Page 4229 - Week 14 - Thursday, 24 October 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES: I think we would certainly agree upon cheapness and accessibility. The standard answer from those of such limited vision, who suggest that more complication is required, is that to change the system now would be too hard. Does that mean that we are stuck with this system forever? I certainly hope not. I believe that we could have moved by a staged process to a more liberal land use policy so that, when business circumstances change, lessees with commercial leases can change their lease uses to some other variation of commercial use without having to ask permission of government officials who in some cases, with respect, have never been in business.
Mr Moore: And without paying betterment.
MR HUMPHRIES: I do not enter that question; that is another issue, Mr Moore. But I think the important point is that we have to take steps that make it easier to deal with that kind of changing environment. We are in the middle of a recession. It is important for people who are doing business to be able to adapt flexibly to these changed economic circumstances. If that means changing the nature of the use made of a lease, heaven help you; you do not have a chance of doing that cheaply and quickly.
The dominant theme which comes through this legislation is that it is designed by government officials for government officials. In many cases it is evident from the balances and checks that are placed in this legislation that there are government officials who do not trust other government officials. Clause after clause of this Bill merely specifies steps to be taken in an administrative process, which could just as easily be undertaken without legislation, in my view.
I will give you an example: Clause 164 of the Bill. It effectively requires the Executive to consult the omnipresent Planning Authority before granting a lease of Territory land. The Planning Authority may then indicate certain things to the Executive, which the Executive is free to ignore if it wishes. The only restriction on the ability to grant the lease is that it must then be granted by the Executive or the Minister. Essentially, this is an example of a procedure which could just as easily have been undertaken administratively as by legislation. It is in legislation because the Planning Authority does not quite want to take the land division on trust, and it feels more comfortable if its desire to have its say is enshrined in legislation.
There are lots of other examples in here, and I cite clause 228 and schedule 2. You might say, "What difference does that make? So what?". First of all, once it is in legislation it is stuck there - it is inflexible and it cannot be changed, except through an Act of this Assembly. Secondly, and more importantly, Mr Speaker, it builds in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .