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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (1 July) . . Page.. 1994 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

I will not accept in this place, on this issue or on any other issue, that anecdotal evidence is sufficient justification for a fundamental change in public policy, and that is what this Government is suggesting today. If there is any other reason that members are not confident of, then they should be confident of this one. We should not make a fundamental change in public policy, which is what this Government is arguing, on the basis of anecdotal evidence, and anecdotal evidence alone. That is, simply, a poor justification.

Of course people in the development and construction industry are interested in improving their margin of return. Of course they are. That is why they are in that industry. That is why they do that. I am not surprised that the development and construction industry advocate 50 per cent. I understand why they do that, but we have to understand that the reason they do that is that they are interested in improving their return. That is a legitimate objective, but there are other objectives that this Assembly must take into account, and those include the public interest and whether or not our ownership of land title in the Territory entitles us to a return on improvements on that land. Those are the issues that need to be addressed.

Mr Smyth stood up earlier in the debate and said that there was a participant at the Property Council function which I attended who said, "My blood runs cold at the options that Mr Corbell is floating in relation to improvements to our planning system". Mr Smyth obviously did not hear Mr Barry Morris who spoke at the session prior to the session at which he and I spoke. Barry Morris advocated exactly the same ideas that I have been advocating, so perhaps it would be fair to say that on all issues on planning there is diversity of opinion.

Mr Speaker, when did this Government ever accept, in its entirety, a report presented to it? When, ever, did a government support, in its entirety, the recommendations presented to it in a report? Never. Yet this Government wants to come into this Assembly today and ask us to do just that. It is an absurd proposition.

Mr Speaker, the motion before you outlines a sensible process for dealing with this controversial issue and resolving it in a timeframe which is reasonable. I commend the motion to the Assembly.

Amendments negatived.

Motion agreed to.

MR WOOD: Mr Speaker, under standing order 128, I fix a later hour this day for the moving of the motion.

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