Page 2386 - Week 06 - Thursday, 23 June 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
they would want to do is have a rational debate about any of this. I note that the Greens, who dropped their latest version of the amendments, about five minutes ago, want to move them all together—the whole range of amendments all together. I think we see why. We see why, as a result of just debate on the first clause, because at the first hurdle we see the Greens and the Labor Party giving ridiculous reasons as to why this should not occur, as to why this amendment should not be supported.
Ms Hunter’s reason is that actually there will be a windfall but there will not be a windfall. And Ms Gallagher’s reason is this sort of lack of real—in fact, the examples she uses we are not even talking about. Ms Gallagher seemed to be making a case, and maybe this is the true rationale behind this legislation, that there should not be any residential infill development, that we should not see the redevelopment of sites, say, in the inner north along Northbourne Avenue.
Ms Gallagher: No, that is not what I said.
MR SESELJA: Well, that was the very strong implication. She is saying: “Well, it is terrible. It is terrible that these things happen. People come in and they bid more and then they redevelop. It is terrible. It is terrible stuff.” But if that did not happen, I guess we would not see the redevelopment occurring. I think she has just reinforced the argument that we have been making, which is that of course this will discourage infill. Of course it will, and Ms Gallagher has now acknowledged that.
Ms Gallagher: No; it just means people have to pay—
MR SESELJA: You have acknowledged that. What she wants in that case—in fact, I think she may have just made the Property Council’s case on the reduction of the value of those properties.
MR SPEAKER: Just one moment, Mr Seselja. I am conscious of time. Do you want to vote on this before lunch? What would you like to do?
MR SESELJA: I am easy, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: Did you want to keep speaking?
MR SESELJA: How long do I have to go? Six and a half minutes.
Ms Gallagher: You have made your point. I reckon we get it.
MR SESELJA: I think I will keep going, because Ms Gallagher appears to be enjoying it so much. Shall I continue to speak?
MR SPEAKER: Yes.
MR SESELJA: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We have this situation now where Ms Gallagher, in the case of one amendment—this is why they have to put the amendments together, because I can only imagine how much they would undermine their case if we had to debate each of these amendments separately.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video