Page 472 - Week 02 - Thursday, 3 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR WOOD: Well, Professor Neutze missed the point. If we are going to have that balance sheet of a financial analysis we take into account the better cities money, and that is very much larger than any factor you might write in on betterment. That is where the debate that we have heard this morning has been wrong. That is the point that Professor Neutze did not pick up. People seem to be floating between an economic analysis and a financial analysis, so let us separate them into their distinct types.
Mr Kaine: Mr Moore even wants to go into accrual accounting.
Mr Moore: That is the point I was making; that he was the one who started talking in financial terms, not economic terms.
MR WOOD: No, I asked you to get your boxes right. That is what happened. The simple thing is this: If you want to talk about betterment you have to add in better cities money at the same time. It is as simple as that. That is a factor that Mr Moore might take into account when next he speaks.
Madam Speaker, the economic analysis was sound. I heard Mr Moore claim something like 15 qualifications to it, and then he spent 35 minutes or so talking through that process. What he did not do was to spend the hour or so, or the two hours, that he might have needed to talk through the very clear statements that the economic analysis made. He went through with a highlighter and picked out any sensible, reasonable and proper qualification that might have been made. Where was the balance to that argument? Where were all the clear statements - - -
Mr Moore: You were putting it.
MR WOOD: I certainly am putting it, Mr Moore. Thank you for that. Where are all those very clear statements in the analysis that say, "This is a very sound investment by the ACT Government. This is a sensible step that the people of Canberra should support."? The committee asked for that independent analysis - an economic analysis, not a financial one - and that is what it got, and that is what this Assembly got, and it supports the North Watson proposal. It is as simple as that. When people get up today, please understand it for what it is. Do not try to take a stretch in a different direction. This North Watson proposal has been exhaustively studied. It is good for people in Watson and the rest of North Canberra. It is good for Canberra. It is good for our economy and it is good for our budget. I am sure that this Assembly will support it.
MR MOORE (11.59): Madam Speaker, Mr Wood concluded by saying that this proposal is good for the people of Canberra, good for the budget, good for the people of North Watson and, I think, good for the people of Watson. In reality, Madam Speaker, without reiterating a previous speech I made, because there is absolutely no point, that simply is not the case. Mr Wood has failed to take into account who will be the winners and who will be the losers.
Mr Wood: Everybody will be a winner.
MR MOORE: Mr Wood argues that everybody will be a winner. Because I have discussed some of the other issues I will simply go on to the issue of betterment, Madam Speaker. I will deal with that one. I congratulate you on the before and after values and on going to 100 per cent on commercial properties. If you were really genuine about this you would also go to 100 per cent on properties having
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .