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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 7 Hansard (6 June) . . Page.. 1999 ..

MR HUMPHRIES: Thank you. (Extension of time granted.) Mr Corbell said that the opposition has already decided that government land development is a bad thing. We have a view about that matter, most certainly. I make no secret about that fact. But it is also the case that we are entitled to scrutinise and question the decisions the government has made.

Mr Corbell characterises that as thwarting the government's intentions. Accountability and scrutiny in this place are not about thwarting government intentions. This is about finding out whether government intentions are transparent, achievable, affordable and in the public interest. None of us in this place can avoid the duty to ask questions about every major decision which is made, particularly decisions which entail such large amounts of money. The government knows-and we all know, thanks to freedom of information-that the up-front cost of producing this government land policy could range between $75 million and $150 million, a massive cost.

If this territory is not entitled to ask where that money is coming from and how it is going to be spent, in the context of committees expressly set up by the territory to consider such matters in concert, in a joint inquiry, then I do not know where such inquiries should more appropriately take place.

Mr Corbell also raised the Kingston Foreshore Development Authority and its approach. The same thing could be said, but he did not say it, about the Gungahlin Development Authority. In neither of those cases is the government in the business of developing the land. It is about designing and setting planning considerations for the land and it is about releasing the land to the private sector to develop.

Mr Corbell: No, you are wrong.

MR HUMPHRIES: You asked for no interjections, Mr Speaker, and I have avoided baiting Mr Corbell.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Humphries, I would also have to add that while Mr Corbell was on his feet your colleagues peppered him.

MR HUMPHRIES: You asked for no interjections and now you are saying he can interject. All right. That is fine.

MR SPEAKER: I just want to qualify your protest against that background.

MR HUMPHRIES: Yes, Mr Speaker. I will seek to do that in future.

To say that because in limited circumstances it is appropriate to have a development authority overseeing the planning and design of discrete areas of the territory it therefore follows that it is appropriate for government to become a land developer is absolutely bizarre. It is a leap of logic which I think is simply untenable.

I have serious questions about this process. I think we all do. It is not about thwarting the will of the government. The opposition does not have a majority on either of the committees named in the motion. The majority of members on those committees when they conduct this investigation will be from the government and the crossbench. It is

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