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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1995 Week 11 Hansard (14 December) . . Page.. 3079 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

I have noted the many comments made in this place about the Stein report. Members do not need to hear me speak to know that I would be deeply unhappy about elements of the Stein report.

Mr Moore: We all are, Gary.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Moore points out that we all are. Without even hearing me speak, members would know my views about the leasehold system, my views about renewability of leases and my views about betterment tax. Those are the views of my party. Those views have been severely attacked, if you like - - -

Mr Berry: Decimated, even.

MR HUMPHRIES: Decimated, if you like; yes, I do not mind the word you use - in this report. But the point that Mr Moore makes is a good point. Nobody comes out of this report, as it were, without some shibboleth of theirs in tatters or decimated, if you like. As I pointed out the other day, more to make a point than anything else, this report recommends, for instance, that there be a right to legal representation in the new planning appeals process, which they accept should now be the AAT. That is an issue which I have always argued for but which others in this place have opposed. The point I make by mentioning that is that this report is like the curate's egg. Parts of it are very nice indeed, very palatable, very tasty; other parts would leave a rather bitter taste in one's mouth.

It was not the Government's intention primarily to rake over old coals in this inquiry. The Chief Minister and I wanted terms of reference that contained forward looking elements: How do we produce a report which is going to give us the answers to some of the longstanding, deeply ingrained problems in the planning system? Does the report achieve this blueprint for fixing the problems of the planning system? That is a question that will need to be answered in the next few months as we pore over the details of this report and determine what response we should give to it. I dare say that there are things in the report which we will find difficult to implement or deliver on.

The report, it is true, makes a number of fairly significant recommendations about the planning process. Mr Wood mentioned a number of new bodies which it recommends should be created and which, if nothing else, will almost certainly add to the cost of administering our planning system.

Mr Wood: In any circumstance, that is going to double, I would reckon, as a result of this.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Wood's estimate is that it would double. I do not have an estimate of my own; but I have to say that even if it did do that I am not sure that money is the root cause of the problem. Money might solve some problems, but there are other things which deserve higher priority than spending a great deal more money on our planning system. But, as I say, that is a matter to be determined as we peruse this report.

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