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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 11 Hansard (14 December) . . Page.. 3069 ..

MR WOOD (continuing):

The changes from the draft to the second document were indeed considerable. Let me give one example. At paragraph 9.13 the Stein report refers to the concept of PLUZs. It refers to them as a fact. Actually, the removal of the PLUZs was just one of the changes from the first draft. That suggests that the board's understanding of the plan was far from perfect. And do you remember the "pink bits"? They went too, along with the making of hosts of important changes. I have indicated before the report's critical comments about the intrusion of political processes. The report wanted its piece of criticism of politicians at that time, but it did not want to acknowledge the prolonged and significant role of the Planning Committee under the chairmanship of Mr Lamont. That committee made further important changes before the plan was approved, unanimously, by this Assembly.

Mr Speaker, let me give another example of the board's misunderstanding of the plan. At paragraph 18.41 the report argues that:

... breaches of performance standards should be permitted where they do not harm or undermine the stated underlying purpose of the particular standard.

Recommendation 70 calls for this provision in the Territory Plan. Yet, it is already there, loud and clear. It is an important feature of the plan, and one that has been well used. How could the board miss it? It is a further serious defect of the board of inquiry's report that it did not test its assertions. Had it done so, it would have avoided such mistakes. It may have refrained from uncritically accepting as fact the perceptions that some submitters had. It may also have provided a greater element of justice for the bureaucrats.

Mr Speaker, there is a strong sense of an ambush in the way the board dealt with them. The members of the board acknowledged the willing participation of the leasehold administration and the Planning Authority. It is obvious that our public servants cooperated fully with the board. They discussed freely and openly the processes and the difficulties. Indeed, I understand they were pleased to do so in the expectation that a number of difficult provisions would be ironed out. But the easy and comfortable nature of the hearings was disarming. The board had targeted them. If there is any future inquiry into aspects of ACT administration you can be sure that bureaucrats will not be as open in their comments, and they will want their lawyers with them. Since the board had resolved to be so critical, it should have offered the bureaucrats the opportunity to comment on its highly prejudicial statements.

Let me now discuss the issues of transparency and freedom of information - issues to which the board gave a great deal of attention and which appear critical in determining the thrust of the report. Many of the case studies were related to these issues. The board chose not to acknowledge the enormous amount of time that the planners, in particular, devoted to consultation with objectors and the community. The then Chief Planner was always at community meetings. I agree with this statement at paragraph 17.56:

It is the Board's opinion that increased levels of transparency would improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation of the leasehold system. Importantly, it will raise the community's confidence in decision making processes.

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