Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 7 Hansard (24 June) . . Page.. 2282 ..
MR CORBELL
(continuing):Interestingly, Mr Smyth is now asking the government to demonstrate that there is a good reason for doing this. We don't have to, Mr Smyth, because you agreed with us, back in 2001, but you have changed your mind.
Come back, Mr Humphries-all is forgiven! Mr Humphries made it quite clear in his policy statement. Maybe it was his; maybe he did not have the backing of his party; maybe it was just a unilateral announcement on the part of Mr Humphries.
Mr Humphries said that one possible way forward for the task force the Liberals were proposing to convene would be for the task force to consider ending any new exemptions and allow a reasonable phasing out period for those who had already installed the equipment. Mr Speaker, we agree. In fact, it is in the discussion paper. That is one of the options.
What is disappointing about the Liberal Party's approach is that Mr Smyth is backing away from his commitment to phase out smoking in enclosed public places. He is saying that the government cannot complain about the current exemption system without supportive documentation to say it is not working.
In 2001, they did not think they needed any evidence, because they felt that the evidence was sufficient to show that the exemption system does not work. Shame on you, Mr Smyth-you know better. Public health is the number one priority. You are backing away to play crude politics with the clubs and pubs industry at the expense of the health of the public community. Shame on you! The government will continue to highlight to the people of Canberra your hypocrisy and your back-flip on this major issue.
Land sales
MRS DUNNE: My question, which is directed to the Minister for Planning, relates to land sales. On 11 June the Gungahlin Development Authority conducted a restricted land auction for a residential development known as Harrison 1 estate. Under the terms and conditions of the sale a 10 per cent deposit was supposed to be paid on the fall of the hammer. Is it a fact, Minister, that the 10 per cent deposit was not paid as required by the highest bidder? If not, what is the status of the sale? Will the minister advise the Assembly whether settlement is proceeding and, if not, what is proposed for the sale of Harrison 1 estate?
MR CORBELL
: Mr Speaker, the company that was successful in that auction has paid its $1 million deposit in accordance with the requirements of the contract.MRS DUNNE
: Mr Speaker, I ask a supplementary question. Could the minister explain to the Assembly how, if the sale price was $38 million and the conditions of the contract provided for a 10 per cent deposit on the fall of the hammer, $1 million equates to the full deposit required for the sale?MR CORBELL
: Mr Speaker, the company that was successful in the auction has been advised that the balance of the deposit, $2.8 million, must be paid by bank cheque no later than 27 June.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .