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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 11 Hansard (14 December) . . Page.. 3067 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

The case studies do emphasise particular points, but they provide overall a most unbalanced account of what went on in the Planning Authority. The use of case studies in this loaded way demonstrates the uncritical emphasis that the board has given to residents and to a variety of community groups. I have no difficulty with this. It was always my view that citizens should have the city they want and that they are of primary importance in all processes. The board had a responsibility to report the full range of processes arising from applications, but it did not do so. The board makes frequent reference to perceptions that members of the community have about a range of matters. For example, at paragraph 14.9 the report states:

Many resident groups and some individual submitters claimed that the planning system appears to have been "captured" by developer interests ...

It goes on at paragraph 14.11:

The Board is unable to conclude that "capture" has occurred ...

It proposes a more open system. The same pattern occurred at paragraph 17.148, where it states that "the Board notes that there is genuine concern in the community about the issue" of disclosure of interest, but in paragraph 17.147 it acknowledged that there was no evidence to suggest that any public official had breached any guidelines. This thread is evident in the report and is apparent enough for me to give more examples. At paragraph 17.165 it is stated:

There is a perception among some community members that the special knowledge of former officers -

of the bureaucracy -

of administrative procedures and processes confers advantage on them.

That is, on developers. Once again, the board found no evidence of patronage or improper advantage.

The board has paid great attention to the perceptions of the community and it appears to me that the report has converted perceptions into facts. Yet we see those statements where it is acknowledged that there is no evidence to substantiate those perceptions. I can confirm that some in the community have a cynical attitude towards the work of public servants, but automatically to accept those claims, as the report has, is to do a grave disservice to public servants. This comment at paragraph 17.173 is valid:

... the Board also considers that the lack of "faith" expressed by many in the community about the decision making processes means that the perception of "favours" needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

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