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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 13 Hansard (19 November) . . Page.. 3725 ..

MR QUINLAN (continuing):

they should be incarcerated here, for reasons of access to lawyers, family or whatever, that can take time. So you are not moving prisoners around for its own sake.

At this point in time, the Symonston temporary remand centre is being streamed in. I would expect that, had this situation occurred in a number of weeks or months time, we would possibly be talking of 16 at Symonston. Exactly how we catered for and balanced the female prisoners versus the male prisoners might have changed that yet again. Some of it I am leaving to the experts.

MR SMYTH: Minister, is it true that, since the Symonston remand centre has opened, we have continued to send remandees to interstate prisons and, in particular, to Junee?

MR QUINLAN: That may be the case-I am not sure. That is one I will have to follow up because I do not have a qualification on that. I am sure there are good reasons. I certainly hope it is not because of some random act of perversity by Corrections ACT, and that there have been good reasons why they might go to Junee. That one I will have to add to.

Government land development

MS GALLAGHER: My question is to the Minister for Planning. It relates to the advertisement in today's Canberra Times from the Housing Industry Association and the Master Builders Association, concerning costly mistakes by our local government. Can the minister advise the Assembly on the accuracy of the claims that government land development is the next-costly mistake by local government?

MR CORBELL: Mr Speaker, like my colleague Mr Quinlan, I am sure that the advertisement by the MBA and HIA today is entirely altruistic in its motive. I advise the Assembly that the MBA and the HIA have indeed got it wrong. They have got it wrong in a number of respects.

They claim in today's Canberra Times that government land development will cost $24 million over the next three years, with a return to surplus in year 4. That is not accurate. Whilst the cash impact of land development will be a reduction of $24 million over this near and next year, there will be a return to cash surpluses in 2004-05-that is year 3 of the modelling and the statements in the budget papers. It would be nice, at least on two counts, if the HIA and the MBA checked their facts-firstly in relation to superannuation and, secondly, in relation to what is a fairly straightforward statement in the budget papers.

In addition to this, if the MBA and the HIA were being strictly altruistic, they would also point out that, from year 3 onwards, there will be an additional $17 million per annum put into the ACT accounts. That is an additional $17 million on top of the $30 million already received from land sales, to spend on schools, hospitals, public transport and other important facilities for the community.

If the HIA and the MBA were serious about informing the community on these issues, they would, in the interests of fairness, highlight that point and allow people to make their own judgments about that. Mr Speaker, it would also be useful if they took account

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