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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 7 Hansard (26 June) . . Page.. 2539 ..

MRS DUNNE

It seems to me, Mr Speaker that, although the minister protests that everything that is being done is done absolutely according to the law, he has doubts. It's demonstrated by the fact that he said yesterday that he would not release this advice on request because the territory might be exposed.

I think that there are greater things at stake here than the exposure of the territory. The exposure of the territory over one matter is important, but the principle that underlies this-the confidence with which members of the business community and members of the public can deal with this government-is a much higher principle which needs to be tested.

If at the end of the day, Mr Speaker, we come to the conclusion that everything is above board and the Gungahlin Development Authority has done everything according to Hoyle, everything is correct and there is no case to answer, I will be mildly embarrassed and I will say, "Okay, you've won; it's fine."That will be the end of it.

But at this stage, Mr Speaker, we can't test that, and this Assembly has a responsibility to constantly test whether or not the government and the executive are performing to the best interests of the ACT community. At this stage, we do not have that crucial piece of evidence. The minister keeps saying, "The Gungahlin Development Authority is acting on legal advice; everything is hunky-dory."If everything is hunky-dory, I will be the first person to admit it.

I'm always prepared to say when I am wrong, and I will always fess up to my mistakes. It's uncomfortable and it hurts, but I will do it. It would be good for all of us in this place, when we deal with people, to do that. It would be good for the government, of whatever persuasion, to do that.

We need to be open; we need to be accountable. I think, Mr Speaker, the argument that the territory may be exposed in some financial sense is not a strong enough argument. The really strong argument is that, if we don't have the capacity to scrutinise and watch what the executive is doing-it doesn't matter what political persuasion the executive is-there is a much greater risk that the territory will be exposed in a moral sense, because we don't know that we are dealing with people fairly.

At this stage there is a great body of evidence that an arm of the ACT government is not dealing with people fairly; they have set a set of rules; and when it was convenient for them-for whatever reason, which I can't plumb, Mr Speaker-they have set those aside. We can't have a precedent like this.

There were many people-I gather about 12 or 13 people-who went to that auction, apparently pre-qualified, with a cheque in their top pocket, ready to pay. One of those people who went there with a cheque in his top pocket had a rubber cheque. That's really unfortunate. It's unfortunate for a whole range of reasons. It's unfortunate for the business reputation of the person concerned; it's unfortunate because it creates uncertainty in the land market when there are a vast number of people struggling and trying really hard to get into the housing market, and the prices are going up and up. All this uncertainty creates more uncertainty and raises the price of housing.

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