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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (28 March) . . Page.. 970 ..

Mr Kaine: On the point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not think Mr Hargreaves was here then.

Mr Hargreaves: I wasn't, but I heard "long lunch" and I did not like it. I took exception to it.

MR HUMPHRIES: Mr Speaker, it was "strong lunch" not "long lunch" that I said. I was actually quoting what I thought Mr Kaine said. If any offence was taken, Mr Speaker, I happily withdraw.

We have ruled out long lunches. So what other reason was there for Labor supporting a 75 per cent change of use charge rate back in I think 1997? If those opposite say that there is no evidence of it having an effect on these matters, why did they support the change of use charge? In the absence of any suggestions from the Opposition, I will give them the answer. Their colleagues in the building unions came forward and said, "Development in this town is slowing to a standstill. We need to get something moving. Give us a lower change of use charge. That is an incentive to get building development under way and to get the construction industry alive again and to have" - - -

Mr Hargreaves: You and the CFMEU are just like that, are you not?

MR HUMPHRIES: On this occasion, yes. I was very happy to accept that advice, and so was your party on that occasion. You guys said, "Yes, we will go along with that. We do not want to make too much of a fuss about this". At the time you were sort of crouching in a small ball to avoid being too conspicuously picked out on this. But the fact is that you people agreed to a 75 per cent change of use charge, and you did it because the building union said to you, "We need to get development moving in Canberra".

Mr Hargreaves: You can make that claim if you wish.

MR HUMPHRIES: If I have misrepresented the Labor Party, I am very happy for them to explain to us why they agreed to the 75 per cent change of use charge.

Mr Hargreaves: What other paranoid conspiracy theories are you going to throw across the chamber, Mr Humphries?

MR HUMPHRIES: There is nothing paranoid or conspiratorial about it. It was a very simple thing. Business and the unions came to my door and said, "We both believe you should be doing this. We both believe you should be taking this step". So I went to the Labor Party's planning spokesman at the time and said, "Well, what about it?". And she said, "Yes, we agree. We agree not only to the 75 per cent change of use charge in the interim; we also agree to Professor Nicholls conducting the inquiry" - an inquiry which Labor has now backed away from.

Mr Corbell: So it is in the interim. "In the interim" seemed to be the key words.

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