Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 7 Hansard (6 June) . . Page.. 1991 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

This is a serious matter. It has implications for national competition policy and competitive neutrality. The minister will be pulling all the strings. We currently have a marketplace in which developers in the main do a reasonable job. The minister is about to exclude all of them from the field. Does this contravene national competition policy-policy the previous Labor government of this place signed up to, policy the previous federal Labor government espoused and policy that returns to this territory competition policy payments. I wonder how much will be put at risk by the minister's ambition to be a developer. How much will that impact upon the Treasurer's bottom line and the provision of services to the people of the ACT?

If it is found that the government has contravened national competition policy guidelines, will it leave the government open to compensation claims from firms squeezed out of the market? That is an issue we have not touched on. It is an issue that needs to be addressed. The minister's policy will expose us to a reduction in payments from the National Competition Council and may open us up to claims for compensation from people unjustly forced out of the market.

There has been no analysis of the model. That is because we do not know how the model will work. We want the committees to look at the methodologies and the outcomes proposed for the resumption by the government of the land development process, so that we can work out whether or not the process is sustainable. From 1991 to 1995, Labor did not indicate that they knew how to run sustainable land development.

We want to see what the impact on land and house affordability will be. Since this government came to power, we have seen a tightening of the amount of land in the market. Something like 1,000 blocks that it was intended be put on the market this financial year, with a return of something like $25 million to the territory, have not been put on the market. We want to know why this is going on. Why is the minister artificially manipulating the land release program so that when he becomes a developer he will get that return?

There are many questions to be answered. The Public Accounts Committee asked for a briefing and was told that a briefing was going to be given to the planning committee on Friday of last week. Members determined that they would attend, given that there is some crossover between the committees. But answers were not forthcoming. We have no answers on how this will proceed. This is a serious issue. We need answers before we go ahead rather than after, so that we do not have to look at ways of fixing what I believe will be mistakes. Prevention is better than cure. We need to work out whether the government needs to resume land development. I am not convinced that it does.

We then need to look at how land development goes ahead, remembering the history of land development in the ACT and the fact that those opposite, in government previously, failed miserably and left enormous debts that had to be covered by the incoming Liberal government. Those debts were a huge burden on the ACT. During Labor's term in office, from 1991 to 1995, the land market was flooded. Some of the development that went on in that period was less than good. Some of the ventures the then government got into were less than successful. It was left to the Liberal government between 1995 and 2001 to pay for and make up for those mistakes.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .