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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 11 Hansard (14 December) . . Page.. 3064 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

Of course, I could have made an approach to the board to be heard. Perhaps I misread the cues. There was an approach by Pat Troy through John Langmore to make a submission in defence of the leasehold system. Would a submission have been followed by an appearance? Surely a request to appear would have been more direct than that. In the event, the Opposition decided to make no submission, since it was mainly our policies and our administration that were under review. In effect, our submission was already on the table.

Mr Speaker, the failure by the Stein board of inquiry to call me, or to call any politician from this Assembly or former Assembly, is just one of the serious, damaging and questionable omissions from this report. Listen to paragraph 7.24 of the report and agree with me that the omission is incomprehensible; that the board, if it allowed itself to be questioned on this matter, would be unable to provide an acceptable reason. I quote:

What do we learn from this analysis of the decision making powers and functions under the Land Act? First, we see a high degree of power-sharing between the Executive, the Minister, committees of the Assembly and the Legislative Assembly itself.

At paragraph 7.25 the board concludes:

We are driven to the conclusion that there is too much involvement of the Government and the Legislative Assembly in day to day decision making under the Land Act.

In referring to day-to-day administration, the board is not only talking about policy setting, as with the Land Act, but routine administration as well. Why did the board not want to talk to any of us in this chamber? Indisputably, our comments would be totally relevant and essential for any complete and balanced consideration of all the issues. Obviously, we were not the target.

I have read the report now twice and with great care. Every word, every case study, every recommendation has been meticulously scrutinised, and I have made many cross references. Other than my careful scrutiny of departmental functions over 31/2 years as a Minister, no other matter has commanded as much attention from me as this report. There is still much to do to understand the report fully and I expect that this debate will continue. I will certainly give further detailed comments after the long period the Minister is going to need to respond to this and other reports.

At this stage I can indicate that there is much in the report that should be supported. Notwithstanding Pat Troy's anxiety, the leasehold system was never under threat, and it is good that we have yet another affirmation that it should remain. There is much that has to be further examined. For example, the report proposes significant changes to the structures responsible for leasing and planning. It recommends a statutory planning authority, a land management authority, and a part-time statutory planning and land management corporation to bring those two bodies together.

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