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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 8 Hansard (26 August) . . Page.. 2532 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

It was, in fact, part of that purchase price. In other words, what was being spent was effectively part of the money that the Government otherwise would receive by way of a purchase price.

Ms Tucker: So you paid for it?

MR HUMPHRIES: Well, I suppose you cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim that they were getting a discounted price for the land and that they were not paying for the development of the - - -

Ms Tucker: Why did they get a discounted price to begin with?

MR HUMPHRIES: Well, may I put this on the table, Ms Tucker? In a sense they might have paid full market value and then we would have used the money in the form of consolidated revenue to go out and do that revitalisation work at the McKellar shops ourselves. It would not have been recorded as having anything to do with Tokich Homes. It would have been incidental to the fact that Tokich Homes was developing part of the land around McKellar shops and we happened to be spending the money.

Mr Quinlan: Without a competitive process.

MR HUMPHRIES: I will come to that.

Ms Tucker: You said they did it.

MR HUMPHRIES: I know you have an issue here, Ms Tucker, but let me answer the question you have raised. The question of whether the degree of innovation in that proposal is sufficient to warrant direct dealing is the issue I have indicated I want to have examined. I am not satisfied in my mind that we have a process that is appropriate.

The argument has been put to me that we need to encourage development around local shops in Canberra and that warrants saying to people, "If you can come up with a good idea to put development around a centre which supports that centre, then we will deal with you directly to make sure that that kind of development goes ahead and the shops have a new lease on life, so to speak, by virtue of that development".

It has been put to me that that is sufficient benefit, community benefit, to warrant the direct granting of land. That may or may not be the case, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not sure in my own mind about that. I can see that there is some intellectual value in coming forward with an idea to develop land around a particular centre in a way that interacts with the centre, such as design issues, issues to deal with the type of accommodation you create at those centres to interact with the local centre as opposed to just slapping up whatever is in your bottom draw in the way of a design for a house or a block of houses to achieve a quick result and get a quick profit out of it. There is some degree of innovation in this. Whether there is enough to warrant direct dealing I am not sure about, and I want to find out about , and that is why I have indicated to Ms Tucker and the Assembly that I, as a Minister newly responsible in this area, want to go back and review that question. So, that is one issue.

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