Page 3410 - Week 08 - Thursday, 23 August 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
the construction to be completed in that time frame, the government needs to provide the necessary funding or, as in this case, a guarantee for funding to the University of Canberra. If this Assembly does not support the provision of this funding before the election, the delay will jeopardise the completion of the project within the commonwealth’s timetable and the federal funding will be withdrawn. Hence we have to consider, because of this government’s inaction, this as an urgent matter.
The technical reason for our considering this motion today is that, if this disallowable instrument is still unresolved when the Assembly rises, the instrument lapses and will have to be reactivated by the next Assembly. The delay that would impose on the UC project would create a problem in completing the project on time. There is a sound logic to what the Assembly is being asked to do with this motion. However, I return to my original question: why has the Assembly been placed in this position? One can only assume it can only be because of the indifference or the ineptitude of the Treasurer. There must have been knowledge of this matter and the associated timings many months ago. Equally, there must have been knowledge of what action had to happen to enable UC to comply with the commonwealth’s funding deadline.
I should note that, contrary to some advice I was given—and I say not from the government in this case—there is no link between this matter and the budget. On the other hand, there are financial implications for the territory. On the one hand, $50 million is withdrawn from the territory bank account, so the territory does not generate interest on those funds. On the other hand, the territory will be paid interest by UC on those funds and that will offset the funds the territory would lose otherwise over the term of the facility. The financial effect on the territory, I am assured, would be neutral.
The opposition is a strong supporter of the provision of sufficient accommodation for our tertiary students at UC and elsewhere and this funding arrangement for UC seems a very satisfactory way to achieve that. The opposition will be supporting the motion of disallowance.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Leader, ACT Greens) (3.54): The Greens will be supporting this motion today. I understand that this was brought up in the government business meeting, but it did not make it through admin and procedures and therefore was not listed. There seems to have been some sort of mess-up, which should not have happened, but I guess these things do happen. We will be supporting it today. It will give a line of credit to allow UC to build more student accommodation and to be able to take advantage of the commonwealth’s NRAS program.
We need to ensure that our students have access to affordable housing. I really do hope it is affordable housing. We have seen over at the ANU on the city west site what is supposed to be affordable housing but, of course, most of us would agree that it is way out of reach of the majority of students. We need more student accommodation. It needs to be there so that we do not have that crisis every year when uni starts with students scrabbling around trying to find some shelter.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video