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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 10 Hansard (28 August) . . Page.. 2952 ..

MR SPEAKER: Do you have a supplementary question, Mr Stefaniak.

MR STEFANIAK: Yes, Mr Speaker, in view of your ruling. It would be nice if the minister did answer the question. My supplementary question is: can the minister explain what will be different this time from previous government business enterprises, such as the land development at Harcourt Hill and Dunlop which ended up costing ACT taxpayers millions of dollars?

MR CORBELL: It is certainly instructive to look at the issues around Harcourt Hill. Harcourt Hill actually makes a profit for the territory.

Mr Humphries: It does now. We put in $20 million.

MR CORBELL: You cannot have it both ways; either it makes a profit or it costs money. The bottom line is that Harcourt Hill makes a profit for the territory.

Mr Humphries: The total position is a loss.

MR SPEAKER: Order! A moment ago you were complaining that the minister was not answering the question. Now that the minister is answering the question, you do not seem to want him to do so. Mr Corbell has the floor.

Mr Pratt: We want the right answer.

MR SPEAKER: I heard that interjection. Perhaps you would like to write the answers for the minister.

MR CORBELL: They would be wasting their time, Mr Speaker. The government's proposal for land development activity is a rigorous and robust one, as I have previously indicated in over three days of questioning in the Estimates Committee on this issue. It is interesting that the opposition have had over three days of questioning on this issue and a range of other issues in the Estimates Committee and they are yet to pinpoint a single problem with the government's financial model for land development. They are casting about desperately to find some problem with this model because, philosophically, they do not agree with that, but they cannot actually find out what is wrong with it.

The bottom line is that this government has provided detailed answers to all of the questions that they have asked in relation to government land development activity. The government has offered to provide detailed briefings on the basis of the financial model that underpins the government's decision in relation to land development activity. The government has accepted the recommendation of the Estimates Committee report that an independent assessment be done of the financial model on government land development because it is confident of the basis upon which it has made the financial decisions surrounding government land development.

The opposition are desperately casting around because philosophically they disagree with an approach which provides to this community a better return on the asset that it owns. This is the community's asset and it is entitled to get a return on this asset. The reality is that the Liberal Party are prepared to walk away from an additional $17 million

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