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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 01 Hansard (Wednesday, 11 February 2004) . . Page.. 242 ..

Omit paragraph (3), substitute:

“failure of the Commonwealth Government and the Commonwealth Property Disposals Policy to take adequate account of local interests and needs in decisions on disposal of excess property.”.

That amendment takes note of the concerns that we all have with the ongoing failure of the Commonwealth to take ACT needs into account in its decisions on the disposal of Commonwealth land. I thank Mr Hargreaves for raising the matter. It has been of concern over a number of years. I have certainly raised concerns in the past about the airport-Commonwealth government-NCA relationship and the effects on development and planning in the ACT.

I do not know quite how the Commonwealth could argue that the disposal is within the guidelines, but I notice that paragraph (3) of the priority sales section of the guidelines refers to situations where Commonwealth-funded organisations seek special consideration in the disposal of surplus property—we know that the Commonwealth has given megabucks to the airport; I do not know whether they would call that funding—or have the support of the relevant portfolio minister. We certainly know the airport has the support of the relevant portfolio minister, very much so. So I think that it probably could be argued that it is within the Commonwealth’s guidelines. That is why I am not supporting Mr Hargreaves’s third point and I am replacing it by making clear that we are concerned that the Commonwealth has been quite irresponsible in the lack of interest it has shown in how its decisions about property actually affect the ACT.

MR HARGREAVES (5.37): I wish to speak quickly to the amendment, if I may, and then I will let the debate run freely. I support Ms Tucker’s amendment. I am quite happy with that amendment. This side of the house accepts the amendment. As far as I am concerned, Mr Speaker, this debate is about the ACT community’s right—if it is not a right, it should be—to surplus land within its borders. I understand that it is owned by the Commonwealth and all that sort of stuff but we, the ACT citizenry, ought to have priority over that use, not a private business. I think it is a contest between the sovereignty of the ACT and the right of a private enterprise to construct a privately owned town centre.

MR SMYTH (Leader of the Opposition) (5.38): Mr Speaker, this debate is the sour grapes debate for the day. It is the sour grapes debate because it exposes the fact that the government have not done any work on corrections in almost two years. When they get caught out, what do they do? They blame the Commonwealth. You have only to turn to the ACT Health guide to fudging questions on the budget estimates for 2003 and go straight to 11 (a)—blame the Commonwealth.

That is what Mr Hargreaves seeks to do. There is no evidence, there is not a shred of evidence, in any of the three items that Mr Hargreaves has put in his motion that confirms that to be true. The first paragraph refers to “the federal government’s failure to cooperate with the ACT government in releasing land at Majura for an ACT prison site”. Of course they are cooperating. A study is being done to see how the land can be released—the sort of procedure that the ACT government uses when, for instance, the National Zoo and Aquarium asks for some land.

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