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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 8 Hansard (27 June) . . Page.. 2321 ..

MS McRAE (continuing):

Again, it was ironic today to hear Mr Moore appeal to Mr Humphries to fix up things with the leases, which he would have to do even if there were a statutory authority, for heaven's sake. If Mr Moore did not approve of the decisions that were being made by a statutory authority in regard to Deakin, who would he come to but the Minister for Land and Planning. I think, no matter what, at the end of the day what the Government has been trying to do, what Mant/Collins has been trying to do - perhaps with several faults that I will point out later - is come to grips with where we fit in as legislators and where the Minister fits in in relation to the decisions that are made in regard to land and leases in the ACT.

I think the Government has responded in a quite constructive manner to Stein's call for new and separate authorities. It has recognised that the previous models have not worked and has advocated a process that will deal with the three issues at once, including the internal management and development applications as proposed by the Red Tape Task Force. I have had the benefit of a brief on that new policy. It seems, at first blush, to be an excellent process of reorganisation, as was shown by the bureaucrats that are now in charge of the establishment of the Planning and Land Management Division which, it must be pointed out, is under one of the most experienced of the ACT's bureaucrats. If you wanted to pick a bureaucrat that you could trust with almost anything in the ACT, the head bureaucrat that has been put there to try to sort out planning and land management here and now could not be better. I have a lot of faith that, under his guidance, a lot of the real concerns that have been raised at the junior and middle levels will now be sorted out.

Then the Government spilt the senior positions. On top of that, the office of the Planning and Land Commissioner starts to come to grips with perhaps what it is that we need to break the circuit, and that is to have an appeal body outside the normal statutory authority processes, the normal bureaucratic processes, that says, "Here is the arbitrator; here is the person to whom you can appeal; here is the person who has the watchdog role; here is the person who will tell us whether we are all honest". I think, at the end of the day, that is probably what we most want. I think, when people understand a bit more fully exactly what the role of the Planning and Land Commissioner is going to be, a lot of the fears about the lack of statutory authorities will be put to rest.

I have a lot of faith in that because of the work that has been done by the Commissioner for the Environment, by the commissioners in other authorities and by the work of ombudsmen and similar people. Once you establish a position like that, which is given an absolute charter to overview the work that is being done by everybody involved, then you have a circuit-breaker. I think, at the end of the day, statutory authorities or bureaucratic structures cannot avoid being accountable to the Minister. Therefore, in my opinion, there is not a dramatic amount of difference as to whether you run a statutory authority or whether you run a division within a bureaucracy.

To know the exact intent of each of the divisions, each of the bureaucratic structures and the exact chain of command is your first step. Then you establish this overview person to whom people can appeal. More than that, we are asking the Minister to consider allowing the Commissioner for Land and Planning to provide a sort of state of the nation type of report in relation to land and lease management. I think, through that reporting to the

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