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

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

MRS DUNNE (continuing):

When I asked about the national competition policy implications, I was assured with great blandishment that we could overcome them all. But this is something that this Assembly and it committees need to look at. The next tranche of our competition payments could be severely at risk. In the absence of any such analysis, the ACT government seems to be making decisions based merely on expediency.

Market failures in the policy intended to be addressed need to be identified, and we need to find a way ahead to address the problem of market failures. The opposition believes that the regulatory and planning frameworks need to be analysed to assess the extent to which they contribute to systems failures in the ACT government.

Land development is already highly regulated. The degree and nature of regulation can act in the public interest but can also increase costs, inhibit diversity and innovation and contribute to further systems failures.

The proposed operation of ACT land development will depend on a degree of public control, public financial underwriting of development risk and constraints in competition that are evident in no other jurisdiction in Australia and are inconsistent with an open and competitive society. The opposition believes that there needs to be an assessment of the net benefit to the community.

The control of revenue and profits has been a significant element of the ACT government's policy statements in relation to land development. Government control over taxation revenue places it in a credit position where it can use power to take over a wide range of commercial activities. This rationale can be used to justify government extending a monopoly over any area of enterprise, at the risk of ignoring the costs involved.

The opposition believes that a public sector monopoly is not necessary to achieve the objectives the government seems to want to achieve. Many of the desirable design innovations and outcomes that are pointed to as a justification for the ACT government taking over land development are evidenced in states which have no direct public sector involvement.

Good design outcomes are achieved in systems in which the planning and regulatory frameworks operate in parallel with market competition rather than as a substitute for competition. As I have said on many occasions, you do not need to drive the bulldozer to achieve good planning outcomes.

The opposition believes that the government's responsibility for ownership and management of land and the management of a land bank for future development are inconsistent with the role of land development. We believe that there is significant conflict of interest, as was raised in the planning committee in Friday's briefing but not significantly addressed.

This motion aims to have the Assembly address the many issues involved in this significant policy departure, and I commend the motion to the house.

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