Page 2744 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
First of all, all bidders were aware of what the land could be used for. As Justice Connolly ruled, when he dismissed the injunction from Terry Snow to stop the auction on the very grounds that Mr Seselja now argues, it was very clear what uses were permitted on the site. He spelt them out in his judgment and went on to say that any company, particularly companies of the size of Mr Snow’s and others, were well aware of how the leasehold system and the territory plan interacted in this town. Connolly J ruled very, very clearly that bidders knew what the land could be used for.
Secondly, did the territory taxpayer get value for money for this land? Yes, they did. What is the reason for that? The reason for that is: No 1, the territory got a record price for any land auction, $39 million. The price was well in excess of the value of two independent valuations received by the Land Development Agency for the uses of the site. Those valuations were based on the lease and development conditions. We all know that the development industry is a competitive process and that, particularly in relation to the site, there is significant commercial competition involved.
It is interesting that every critique that we hear from the Liberal opposition seems to echo almost precisely the media releases and comments that have occurred on a day-by-day basis from Mr Terry Snow. I would suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that the Liberal Party and Mr Seselja on this matter are no more than a voice piece for Mr Snow. Mr Snow is a commercial rival of the proposed proponents of the DFO at Fyshwick. He has a direct commercial interest in seeing their development fail and his succeed. He has a direct commercial interest in seeing as much criticism and confusion laid over this development proposal as he can, because he knows that the longer that development can be stopped, prevented, held up or delayed—
MR SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.
MR CORBELL: I will continue, Mr Speaker, with my second 10 minutes. As long as he can halt, delay or defer that development, the more he can get from having been in a monopoly position of providing that type of retail activity in this city. Mr Snow’s criticisms are not in the public interest; they are in his self-interest. Mr Seselja simply perpetrates and continues Mr Snow’s agenda.
I now turn to a range of other issues that have been raised by Mr Seselja and others during the debate. First of all, I certainly welcome Mr Seselja’s comments on the reform agenda and his complimentary comments in relation to Mr Savery. I am very proud of the work Neil Savery has done as chief planning executive. He is well respected in this city. His commitment to proper planning processes is without question. Under his leadership, as its first permanent chief planning executive, we have seen, since this government established ACTPLA, a considerable increase in public and business confidence in the operations of the Planning and Land Authority.
Mr Seselja raised the issue of development application fees. The government has put development application fees on a par with those in similar sized cities to Canberra. For example, we have looked at development application fees in Wollongong, Wagga Wagga and a range of other cities that have similar population sizes and similar urban areas. We basically put them on the same level—nothing more or nothing less than that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .