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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 2 Hansard (20 February) . . Page.. 414 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Secondly, she referred to the resumption of land management in the territory. Again, the territory has always been responsible for land management. The territory, unlike other jurisdictions, has always been the landowner, albeit on behalf of the Commonwealth. So, unlike other jurisdictions, we have always been in control. Again, we are not resuming anything. Yes, land development has been outsourced, effectively, to the private sector. But this government believes, and made very clear and explicit in its election commitments, that land development responsibility should be resumed by the territory.

Why should it be resumed by the territory? It should be resumed for two key and compelling reasons. The first is that resuming land development responsibility will ensure a higher standard of residential subdivision for people living in new suburbs, a standard that we believe can be best achieved through that resumption by government of land development. Secondly, and just as importantly, it as about ensuring the territory's return on its asset. Anyone would know that by selling a raw product you get less and that by selling a refined product, retailing instead of wholesaling, you get a better return. Mr Speaker, we believe that resumption of government responsibility for land development will ensure a better return to the territory and a better return on the community's asset.

Mrs Dunne also raised the issue of dual occupancy. The sad fact is that under the previous administration dual occupancy development was ad hoc, unstrategic and unfocused. It resulted in a proliferation of development which in some instances did nothing to contribute to sustainability and did nothing to contribute to affordability, but did a lot to substantially and adversely impact on the landscape of our garden city suburbs. In fact, so significantly did it do that that a national trust was moved to list nine Canberra inner suburbs on its endangered places list. That was directly because of the planning policies of those people who now sit opposite. What an indictment of their planning policies!

Mr Humphries: Will they take it off over you?

MR CORBELL: That is the challenge for us, Mr Humphries. If we put in place the policies we are proposing, I am confident that they will, because our policies are designed to protect the garden city suburbs of our city.

Mrs Dunne: Because PALM believes what you believe.

MR SPEAKER: Order, members! Mr Corbell sat there as a stoic example to us all during the debate and I would just like other people to listen to him and perhaps repeat his example in this important debate.

MR CORBELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. They do not like the national trust reference in particular, but the reality is still there.

Mrs Dunne comes out and says that, when the Labor Party has a problem and they do not know how to fix it, they just go for a straight one-size-fits-all formula. Mr Speaker, how wrong she is. The reason she is wrong, first of all, is that the 5 per cent limit on dual and triple occupancy development is an interim measure. It is an interim measure designed to ensure that neighbourhoods, communities, people who live in our suburbs and

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