Page 2742 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
that, as I have had relayed to me by the business community, it would be interesting to know why that was ignored. If the budget cabinet decision was that that should go ahead and it has been ignored it would be interesting to hear from the minister as well. And it would be interesting to know whether they do intend to sell more land to make up for the shortfall in the projected savings.
It was a very interesting estimates process. The minister has run foul of estimates before, which led to censure in this place. I think the minister should stand and apologise for some of his behaviour, particularly with regard to the EpiCentre and also with regard to Dr Harrison. Both are highlighted by the extraordinary response of the committee—firstly, the allowing of an in-camera hearing and, secondly, the inclusion of Dr Harrison’s comments in the transcript of the whole estimates report. I think they are there to the shame of the minister. It would be interesting if the minister had the courage to stand and apologise for his behaviour.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Planning) (11.02): The appropriation for the ACT Planning and Land Authority is a significant one. The Planning and Land Authority performs an important role in facilitating economic activity in our city, guiding development to meet the community’s broader social, environmental and economic objectives and seeking to achieve a more sustainable community overall. I address a range of issues that have been raised by members in the debate this evening. The first issue I turn to front and centre is the issue of the role of the Land Development Agency.
Mr Seselja: You don’t want to talk about them.
MR CORBELL: I am always very happy to talk about public sector land development because I am a strong believer in it. The question that needs to be asked in the debate is: why are the Liberals opposed to public sector land development? Fundamentally, what does public sector land development do? Fundamentally, instead of the improved value of the land being transferred from the public to the private-for-profit sector, the public sector retains that profit.
Let us remember—and it is not a difficult concept to understand—if you sell a raw block of wood to someone who makes tables and that person turns it into a table, you are going to be able to sell the table for more than you sell the block of wood for because it is improved. It is an improved product. It is the same issue with land. If the territory sells a block of land raw, yes, we get the money upfront. But if you sell a block of land that has been serviced so that a builder can go in and build a house on it, do you get more money than you get for selling it raw? The simple answer to that is yes, you do.
What is the real issue here? The real issue is: why should the territory, why should the community, which is the owner of the land, choose to sell it at a lesser value and allow a private individual to reap that improved benefit, rather than retain it for itself whilst still delivering the land to the broader community to use for housing and other purposes? That is fundamentally what public sector land development is all about.
It is little wonder that the Liberals and many individuals in the private development sector hate the idea. Of course they hate the idea. They hate the idea because it means they cannot make as much money. That is why they hate the idea. There is nothing high
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .