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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 7 Hansard (6 June) . . Page.. 1995 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

undertaken and the key issues being addressed in relation to the establishment of a planning and land authority and related government arrangements for land development.

That is far more than the Liberal Party ever did when they were in government. For you to stand up in this place and say the government is not being open and the government is not being accountable is trite nonsense.

The government is interested in making sure that the territory and the community get a good return on their land asset. Numerous studies done both here and interstate highlight that development of a land product rather than selling land raw is one way of getting a better return for the community.

For the opposition to claim that government land development is not relevant is just nonsense. Look at every other state around Australia. They have either had or still have government land development agencies. Why do they do that? First of all, those governments recognise they can get a better return on land than if they sell it raw. Why should we not insist on the same? Why should we as a community not demand that we get the best possible return on our asset in a responsible way?

Secondly, they do it to introduce leading-edge, best practice design and development. Other jurisdictions know that the market on its own cannot deliver all of those outcomes. The market can certainly introduce good practice and in many respects best practice development. But both Liberal and Labor governments interstate believe that government land developers have a role to play in introducing best practice design and development. Why should we not seek to do the same?

Right around Australia land development agencies owned by governments are increasingly being used to deliver best practice in redevelopment activity. That is becoming the new front of activity for change in cities, and government has a role to play.

We assert that government has a role to play here. We do not assert that it is the only one who can play a role. We assert that the government has a role to play not just as a regulator but as an entity involved in developing a land product and delivering best practice outcomes for the community it seeks to serve and the best possible return on the land asset.

The empirical evidence is clear. In other jurisdictions it works effectively. The same can be said here, but this government is prepared to have those assumptions tested. This government is prepared to have the details of its proposals investigated by this place through the mechanisms I have addressed already in my speech and through other mechanisms the Assembly may deem appropriate. But to suggest that we have this detailed investigation when the government has not announced the details of its proposal or how it proposes to introduce it is simply a cheap pre-emptive strike to satisfy the prejudged outcome that Mr Smyth and Mrs Dunne want. For that reason the government will not be supporting their proposal today.

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