Page 2455 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 18 August 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Lamont asked me about a statement I put out recently about an agreement between the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning and the Australian National University in which we have agreed to wait for the results of a consultant's review into the lighting factors before together, the ANU and the department, deciding on further development of housing in that area. That was always going to be the case. Perhaps I should have said it some time ago. We will jointly look at the consultant's review and before then we will come to an agreement in some form on what may happen or may not happen in the case of further housing in that area.
The other $40m is a figure arising out of the North Watson proposal, so hear this.
Ms Ellis: Have they a Stromlo?
MR WOOD: No, this has nothing to do with Mount Stromlo; nothing at all. It is only coincidental that it is a $40m figure. They have given the net government development cost of North Watson - this is their estimation, not ours - as $37.2m compared with a net government cost for greenfields - that is Gungahlin - of $7.1m. They came up, on their figures, with a loss of $30m for North Watson compared with equivalent greenfields development. But, of course, they had added $40m that they should never have done. They have misused a figure. They went back to a document and apparently did not read it well enough. They have headed it "Government's First Try at Costings", but it related to the area strategy. In 1994-95 and again in 1995-96, in each of two years, there is a $20m figure very carefully explained as "progressive construction of dwellings". That is the private sector component. It is very clear. I do not think there is any difficulty about that. They added that to their government costs.
Mr Humphries: Is this a ministerial statement? Almost half of question time is over.
MR WOOD: I will say this: They could have done that. They might also have needed to put that same figure into their Gungahlin costings, but they did not do so. If we take that $40m, their alleged $30m loss becomes a $10m profit, and the Government has indicated that its profit is going to be somewhere between $12m and $15m. There you see the two $40m figures that have emerged at the same time and have confused some people out there, but I am pleased that it will no longer confuse people in this chamber at any rate.
Roads Funding
MR DE DOMENICO: Madam Speaker, my question without notice is to the Chief Minister. In 1992-93 the Keating Government provided the ACT with $8.2m in road funding. In last night's betrayal budget that amount, $8.2m, was cut to zero - that is, zilch. How does your Government intend to upkeep roads in the ACT without this funding? What budget cuts will you be making in September to account for this shortfall?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .