Will they never let up? The extreme sides of the planning debate have both launched such intemperate attacks on the Stein report that they leave themselves open for intemperate replies.
Paul Whalan, former Labor Deputy Chief Minister and now a BMW-driving convert to developer-driven capitalism, referred to the report as the “”stain” report. (Converts proselytise far more vociferously than originals). He said “”you will find quite a strong Marxist flavour running right through it”. I can hear the rumblings at Highgate cemetery from here.
Whalan would like to see freehold land, fewer planning controls, and less or no betterment tax for developers wanting to put up higher density housing or convert to commercial leases. Noel Mc Cann, a property valuer, said he preferred Stein Lager rather than Stein logic.
On the other extreme, Julie Smith of the North Canberra Community Association condemned Stein for refusing to draw any conclusions about any misconduct or corruption.
Her co-association member, Mark Dunstone, had attempted to suggest to the inquiry that there was corruption in ACT lease administration. The closest he could come to it was that developers and/or their representatives had lunch at the Hyatt with some departmental people. Yes, Mark, there is a Santa Claus and business people do do lunch.
As an exercise in exposing defects in Canberra’s planning administration, the Dunstone ploy did worse than fall flat on its face. In the end it had the very opposite effect of that intended.
The report was almost totally damning of the pro-developer and closed culture of leasehold administration in Canberra. It concluded that the administration was so bad that the top echelon ought to be removed. You cannot get much more damning.
But there was one exception. Because Dunstone had inferred corruption, patronage and improper advantage, Stein felt obliged to say that he had found no evidence of it.
This gave the bureaucrats some comfort. It was about the only mitigating point in what would otherwise have been an unmitigated condemnation of leasehold administration since self-government. Naturally enough, the bureaucrat who had the most responsibility for lease-administration and land tenure since self-government, Jeff Townsend, seized on the point and trumpeted it as a sign he had been given a total clean bill of health.
So courtesy of Dunstone, he and other bureaucrats had a leg to stand on which they otherwise would not have.
In was this aspect of the Stein report, in an otherwise solid piece of work, that had a flaw. It stated on Page 12 that it was not appropriate or necessary to inquire into nor make findings about the submissions on allegations of impropriety. Yet later (Page 192) it used language to suggest there was none. It accepted without inquiry assurances that there was none. In short, it used the language of acquittal or innocence, when it should have used the language of “”not proven”. It is a lawyer’s trap. Lawyers like black and white, innocence or guilt. They cannot have what Edward de Bono calls Po … the legal equivalent of not proven.
A not-proven finding should not have reflected poorly on the bureaucrats. Indeed, the hunch feeling of the person in the street would more likely be that, given what the developers could get just by working a system where the culture was in their favour, there was no need for a brown paper bag. And in any event, the general culture of the Federal bureaucracy from which the ACT bureaucracy was spliced was a clean one. But, in the past decade, it has been a politically subservient one, rather than a fearless one impartially administering the law, albeit a difficult one. So if the Government made sympathetic noises to development and higher housing densities, the bureaucracy would have translated that in an amplified form on the ground.
The fact that the Stein inquiry revealed such a pro-developer, anti-disclosure and anti-community culture in the bureaucracy indicates a fairly full explanation for what went wrong with Canberra’s planning and leasehold administration. There was simply no need for overt corruption nor was there a culture that would have accepted it.
In short, the ACT lease administrators were in the same position as British journalists described by Humbert Wolfe:
Despite the last gasps of the Smiths, Dunstones and Whalans of the world, however, there are grounds for hope arising from the Stein inquiry.
It appears that Planning Minister Gary Humphries is willing to put his head before his heart. In a rare admission for a politician, Humphries says he is willing to accept and implement the Stein recommendations, despite being in philosophic disharmony with them. He is prepared to lie in the bed that he and his Assembly colleagues have made.
This makes good political sense. Stein himself asked the question, how is it that the ACT has about a dozen major inquiries in land tenure over the past 25 years. The simple answer is that governments kept on ignoring the findings of earlier inquiries resulting in continuing community and business pressure.
It seems that Humphries thinks (Smith and Whalan aside) that if he implements the Stein inquiry that the bulk of that pressure will fall away. He is probably right. In the long term, the mainstream community groups like Save Our Cities and the mainstream business groups would probably be reasonably satisfied if the Stein recommendations were implemented.
In particular, business will like the recommendations to ensure certainty and expedition of planning processes, such as the 40-day maximum approval rule, and residents’ groups will like the recommendations of openness and for the planning authority … not the developer … to act as the notifier of neighbourhood concerns.
Certainly the experience of Ted Mack on North Sydney Council proves the point. He implemented a process of total openness in planning, land dealing and any other dealing with council. The only secrecy permitted was the obvious one from call of tender to signing of contract. After that all was open. He got more and more respect and support as time went on. If nothing is wrong you have nothing to hide.
The lesson for the ACT Government (which it appears to be heeding) is to get on an implement both the letter and spirit of the Stein report. That will isolate the extremists and in the long term gain the support of the bulk of the community and business.