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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2008 Week 04 Hansard (Thursday, 10 April 2008) . . Page.. 1274 ..

MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (11.20): I will speak briefly. The opposition will not be supporting this disallowance. To disallow the entire regulation would have adverse consequences. We have put on the record some concerns with the legislation. We moved substantive amendments during the debate in the Assembly. We continue to have concerns. There are further concerns we have but we will look at bringing back some substantive legislation in the near future to address some of those issues. Disallowing the entire regulation is not the way to go. We will not support it.

In relation to Mr Barr’s comments, I think you need to argue on the merits rather than that, if you are attacked on one side and the other, you must be right. I think that is a fairly weak argument, no matter which way you look at it, but I think it is worth having the debates. We had substantial debates on some of our concerns about the legislation. I moved something like 130 amendments in relation to that. I think one or two of them were accepted by the government. We will continue to make those arguments, but we broadly support the process. We broadly think that it is heading in the right direction and should be given some time to be bedded down so that we can see how it works.

Notwithstanding the pre-existing concerns that we have and that are on the record, we do have some other concerns which we will look to raise soon. We will also look at how it works in these first few months as to whether any more substantive changes are necessary. But we certainly will not be supporting this disallowance.

MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (11.22): I will also speak briefly to Dr Foskey’s motion but I am not persuaded to support the disallowance motion. Also at the outset, I will say that I do not share, at the present time anyway, Dr Foskey’s concern about the property industry and corruption that she alluded to in her speech. I have not seen any evidence of corruption in the property sector in the ACT.

DR FOSKEY: No, I did not say that.

MR MULCAHY: I know Dr Foskey did not say it exists here but she used the example of recent events in Wollongong. I get worried that we react to something there and then start sharpening the attack on a specific industry. I realise that the image of property developers is rapidly becoming as vilified as that of lawyers, used car salesmen and, of course, politicians.

Mr Barr: But we went up in the latest Morgan survey. Used car salesmen are worse than we are.

MR MULCAHY: I guess when you are on the bottom of the chart, Mr Barr, you can only go one way, can you not? I think we need to be cautious about jumping to some sort of conclusion that all property developers are committed to courses of action that are constantly against the community interest. They perform a vital role in the development of our town and should not be shunned, out of some concern for something that has not happened. Whilst community consultation is important—and indeed I have made representations on behalf of numerous constituents about different

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