Page 4867 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 14 December 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
As I said, there have not been any substantive arguments against this piece of legislation. Mr Corbell started off his speech by saying that it is ill-conceived, but he did not say why. He elaborated a little bit in that he said, “In part, because it is only limited to City Hill.” To paraphrase Mr Corbell earlier, I do not know which law school he went to. But if he reads clause 7 of the bill, he will find that it talks about the minister declaring the Civic development area.
That is an area in the vicinity of and including City Hill, but that does not necessarily mean it is limited only to City Hill. It is only the area inside London Circuit. So there is scope. If you were to read the legislation you would see that the only substantive issue that Mr Corbell raised, that it would only be about City Hill, can be rebutted simply by reading the legislation.
Mr Corbell also selectively quoted industry groups and said that the MBA is opposed to a statutory authority. I am quite aware that the MBA is opposed to a statutory authority for City Hill, and I have been aware of that for some time. But that is not the view of the property council; that is not the view of the business council; that is not the view of the chamber of commerce. Three of the four significant industry groups in this territory which have expressed a view, that I am aware of, support the statutory authority. It is quite selective quoting to say that the MBA opposes it. I have the greatest respect for the MBA, but three of the four industry groups which have expressed a view on this issue are opposed to the MBA’s view. That point needs to be put on the record.
I also point out, as Mr Smyth did, some issues in relation to the delivery vehicle. The report of the task force talks throughout about the type of delivery vehicle. The points it makes about what it should have are all reflected in this bill. It says:
The vehicle should be one with a clear status, which is readily recognised by both Government and the private sector;
It should have responsibility and input only for matters relating to the City Hill Precinct, enabling the dedicated and focused attention required, but with due regard for what is happening in the balance of the City;
That seems to be going against the point that Mr Corbell was making previously when he was criticising the bill. I continue:
In particular, recognising the role of government, it should not be concerned with balancing the development of the City Hill Precinct with other developments in the Territory; and
In keeping with the principle … above, it should require minimal to no additional bureaucracy and in-house support, although if development demand substantially exceeds expectations in-house support requirements might be revisited.
I refer to page 44 of the task force report:
For reasons already expressed, however, a legislative basis appears at least highly desirable.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .