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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 11 Hansard (8 December) . . Page.. 3280 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Mr Speaker, we did that because we understood that there was a wide range of concern in the community, particularly amongst the business sector and people involved in the development - people employed in the construction industry and associated industries - about the impact of betterment on development in the Territory. So we said, "Fine, we'll give you two years at a 75 per cent rate of betterment and that will give you enough time to instigate the inquiry by Professor Des Nicholls, have a report to the Assembly, have it considered by the Assembly and the community and then this Assembly will be in a position before December 1998 to make a decision on whether or not the rate of betterment should be 50 per cent, 75 per cent, 100 per cent or some other figure". That was the basis of our support.

What have the Government done, Mr Speaker, in the past two years? What have the Government done to get that inquiry under way? They have done nothing, Mr Speaker. Indeed, I became so concerned about this issue that about four or five weeks ago I sought some information from the Minister's office. The Minister's staff, I must admit, were very helpful and they gave me some advice on the matter. They told me that they still had not reached an agreement with Professor Nicholls on when the inquiry should commence, but they had at least started to talk to him.

That was on 29 October, Mr Speaker. The Government had had two years, yet it was only on 29 October that they were starting to work out when Professor Nicholls could do the study. I ask members: What is going on in the Minister's office? What is going on in PALM? Why has this issue not been canvassed and dealt with earlier? I would have thought this was a very important issue. I would have thought that the Assembly's wishes on the matter were very clear. Why has the Government not dealt with this issue?

I would be interested to hear the Minister's response on this because he is responsible for planning and development in the Territory. This is perhaps one of the most important issues to do with development in the Territory. On 29 October this year, less than three months before the sunset clause runs out, the Government had not even started the investigation by Professor Nicholls. That, I think, is a fairly poor state of affairs.

Mr Speaker, the Minister's office very kindly assisted me by providing me with some terms of reference that were being proposed for Professor Nicholls' inquiry. On my first reading of them, they certainly seem to be quite sensible terms of reference. They also provided me with a copy of the letter from Professor Nicholls to an officer in PALM which outlined how long Professor Nicholls needed to conduct his investigation, and that was a period of 20 weeks. Professor Nicholls has said he needs 20 weeks, not including a four-week break over Christmas, to complete his examination. Obviously this takes us past the sunset clause date. Even the date of that letter, which is 26 October this year, clearly takes us past the sunset date.

The Government has now come into this house and suggested that the Assembly support an extension of the sunset clause. Mr Speaker, it is unfortunate that we are placed in this position. The Government has not provided any reason why we should extend this sunset clause. Labor's view is that this study needs to be done. We said that back in 1996 and our position remains unchanged. We do need a study and an investigation of the impact

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