Page 1025 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 24 March 2015
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Clause 16 is an important touchstone for the government in progressing these quite bold amendments, as it legislates a review point five years from now. The review will not only provide the Assembly with scope to consider the amendments to the University of Canberra Amendment Bill 2015 that we are debating today but also allow for us to review any other changes to territory law prescribed by regulation that may flow out of this work in the coming months and years.
As I have said, I support the general direction of the bill and I appreciate the vision Vice-Chancellor Parker is working towards, but that vision must be a shared vision with the rest of the community, and the Assembly needs clear opportunities to scrutinise and test that vision.
I was concerned to hear Mr Coe’s comments today about the late briefing received by the Canberra Liberals. My usual experience is that the Canberra Liberals seek their briefings very late and consider matters at the last moment. I often come to the chamber not knowing which way they will vote. But I am concerned if that is the case, and I hope that it is not a practice that will develop in the future. I would certainly be deeply concerned if that was a practice that did continue. I hope that it was an administrative oversight rather than a deliberate situation.
In closing, let me say that the ACT Greens will be supporting this bill today and look forward to ongoing conversations, briefings and public consultations as the university embarks on what is sure to be of benefit to the ACT if it is handled well and done in a spirit that is about benefitting the territory as a whole.
MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (12.26): The bill is an interesting bill and the timing is very interesting. My office did ask for a briefing on the day it was tabled, given the importance of it; it is unfortunate that that was not seen through.
The problem with this bill is that it is not really a higher education bill. The elements in it that relate to higher education are fine, and we will be supporting those. But at best it is a planning bill in disguise. It is a shame that the government’s intention has not been clear.
I have to say that the irony of having a matter of public importance on the notice paper later today called “The importance of investor confidence in the ACT” is not lost on those on this side of the chamber. If you are an investor in Belconnen, you had purchased land to build apartments or units, you had looked at the government’s forward plan and you did not happen to see the UC on the horizon, you would have made investments based on the position that the government put, and your confidence would be shattered in knowing that 7,000 or 8,000 units may just suddenly appear.
We asked questions yesterday to find out what the terms and conditions of those apartments would be—only to be told, “It is not relevant to this bill.” That is the shame of what we are debating today. If Mr Rattenbury actually believed what he just said, he would have helped to adjourn this bill so that we could get the detail.
The bill does say that this allows the University of Canberra to commercially exploit its land—“commercially exploit”. They are interesting words. If you really want
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video