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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 6 Hansard (1 September) . . Page.. 1701 ..

MR SPEAKER: It certainly is, but you do have a second 10 minutes, Mr Corbell, so I suggest you change your - - -

MR CORBELL: Absolutely, and I am taking my second 10 minutes. If the Chief Minister is uncomfortable with my comments, well, I am terribly sorry, but that is life. She said it here and I am responding to it. Mr Stanhope said that land allocation was now in the hands of the can-do merchants and the Chief Minister's response was: "Yes". That is what the Chief Minister said.

Ms Carnell: Mr Speaker, I thought you ruled that you could not respond to an interjection.

MR CORBELL: Mr Speaker, I know the Chief Minister may be uncomfortable about this.

Ms Carnell: Mr Speaker, I assumed you ruled that you could not respond to an interjection.

MR SPEAKER: No. Interjections from either side of the house are out of order, but I am sure Mr Corbell is adroit enough to use his second 10 minutes without referring to interjections.

MR CORBELL: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. I will do my best. Mr Speaker, it is quite clear that the Government, as the Chief Minister so rightly confirms, has placed the land allocation function - she nods again - in the hands of her can-do merchants over in the Office of Asset Management. That response, to me, really underlines the fundamental problem we have here with the Office of Asset Management; that we have can-do merchants who seem to be out there looking to get the best dollar for the land and who do not worry about any of the other consequences. That is not the sort of response we want to see from a government.

We want a government which manages land in a prudent way and which gets the best possible return from the land for the Territory. Land is a valuable asset owned by everyone in the Territory. But, Mr Speaker, that is not the end sum game which the Chief Minister seems to think it is. We believe very strongly that coupled with getting that best possible return is the issue of the best possible planning outcome, and that is not what we saw in relation to the Hall/Kinlyside development, and that is not what we are potentially seeing in some other projects that are currently being managed by the Office of Asset Management - for instance, section 56 in Civic. As I said earlier, section 56 in Civic is a significant redevelopment in Civic Centre. It is the last remaining piece of open space within the inner Civic area.

Ms Carnell: It is a car park.

MR CORBELL: Yes, it is a car park - - -

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