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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 10 Hansard (27 August) . . Page.. 2910 ..

MR CORBELL (continuing):

Mrs Dunne has raised a number of concerns about the government's proposed changes. Once again, Mrs Dunne resorts to rhetoric and to allusions to previous federal government administrations to somehow undermine the credibility of the government's performance in planning and land management. Mrs Dunne, if you want to refer to this government as Whitlamesque, go right ahead. I will wear it as a badge of pride.

This government has embarked on a very serious planning reform agenda, and the opposition has failed comprehensively to highlight any substantive issue in relation to the finances surrounding land development. Despite close to four separate days of hearings on this matter, despite endless amounts of information about the financial model provided by me and officers, they have failed dismally to punch even one hole in the model. Maybe they do not understand it, but that is their loss. They have failed to demonstrate that there is a problem with the financial model.

The government is confident about the model. That is why we have agreed to the recommendation that it be independently assessed. We welcome that recommendation. I told the Estimates Committee that we welcomed that recommendation and that the government is even now in the process of commissioning the independent assessment of the financial model. That will be provided to members. That is the confidence the government has in its financial model.

If Mrs Dunne does not believe that this is an appropriate way to go in relation to land development, I would like her to tell me how she would find the extra $17 million per year of revenue that the government estimates will be achieved once the full government land development activity is under way. It is an extra $17 million per year that the government anticipates receiving from government land development activity. That is a very significant improved return on the asset our community owns.

It is interesting that Mr Smyth wants some of it, or at least he wants some of the foregone revenue to pay for his four-pronged health plan. The government anticipates a better return on our land asset as well as better outcomes on the ground, and Mrs Dunne has failed comprehensively to demonstrate either problems with that model or, indeed, what she would do to address the revenue imbalance she would create if she had her way. That is the position of the government on land development.

In relation to planning policy more generally, the establishment of an independent planning and land authority is a key reform for the government. It is one we talked about consistently in opposition, it is one we went to the election on and it is one we now seek to implement.

MR SPEAKER: The member's time has expired.

MR CORBELL: I wish to make use of my second ten minutes. I know Mrs Dunne does not like it and does not agree with it, but she has to understand that this is about rebuilding the institutions of planning and the public administration of planning in our city.

Planning policy is desperately needed, not only in this city but right around the country. It is well recognised that the undermining of the public policy role of planning has contributed to poor outcomes on the ground, for not only this city but cities right around

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