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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 11 Hansard (14 December) . . Page.. 3065 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

The board demonstrates a disturbing ignorance of administration, as it did when it ruled out the role of politicians - and its investigating administration - when it argues that this part-time corporation, meeting "no less than once each calendar month", would "resolve day to day administrative issues and applications between the Planning Authority and the Land Management Authority". The proposal for a planning and land management corporation is an attempt to resolve the tension where the lease purpose clauses establish the planning controls. These recommendations need a lot more careful thought. Then there are recommendations that should be rejected, such as that calling for a spill of SES positions. I said earlier that without the evidence of politicians the report lacks balance; and it is more than that, as I shall demonstrate. In particular, its targeting of public servants is not justified and is simply not fair.

Mr Speaker, I will bring some balance to this whole debate. I will further indicate the report's imbalance, its omissions, and some of those places where it is just wrong. I will show how the board has too often noted perceptions, sometimes refuted them, but in its overall thrust converted them into facts. To do so I will need to concentrate on the serious problems in this report and have less to say about its justifiable comments. That will come when the Minister later provides the Government's response. The report is just one of a long series of reports on leasing or planning. It is, however, the first inquiry under the Inquiries Act. I do not believe that it has operated in the best possible way, so we must learn from this experience if any future inquiries under the Inquiries Act are to be conducted as well as possible.

Mr Speaker, the report has detailed some genuine problems in leasing and planning, and these must be attended to. But, in making its assessments, in converting perception to fact, in its omissions and errors, the board has missed many important factors, and unreasonably allotted blame for such problems as exist entirely to the bureaucracy. The politicians were not held accountable. The difficulties of the Land Act and Territory Plan were acknowledged, but no tolerance was given to those who administered their provisions. The most difficult circumstances of the day were ignored, and it was bad judgment to do so; so full responsibility was attributed to the bureaucrats. They were the target, and I suspect one bureaucrat in particular was the main target. A question about the position of that senior officer by Mr Moore in this Assembly strongly suggests that I am correct in this judgment.

I will spell out some of the other circumstances that will provide a more accurate perspective. At paragraph 14.3 the report states that there is a range of factors which have caused the failure of the leasehold and planning system. I quote:

They include the unnecessary complexity of the processes laid down by the Land Act and the involvement of numerous players in some aspects of the system - ACTPA, Lease Administration, the Minister, the Executive, the Legislative Assembly and its Committees.

The point is restated at paragraph 17.13, as follows:

... the effort to devise a system to cover almost every conceivable exigency has produced an overly complex operation which is confusing and difficult for applicants and residents alike to gain access.

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