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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 3 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 828 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

which is land, which is the only asset that we have. Anybody's reaction to a goldmine is to try to get their hands into it quick smart and get as much out of it as they possibly can, as we saw in the gold rushes here in Australia in our past. The analogy, I think, is not a bad one; each person is trying to maximise what they can get out of the asset, and, of course, most of all, any government, this being the most important asset that the ACT has.

The management of the leasehold system and the return to the ACT on its basic capital are of central importance. This crossing over of a strategic plan, being led by the Chief Minister's Department with these four clear objectives, is where I see a great area that needs a lot more thorough consideration. To be fair, the Government has conceded that and said that that will be the case. But this morning, having sat in on a briefing to BOMA about the strategic plan, I must say that I am deeply concerned. It is being done very rapidly. It all has to be together by September. It has the potential to profoundly change the forces that are shaping our city and taking us toward the future. I really wonder whether the right level of resourcing and backup has been given to what will essentially overtake the Territory Plan and overtake the planning and future of our city if it is articulated in the way that its proponents at the moment are taking it. Given that this is going on - as Michael says, the Mant/Collins idea coming at a crossroads with the Stein idea - quite where we are going is an area of concern for me, and it will be for our party.

The whole proposal is to administratively deliver services better. Of course, one can only hope that we can come to that. Mr Moore has already flagged some concerns about the type of authority that has been placed on the record here. I cannot claim any expertise. I think it probably does need a second look. Certainly, my reading of the Government's proposal does offer hope that some sort of streamlined, better focused, easier to follow, less bureaucratic and less cumbersome process is being offered. I, for one, would like to see something happen, and happen quickly; but the review that Michael is proposing is probably necessary.

I was very pleased to see the Government take on board all the concerns about FOI. The difficulty that people have had made for quite sad reading. There is probably fault on both sides, but I think that anything that strengthens the spirit of the FOI Act and then enables the administration of it to come out much more clearly would be helpful to everyone concerned with planning in the community. I was very interested to read in the Stein report how other authorities managed their files, and how much more open and transparent the processes are. I read into the Government's proposals about the FOI changes some coming to that process and some tacit agreement that really a much more open process is essential. That is what I would be looking for and monitoring in that process, because there really is no excuse, in the end, for the community being denied vital information about our communal assets. For information to be lost through bad administrative processes rather than bad legislation made for sad reading, and I am very pleased to see that the Government is taking that on board.

The essence of Stein, I think, has been followed; the detail, I think, does need closer examination. I understood that the Planning and Environment Committee had already taken on the brief of looking at the Government's response to Stein and its implementation. I think the depth and the passion of community concern about Stein

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