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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 7 Hansard (6 June) . . Page.. 1990 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

This raises issues to do with independence, the cash needed and national competition policy. It also raises whether compensation should payable to firms in the land development industry that suddenly have thrust upon them a government monopoly that excludes them from carrying out their business.

I would like to speak initially about the government's need for cash to get into the land development market. It is quite clear that this is not a simple business to get into. Fluctuations in the marketplace can mean risk. Why would the ACT government be willing to risk taxpayers' money when, from 1991 to 1995, they could not achieve the outcomes Mr Corbell is so desperate to achieve now? They had the opportunity then to make sure that the planning regime was adequate and suitable and produced good planning outcomes. But we all know that the dilemmas that exist in suburbs in south Tuggeranong and parts of Gungahlin developed under the Labor Party.

Labor's record in land management makes this motion even more important. The motion is about holding the government accountable before it gets to this work and then as it does the work. That is why we propose a reference to a joint committee. This is about planning and the financial liability of the territory.

The Treasurer says that cash is desperate; that there is no loose cash. On the other hand, the Planning Minister is proposing something which, according to his briefing, has the potential to cost up to $75 million in the first year. We can fund that expenditure in several ways. We can perhaps fund it off line. We can perhaps cash manage it. We can perhaps do it through other budgets. Given the Chief Minister's commitment to honesty and openness in the way his government deals with issues, I want to see in the budget later this month exactly how much cash the government is willing to put into this proposal.

This proposal will draw away from other parts of the budget where supposedly the Treasurer is already under pressure, and it will not produce a return for a minimum of two years. The start-up capital needed is large. The return, if the system is appropriately managed, will not appear for some time down the track. That should be a worry when we already have a system which I believe is working quite well. If you want greater control of planning outcomes, you should do that through the planning laws. The government does not need to get into land development itself.

The minister always talks about independence. In the briefing to the planning committee the other day, when he was asked whether he would keep the call-in powers, he said he would. If he wanted a truly independent planning authority, perhaps they should have the call-in power. The minister was also asked whether it would direct. He said that advice would be given to groups like the Gungahlin Development Authority so that they would know what the government wanted. I am reminded of that famous statement at the Gungahlin Community Council meeting: "PALM's will is my will." The whole concept of independence is somewhat misleading.

On several occasions when the minister been asked how the system would work he has either said, "I do not know," or hidden behind the cabinet and the budget process. He does not know whether the profit he is going to double is gross or net. He wants to adopt a model that is appropriate for New South Wales with its many levels of planning authority, a difficulty we do not have in the ACT.

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