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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 10 Hansard (27 August) . . Page.. 2807 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Mrs Dunne also made some comments about land development. She said that the government is not interested in having a detailed scrutiny and independent assessment of its proposal in relation to land development. Mrs Dunne, of course, pointed out that the government had agreed that there would be appropriate practices put in place for a detailed cost/benefit analysis. That has been outlined by the Treasurer in his response. I must say that that is far more outstanding than anything you lot ever did when you were in government. There was no independent cost/benefit analysis for the V8 supercar race, Bruce Stadium, Hall/Kinlyside fiasco-and the list goes on. But this government has done it-within the first year of its first term. What Mrs Dunne did not point out was the government's response to recommendation 29 of the Estimates Committee, which says:

The Committee recommends that the business plan and financial modelling underpinning the new land development agency proposed by the ACT Government be subject to independent assessment, the results of which are published.

What was the government's response? "Agreed".

Mrs Dunne: But when?

MR CORBELL: Mrs Dunne says, "But when?" The response continues:

The financial modelling, including any additional information that supports the proposed land development system, will be subject to independent assessment. This advice will be made available to members of the Assembly.

Mrs Dunne: When?

MR CORBELL: When it's completed, Mrs Dunne. So for Mrs Dunne to stand up in this place and say the government is not open, is not accountable and is not prepared to have its issues dealt with by pure Assembly scrutiny is simply false.

At every opportunity the government has provided briefings to members of the Assembly on its processes in relation to the planning and land reforms it has sought to put in place in this budget. I, as minister, sat through three separate recalls before the Estimates Committee, answering questions on a range of issues relating to my portfolio responsibilities. I was very happy to do that. I was very happy to provide information as responsibly as I could, and that is what I did. My office has provided very detailed briefings, in particular on the costs surrounding land development.

Indeed, the government has provided a very comprehensive range of information in relation to many other issues raised in the Estimates Committee report. And, when you look at this government's response to this Estimates Committee report, you see that it is one which has been dealt with seriously, and where the overwhelming majority of recommendations have been agreed to.

That is the sign of a government which is serious about Assembly scrutiny and which is prepared to respond wherever the Assembly committee has made a sensible and reasonable request. It is not the sign of a government such as the one Mrs Dunne and others on the other side of the house would like to portray. If they want to make that portrayal, they have to at least back it up with some substantive evidence, rather than just point the finger and leave the detail and substance sadly lacking.

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