Page 2743 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
minded and altruistic about this. It is simply that it is all about their self-interest. They want to be able to reap the improved benefit from selling a developed parcel of land rather than the community.
No, this government says the community owns the land. The community should ensure that it gets a full and proper return on that land, whilst still delivering it at an affordable price to the broader community. That is why the Land Development Agency has been established. The challenge for those opposite is: how will they address the issues of reduced land revenues if they move back to a situation where they simply sell land in globo or raw? How will they address the massive shortfall in land revenues that will come following that? That is the issue that the Liberal Party simply cannot address to date.
Leaving aside that broad philosophical issue about why you have public sector land development, I move to Mr Seselja’s so-called suggestion that the government could save some money by reducing staffing at the LDA. I do not know whether he has read the budget papers, but in the budget papers he will see, if he did read them—
Mr Seselja: Is that the right budget paper you have got there? Before, he had the wrong one. Have you got this year’s?
MR CORBELL: Indeed it is, Mr Seselja. Look, there you go: 2006. I am right. If you look at the budget papers, you will see that there is no capital funding, there is no appropriation given to the Land Development Agency by the government. We will not in, all of this budget, vote to appropriate any money to the LDA.
Mr Seselja: You give them lots of land.
MR CORBELL: They pay us for the land under this new arrangement. They pay the territory for the land that is given to them. It is sold to them. That is how it is accounted for. Mr Seselja identified a saving that cannot go to the budget bottom line. That is exactly the sort of saving the Liberals want in this budget, because they will not support any measure that improves efficiency.
I also turn to the issue Mr Seselja raised about signage and advertising. The LDA has set standards which are consistent with market standards, and that is that around two to three per cent of land sales revenue is used in advertising and marketing activities. That is an industry benchmark—two to three per cent of land sales revenue goes towards marketing and advertising. The LDA, in the coming financial year, has set itself a target of two per cent, which is below the industry benchmark.
In relation to the issues that Mr Seselja has raised about EpiCentre, I first of all say one thing very clearly: I have full confidence in the work of the planning authority and the Land Development Agency on this matter. I have reviewed the processes closely. I have examined carefully all of the work they have undertaken on this process. I have no doubt as to the probity and the clear and unequivocal advice that those agencies gave to all potential bidders for the auction of land at the EpiCentre site at Fyshwick.
Mr Seselja can continue to pick whatever particular instance he wants to out of context for as long as he likes, but it will not ignore the simple fact that two things occurred.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .