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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 11 Hansard (8 December) . . Page.. 3281 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

of betterment. We are interested in those findings because it has been such a contentious issue. Whilst we have a policy position of 100 per cent betterment, that does not mean that we are not interested in seeing the outcome of that examination and the alleged impacts or otherwise on development in the ACT.

But, Mr Speaker, we are not interested in simply giving the Government another year and then being in a position where, after maybe another six months or so, the Government will come back to us saying, "We still need more time". Our fear is that the Government has been deliberately dragging its heels on this issue. It has not been interested in dealing with the issue of betterment in any serious way. Had it been it would have got Professor Nicholls to do the study. It is quite possible, Mr Speaker, that the Government is happy with the rate of 75 per cent betterment and the extension of another year would suit its purposes just fine. I hope that is not the case, but I cannot help but raise the question.

Mr Speaker, I have proposed a series of amendments and I understand they will be dealt with in the detail stage. Just to quickly foreshadow them, I have proposed a series of amendments that will give the Government time to complete the study but not the 12 months that they are asking because, quite frankly, they do not need it. Professor Nicholls has said that he needs 20 weeks to complete his investigation. That is in his own letter to parliament. That brings the commencement date to 4 June next year. So he can complete his report and present it to government by 4 June next year. I have then provided for three months for consultation on the issue - one month for a government response, one month for Assembly consideration, and one month for community consultation. That gives everyone who has a clear and obvious interest in these issues time to respond in a considered and reasonable way. I should add, perhaps, that it is more time than the Government are prepared to give on ACTEW. This proposal provides for a reasonable and sufficient period of time.

Mr Speaker, at the conclusion of that period, 31 August, which is my proposed cut-off date, we can vote on the issue. We can then resolve the issue of whether or not betterment should remain at 75 per cent or go to 100 per cent, 50 per cent or some number in between, and any other issues that Professor Nicholls raises. I think that is a sensible approach, Mr Speaker. The Government cannot expect this Assembly to simply say, "Well, just because you didn't get your act together, we're going to give you another year". I do not think that is an appropriate way to go. The Government knew how much time they had. They knew when they needed to get this done, they knew how long it would take and they did not do anything about it.

The Government may stand up and say that there were other factors that constrained them that were beyond their control. I would be interested to hear whether those factors constrained them for a period of two years, a period of two full years, which is what they have had. I would argue to members that we do need this inquiry by Professor Nicholls. We do need that issue of betterment to be investigated, but we should not be giving the Government more than they need because they have had some time already and it is time for them to get on with the job. The Labor Party will be supporting this Bill, but we do so on the proviso that the Bill be amended so that the Government will have time to get the job done but not to drag their heels like they have over the past two years.

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