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

None . . Page.. 253 ..

Mr Humphries: Tell the Commonwealth to go away! That makes a lot of sense.

MS FOLLETT: Exactly, Mr Humphries. Sometimes you are in a position of strength, even with the Commonwealth. When you own the land that they have said they want, it puts you in a negotiating position of strength. Let me explain it to you. In order to counter Mrs Carnell's position of strength, the Commonwealth sought to impose a deadline which did not exist. It is the oldest negotiating trick in the book. They really should have been told by Mrs Carnell, “If you look at the forward estimates published by our Labor predecessors, you will see that there is $20m in the forward estimates expected in special revenue funding”.

Mr Speaker, I believe that Mrs Carnell needed to point that out to the Commonwealth in no uncertain terms and that there were no strings attached to previous special revenue assistance measures from the Commonwealth. She should have also said to the Commonwealth that it was outrageous to expect this kind of a deal to be done with no consultation whatsoever, with no forewarning to the many groups who are already occupying Acton Peninsula, with no satisfactory arrangement for the child-care centre. That child-care centre is groundbreaking in itself because of its government-provided child care for the children of Government Service officers. I think that sort of initiative deserves to be protected. At least the arrangement deserves to be thoroughly examined before you give away the land.

Mr Humphries: We are not giving away the land.

MS FOLLETT: You did give away the land. You have told me that it has no dollar value. Mr Speaker, I think it is very much to be regretted that Mrs Carnell was forced into this move by the Commonwealth. As I say, I am disappointed in my Federal colleagues over this matter. I also think it is very much to be regretted that, having already lost Acton Peninsula, we are also as a Territory about to lose the Kingston foreshore, for Mrs Carnell made it very clear yesterday that it was her intention, as a part of some “joint venture” arrangement, virtually to hand over the Kingston site to the developers, although she did concede in answer to a question from, I think, Ms Tucker that it would be the Territory that had to clear up the site before it was handed over. As far as the ACT goes, we have all the tasks and all the expense but none of the advantages and none of the control either - all because, I believe, the Commonwealth, through a force majeure tactic which they should have been told to go away and sit on, have succeeded in doing a deal which is not to the advantage of this Territory.

I believe that the Assembly has every right to scrutinise this matter as thoroughly as we are capable of doing. I am very pleased indeed that that scrutiny is occurring through the Assembly's committee processes. I have listened very carefully to all of Mrs Carnell's attempted answers on this matter over the past couple of days, and I have no confidence whatsoever that the Assembly will be properly informed on the further development of these negotiations. We have had no substantive answers on any matter in two days of questioning. When I asked for a categorical answer, I did not get one. When I asked

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