Page 4052 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 13 December 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
This afternoon Mr Seselja, the shadow planning minister, is going to open a new facility in Gungahlin—the quickest growing part of the country in terms of planning—because they would not invite Mr Corbell. Mr Seselja, the shadow planning minister, is opening functions. Based on his record and the things that have gone on in the past, I do not believe that there is confidence in Mr Corbell out there in the community. What we have got is the lingering doubt. The NCA is yet to enter this fray. The NCA is looking at whether or not this is consistent with the national capital plan.
If one looks at what is put before this place by Mr Corbell, one sees that there is no evidence. If one looks at the processes that Mr Corbell has been involved in in the past, one sees that, if there was no doubt before, there is certainly doubt now about the way that he handles the planning portfolio. You can already see the Chief Minister moving away from him. He is taking the land release policy off him.
Mr Seselja: Taking transport off him.
MR SMYTH: He is taking transport planning off him. He has already lost health. He has already lost education. There is not much more he can lose. He is hanging on, by Jove. But to go to the nub of this, let me go to Erskine May. (Time expired.)
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Indigenous Affairs and Minister for the Arts) (11.48): Mr Speaker, this is a serious motion. It is the type of motion that governments are loath to move. Indeed, this is the first occasion in this Assembly on which the government has found it necessary to move a censure motion. It is an indication of how seriously we take the behaviour of Mr Seselja that this is the first time in this parliament that the government has thought it necessary to move to censure a member of this place. It is a serious issue, and its seriousness is reflected in the fact that this is the first time we have done it.
The extent to which Mr Seselja and the Liberal Party have gone out of their way to undermine and demean the formal planning processes within this territory, not to seek transparency and accountability, but for patent political advantage at whatever cost to the reputation of ACTPLA, at whatever cost to the reputation of the LDA, at whatever cost to commercial underpinnings of the development of the ACT and its economy, demands and deserves most serious censure. We would not have done it—we have never done it before—but for its seriousness. And that seriousness is reflected in the fact that the successful bidder, who has now been embroiled in the scandal generated by Mr Seselja, is a significant national company making its first investment in the territory.
Let us not ignore some of the implications of this campaign to generate scandal. The innuendo around malfeasance and inappropriate action, the creation of a discussion around corruption and the implications for the reputation of Canberra as a whole, the suggestion that there is not a level playing field in the Australian Capital Territory, the suggestion that some bidders for some land for some developments are given preferential treatment, and the suggestion that information is wilfully withheld from
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .