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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 7 Hansard (6 June) . . Page.. 2001 ..

Mr Humphries: You offered an opinion from the chair. Does that include present members of the federal parliament? Does it demean this place to attack members of the present federal parliament?

MR SPEAKER: Present members of parliament, Mr Humphries, are in a good position to defend themselves. They have privilege and all those sorts of things. Mr Langmore does not have any privilege to defend himself anywhere. He is a private citizen. We do not usually use our great talents here to rip into private citizens who do not have a right to defend themselves. All I am saying to Mrs Dunne is to ease up.

MRS DUNNE: What we saw today was this minister trotting out his principles in his usual haughty fashion and talking about his false openness and his sham accountability, when what we are talking about is a review of a very serious policy-a policy that, by the admissions of the Department of Urban Services, will cost between $75 million and $150 million a year.

Let me put that in context. $75 million is roughly what we spend each year on police and emergency services, and $150 million is roughly half what we spend on the education budget. They are substantial sums of money, and those substantial sums of money and the way we spend them should be closely scrutinised.

The policy of the public sector taking over land development needs to be the subject of objective analysis within a logical framework. Most economic activity, including housing activity, takes place in the private market, operating within a regulatory framework.

It being 45 minutes after the commencement of Assembly business, the debate was interrupted in accordance with standing order 77. Ordered that consideration of Assembly business have precedence of executive business until the Assembly had completed consideration of Notice No 2, Assembly business.

MRS DUNNE: The only valid argument for government to intervene in the operation of the market is that that intervention improves the way the economy or society operates. Public sector land development is potentially a very heavy-handed intervention. It involves significant direct costs, including increased public sector resources and financial risks. It involves significant indirect costs. It prohibits new entrants into land development, thus stifling innovation. It removes competitive pressures and distorts the pricing mechanisms. We have already seen the distortion of pricing in the ACT.

The public sector bears high commercial risks, as we have seen in the $20 million Harcourt Hill fiasco. There is difficulty in subjecting the policy to periodic review or evaluation in accordance with intergovernmental agreements and national competition policy. National competition policy and principles represent a framework for undertaking an objective analysis rather than simply asserting. The government's policy on land development has ignored such principles. It has set aside any analysis necessary to identify the problem that we are trying to address. This was evidenced in the consultation the minister deigned to deliver to the Planning and Environment Committee the other day.

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