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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 3 Hansard (28 May) . . Page.. 768 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

and do further work to explore what was going on, to sit down with Mr Whitcombe and probably with the Boltons and work through the issues that had been given rise to; and, indeed, that is what we did.

The biggest fallacy, however, in this motion falls in subparagraph (e). It is a myth which, I think, has been perpetrated by the Opposition quite deliberately since the beginning of this debate. They have spoken about pre-empting the outcome of an examination of the benefits and costs of rural residential development in the Territory. Here is a question which, I think, simply has to be answered in this debate. Where has the Government, or an agent of the Government, said that there was an examination of the benefits and costs - note my emphasis of the words "benefits and costs" - of rural residential development in the Territory? I want an interjection on this one. Come on! Where? Mr Corbell is avoiding answering this question. It is a pretty fundamental question. I repeat the question: Where has the Government said that it was doing an examination of the benefits and costs of rural residential development? Where? When? In what form - in writing, orally, in the tea leaves at the bottom of a cup? Where has it said that? Of course it has not, at any stage, said that.

What we have said is what the Chief Minister told the Assembly on 21 May, and I will repeat it:

The fact is that PALM is doing a study of how to go about rural residential development, not if ...

I repeat those words:

... PALM is doing a study of how to go about rural residential, not if ...

There is no cost-benefit analysis going on. There never was a cost-benefit analysis going on. We never said that there was a cost-benefit analysis going on. That is a myth perpetrated by those opposite. We wanted to know the sorts of conditions we would attach to rural residential development, how to protect environmental considerations, and how to protect servicing and other urban services types of issues. They were the issues that we were exploring in the PALM review, not should we have rural residential development or should we not. Subparagraph (e) of this motion is a nonsense.

Mr Quinlan: Explain why you sign a deal when you have not done any analysis.

MR HUMPHRIES: I should not, but I will rise to the bait and answer Mr Quinlan's question. One more time, Mr Quinlan, here is why we did it: It was because we wanted to explore those issues. We said to Mr Whitcombe, "On the basis that you bring to the table the people who have occupied those premises for the last 150-odd years, on the basis that you bring that tradition to the table for these negotiations, we will explore the proposals in conjunction with you and the occupants of that land". Is that so wrong? Is there anything wrong with that? No, nothing whatsoever.

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