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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 14 Hansard (12 December) . . Page.. 4466 ..

Amendment agreed to.

MR CORBELL ( Minister for Education, Youth and Family Services, Minister for Planning and Minister for Industrial Relations) (7.50): Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move amendments 27 and 28 circulated in my name together.

Leave granted.

MR CORBELL: I move amendments 27 and 28 [see schedule 1 at page 4499].

Amendment 27 omits the word "promptly"from clause 50 (2). Amendment 28 provides for a new clause 50 (2A) which requires the land agency to tell the minister about any development that may affect an objective in the agency's business plan or the financial viability of the agency. The agency must tell the minister within 14 days after the agency becomes aware of such a development.

Amendments agreed to.

MRS DUNNE (7.52): I move amendment No 13 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 4506].

This amendment inserts a new clause 50A. I rise in eager anticipation of being voted down on this one as well. This amendment mirrors the earlier amendment that, if successful, would have required the Land and Planning Authority to report on a six monthly basis to the relevant committee, the Planning and Environment Committee. If successful, this amendment will require the Land Development Agency to do the same thing.

It is more important that this amendment succeed than it was that the previous one succeed, because this is where the revenue lies. This is where all the social engineering lies. The Land Development Agency is the minister's vehicle for delivering not only largesse to the ACT coffers but a greater social outcome. Better social outcomes and better planning outcomes are going to be delivered by the Land Development Agency. It is almost imperative that this process, especially in the initial years, be closely monitored by this Assembly. The most appropriate vehicle for doing that is the committee.

The minister will argue that this is unprecedented and that the agency should not have to do it, because no other statutory authority in the ACT has to do it. Quite frankly, these arguments do not wash. This is an important departure, because the minister proposes to set up a true monopoly, with a whole lot of corporate structure and governance around it. It is a corporate monopoly with governance structures which is less accountable that it could be.

In the interests of being open and accountable, especially in the early years when this agency is going to be turning around the coffers of the ACT-remember that in the first couple of years the ACT will go into deficit because of the existence of this organisation-we as an Assembly should closely monitor its progress and ensure that it is meeting its goals. This is why the Liberal opposition proposes that there should be close scrutiny of the operations of this agency. A six monthly scrutiny answers the case with organisations such as the National Crime Authority in its previous form, ASIC and

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