Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 3 Hansard (23 October) . . Page.. 4002 ..
MR CORBELL
(continuing):Mr Speaker, what Mrs Dunne is proposing to members today is this: enter into a contract for 99 years knowing that that contract may not be able to be honoured by the territory, and if it is not able to be honoured the territory will be obliged to pay compensation for the full unexpired period of the lease. Let me give you an example. Say a lease is issued for 99 years and the government decides after 20 years that the land is needed. The territory will have to pay compensation to the extent of 79 years worth of unused potential, unused property right. That is a significant amount of money. Mrs Dunne might think, "Oh, well, it's just a couple of million. Who cares?"But that is not prudent, that is not responsible. It is not just a matter of saying, "Oh, it's not a lot of money."It is about saying, "Should the taxpayers' money, should the public interest, knowingly subsidise a private windfall gain?
That is what the argument is about: should we knowingly provide a windfall gain or should we use the leasehold system responsibly and appropriately by issuing a contract for the land which we believe can be reasonably honoured? That is the basis of the government's decision. It is not about making money: it is about protecting the public interest. It is about protecting the public interest in terms of land being available for urban development if the territory decides that it is appropriate to do so. It is about protecting the public interest in preventing private windfall gain-preventing private windfall gain in the knowledge that the land may be required for another purpose within 99 years.
Imagine what the Auditor-General would say if the government entered into a contract with a private party to provide a particular service knowing that it may not be able to provide that service for a period of time-in fact, for well over two-thirds of the contract. That would be misrepresentation, Mr Speaker. It is not a prudent or appropriate way to behave.
Mr Speaker, Mrs Dunne made some assertions, too, in her conspiracy theories around the size of the map. When a lease offer is made to someone they get it all; they get all the documentation as it relates to their land. They get told what land it covers, where it is physically located-all the terms and conditions of the offer. They get it all. Mrs Dunne, I do not know whether you raised the issue about the size of the mapping in discussions with officers but I am sure if you had they would have provided you with a larger map.
Mrs Dunne
: Oh, they did but they didn't provide the people. When this was issued there wasn't a big colour map.MR SPEAKER
: Order! Mrs Dunne.MR CORBELL
: So, Mr Speaker, again the suggestion that there is a conspiracy does not add to the debate in any way.Mrs Dunne
: I had to ask for it twice, too.MR CORBELL
: Mr Speaker, I heard Mrs Dunne in silence and I would hope she would do me the same courtesy.MR SPEAKER
: Order! Mrs Dunne.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .