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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2008 Week 08 Hansard (Wednesday, 6 August 2008) . . Page.. 2943 ..

MR STANHOPE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I ask my colleague the minister for transport to re-explain. He might want to contrast the $80 million accumulated deficits against our one billion dollar infrastructure fund. Thank you, Mr Hargreaves.

MR HARGREAVES: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker and Chief Minister. In budget paper No 5, page 7 you will see at the top of the page that $83 million has been allocated out of this budget. Further, Mr Smyth quotes a page from the document that we covered yesterday. It has $30 million in it. He forgets, however—conveniently I suggest to you—to go forward a little more in the document. If he does so, he will come across another page in there that says the same project will receive a further $60 million.

When I went to school, Mr Speaker, 30 and 60 added up to 90. And what was the amount in the Chief Minister’s press release? It was $90 million. Mr Speaker, here we have a classic case of picking one page in a document. I can only assume that the problem with Mr Smyth is that he is lazy, he is illiterate or he is building a straw man. He has been sprung not doing his work. He is the embodiment of laziness.

MR SPEAKER: Do you have a supplementary question, Mr Smyth?

MR SMYTH: Yes, Mr Speaker. Chief Minister, on page 34 of budget paper 5, why did the line items under “Capital initiative—transport” not mention the Gungahlin Drive duplication? Why do they have amounts of zero dollars in 2008-09, zero dollars in 2009-10, zero dollars in 2010-11 and zero dollars in 2011-12 for the Gungahlin Drive duplication if you going to build it in the next four years?

MR STANHOPE: Quite simply, the decision had not been made at that point.

Planning—land use

DR FOSKEY: My question is for the Minister for Planning and is in regard to section 63. In January 2005, I was advised in writing by both ACT and federal ministers that issues of housing mix and land use would be a matter for both ACTPLA and the NCA. When I spoke to the new owners of section 63 in May, they certainly took the view that the ACT government was still a part of decisions regarding land use. Yet in answer to a question put on notice by me during the estimates process in June the minister advised me that the National Capital Authority was the sole approving authority for the section 63 development. Now we have seen an admission that an ACTPLA blunder might lead to a retail glut in the city at a time of retail downturn. Can the minister advise the Assembly if he was wrong to try to duck responsibility for land use on this block and advise the Assembly what steps he will take to ensure that major developments do not proceed unless he is confident that they will effectively address the social needs of the Canberra community.

MR BARR: I thank Dr Foskey for the question. It would seem that Dr Foskey is confusing—as many do, as we have a somewhat confusing and overlapping planning system—responsibility for planning approval with land sale conditions. Those two things are entirely separate. The National Capital Authority is the approved planning body for development applications in relation to that particular site. But it was ACT

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