you know there are inevitablytrade-offs.
Speaker 1 (43:45):
As there are with everything.
Look.
Finally, chief Minister, I'djust like to sort of touch on
issues around regulation moregenerally.
Now the Chamber gets a fairlyconsistent message from members
that they feel besieged by redtape and compliance requirements
.
Some of that flows from theCommonwealth Government and
workplace relations laws and ATOrequirements and everything
(44:06):
else, but there's a fair bit offrustration with some of our
local ACT rules, regulations andrequirements.
How are you moving forward withthe better regulation agenda?
Speaker 2 (44:15):
Yes, so there's a dedicated team within government
ministers well, actually a leadminister, but some other
ministers for whom theirportfolio responsibilities are
impacted and they arenecessarily involved.
(44:37):
There's also, as I've announced, some machinery of government
changes in terms of thestructure of ACT government,
particularly to address issuesthat have emerged in the
development process aboutreferral entities and that being
a challenge to meet statutoryplanning timeframes for
(45:01):
decisions on developmentapplications.
There's a strong focus on thenight-time economy and Minister
Chain is leading that work,which touches upon some elements
of fees, some elements ofregulation of public space and,
in other instances, a delicatebalance, particularly around
(45:23):
liquor licensing, between, well,creating an environment that
allows for a diverse andinteresting nightlife and
different types of venues, withthe community safety elements
that come with.
Get that wrong and you'll havelots of after midnight
(45:49):
challenges in your entertainmentdistricts, if I can put it that
way.
Speaker 1 (45:53):
And look, I certainly agree that there's been some
good stuff done, and you look atsome of the changes that have
been made, to fees, for example,but a lot of it's been focused
on small venues and smallbusinesses.
Are we being bold enough?
Can we go further and reallysort of?
Speaker 2 (46:10):
Well, I mean, I guess a key part of the diversity,
for example, of our night-timeeconomy and our hospitality
industry, is smaller venues andwe have had a strong policy lean
into wanting to create anenvironment that supports
smaller bars and venues that canoffer quite a diversity of
(46:33):
experience and, if you like,have some more niche offerings.
So that has been a deliberatepolicy focus.
I mean there's always a rolefor larger venues.
But if I was to just take alook at the concentration of
(46:55):
venue ownership in someAustralian cities, you end up
with, yes, you get a lot ofdifferent venues, but they're
all owned by the one group and Idon't necessarily think that's
great for both competition anddiversity in your hospitality
economy.
There's not just abouthospitality.
(47:17):
Regulation obviously can impactmany other sectors.
I mean a statement of principlereally should be that if there
is a regulation in place, thereshould be a good reason for it.
It should be easy to understandand easy for whoever in
government is charged withpolicing that regulation.
(47:39):
That, hopefully, is relativelystraightforward and it's clear
to everyone why the regulationexists.
And you know, for most peoplethey would.
They would understand.
You know why we have fireregulations and why we have
responsible service of alcoholregulations.
You know those sorts ofquestions in other instances
(48:00):
there can be, you know,legitimate questions raised
about well, what does this?
What is this regulationattempting to do?
Is it actually working toachieve its stated objective?
And so that's some of the workthat's been tested, you know,
with impacted businesses on.
Well, we have this regulationhere because we think it does A,
(48:23):
b and C.
Do you agree that it does that,and is it well understood why?
And is it being effective?
In that I have found over theyears that there is regulation
creep and that often, for goodreason, new things are brought
(48:46):
in, but sometimes old things arenot removed, and so part of the
exercise that Minister Chain,in particular, is focusing on is
are there areas of the statutebook that you know, frankly, the
world's moved on and we don'tneed regulation in that area
anymore?
And then during the COVIDperiod, there was a lot of
(49:07):
innovation, a lot of things thatwere tried with a view that it
might help to keep businessesgoing during that difficult
period, and that worked reallywell, and so we want to keep
them, and we're focused on thatas well.
Speaker 1 (49:21):
You know, one question that sort of comes to
me is well, are we?
I mean, I appreciate the needfor regulation in some cases,
but are we big enough to sustainour own regulatory system?
Are we better off, in somecases, not building up statute
within ACT government butactually just piggybacking off,
say, new South Wales?
Yeah, well.
Speaker 2 (49:41):
certainly, harmonisation with New South
Wales is an obvious example, butthere are many efforts in fact
that have gone on to havenational consistency so that
businesses that operate in everystate and territory can operate
under a pretty similar set ofrules.
I mean, a big breakthrough inmy time has been mutual
(50:04):
recognition across the statesand territories of certain trade
skills and licenses, andresponsible service of alcohol
is sort of one such example, butthere are many others.
Where you know, for a long timeAustralia operated as eight
different countries.
Some of that has been resolved.
You see that in the applicationof Australian standards around
(50:29):
road rules, car parking, thosesorts of things.
Sometimes, though, uniformitycan stifle innovation, and so
you want to.
Speaker 1 (50:40):
There's always going to be a balance.
Yeah, you want to be careful.
Always going to be a balance,but.
Speaker 2 (50:42):
But I get careful sometimes that it's not just, uh
, well, just because anotherjurisdiction is doing, we just
have to copy that.
Uh, and you know, this is oneof the fascinating things about
our federation there's a, youknow, there's a healthy level of
competition and a good level ofcooperation, but probably the
element that you want to see isa bit more innovation, and
(51:05):
that's what we're hoping to do.
Speaker 1 (51:07):
We'll keep our fingers crossed, Chief Minister
Andrew Barr.
Speaker 2 (51:09):
thank you so much for joining us here on the Canberra
Business Podcast.
Speaker 1 (51:13):
I'm Greg Harford from the Canberra Business Chamber.
I've been talking to ACT ChiefMinister Andrew Barr and I hope
you've enjoyed listening to histhoughts.
Just a reminder that thisepisode of the Canberra Business
Podcast has been brought to youby the Business Chamber with
the support of Care Super, anindustry super fund with
competitive fees and returns,exceptional service and a focus
on real care.
You can learn more atcaresupercom and don't forget to
(51:35):
follow us on your favouritepodcast platform for future
episodes of the CanberraBusiness Podcast.
We'll catch you next time.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.