Page 2737 - Week 08 - Thursday, 24 August 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
costs and of course, as an inevitable consequence, a blow-out in the ACT’s finances, of which this budget is the inevitable and painful end result.
Interestingly, when asked about another obvious area, apart from ill-conceived spending cuts in which this government could engage in another desperate grab for cash, we heard a noteworthy answer. Such an answer is worth being repeated for the record. In response to a question on the potential sale of school sites that will be the eventual casualties of this government’s draconian school closures, Mr Corbell stated:
On the issue of surplus school sites, just to make it very clear, just as there is no money in the budget for planning studies, there is no money in the budget for realisation of those sites either; that is, for sale. There is not a single cent in the budget for any sale of those sites.
So what happened? Upon being asked whether he could categorically rule out the sale of any of these sites, Mr Corbell replied:
No, I am not. I am just saying that it is not factored into the budget.
We will talk a little bit later about education, but we could read a couple of things into those statements. I am sure he has picked his words very carefully. We could say that, with the closure of 39 schools around the ACT, the government will simply leave them to rot and not sell them for some other meaningful purpose. Or we could say that the government will factor the sale of these school sites into future budgets, which I suspect they will, keeping alive their scheme of short-term land sales to neutralise the impact of massive deficits and poor budget management coming their way in the outyears. There is a measure of ineptness, unfortunately, in the economic management of this territory. The government has not thought through its funding responsibilities. It is the people of Canberra who suffer from this approach.
Finally, I share the concern that has been raised by Mr Seselja. I think there is a growing level of disquiet amongst many of the members—and I suspect even in the government ranks, but I do not know that—and the community at large about the whole EpiCentre fiasco. We have seen the minister taking questions on notice. We have seen these very carefully structured replies. One has the sense that the whole situation continues to beg more questions. The true picture is yet to fully emerge, but one cannot help but reach the view that, on the best interpretation, the process has not been handled with a very high degree of efficiency or a very high regard for ensuring the maximum possible return for the people of Canberra in relation to this transaction.
There seem to be mixed messages. There seem to be clever sorts of ways in which explanations are provided for the different types of advice being given out. As Mr Seselja said, we have a situation where some prospective purchasers were almost talked down in relation to the uses of the site. This certainly raises questions as to why this happened. Was it ineptitude? Was it poor communication? What was the process here that led to taxpayers potentially not getting the full benefit that could have been available to them through the realisation of the site in a valuable area of commerce with a product that, at the end of the day, is finite: our land. I have nothing further to say at this point on the ACTPLA matter, but I think there are areas of concern.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .