Page 4862 - Week 15 - Wednesday, 14 December 2005

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

The next paragraph says:

For reasons already expressed, however, a legislative basis appears at least highly desirable, and would enable the specific functions of the new body and its relationship with stakeholders to be carefully described ...

I suspect that if you read this bill—and I am sure that Mr Seselja will enlighten us—this is exactly what he has achieved in his bill, the bill that we are discussing here today.

What is this all about? This is a government that is scared of its own shadow; this is a government that cannot make decisions in cabinet because Mr Corbell will not let them. He likes to have his own way. Mr Corbell said that this is another layer of bureaucracy. It is not another way of bureaucracy; it is an independent bureaucracy that will deal only with City Hill and, if you had the courage, as minister, to define it, a further region. It is called the Civic Development Authority Bill. Your argument that Mr Seselja ignores the rest of Civic shows you probably have not even read the bill, because it says that you, as minister, would get to define the area, an area that has the flexibility to meet the needs of the time.

If Dr Foskey was concerned over that, it is also a disallowable instrument. It could come back here and be discussed by this Assembly. We could keep the required control while giving them the independence to get on with the job.

Mr Corbell said, “Look out the front door; this is not a city in decline.” Why did the head of the CFMEU, George Wason, say he has got $350 million but he cannot invest it in this city because it is too hard? It is too hard under the reforms the failing planning minister has put in place that are slowing development and driving developers to Wollongong, Tweed Heads, Coffs Harbour, the Gold Coast, Adelaide and Melbourne. They cannot invest in this city because of the bureaucracy that Mr Corbell has put in place. We have to keep coming back to what it is we seek to achieve here.

The announcements says that something like $140 million in capital work is required. But we all know that there is no cash left because his cabinet colleagues have squandered it against the best advice of the Treasurer. Perhaps Mr Corbell should put aside his busway, which has no business case and cuts very little off the trip from the Belconnen town centre to Civic. According to his own chart, it delivers no extra patronage for the expense of $140 million. Perhaps he should surrender that money to the Treasurer. That would allow this to get on the road and it could get on the road today if they wanted it to. But they do not.

This is about control; this is about: “Do it my way or not at all.” This is about: “Do it in my likeness or not at all.” This is about rejecting the ideas of others. We then go on the radio and claim, “What right do they have, because they are well off, to be suggesting what the government should do?” They have the right that they are citizens and pay their taxes and they should be accorded that courtesy.

At the top of page 44, the report, referring to the task force, says:

at this stage, it appears to the Taskforce that to effect these objectives—

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