Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2017 Week 08 Hansard (Wednesday, 16 August 2017) . . Page.. 2813 ..
MS LAWDER (Brindabella) (4.19), in reply: I will close the debate. What we have heard in response to this motion today I think continues to demonstrate the contempt in which the government holds the people of Canberra. The Chief Minister says that the people of Canberra overwhelmingly endorsed his government last year. I am not sure that 1.7 per cent of the total vote to Labor over Liberal is a glowing endorsement and an overwhelming endorsement. The Chief Minister and Mr Rattenbury then said that they reject the basic premise of my motion today. I think you will find that the vast majority of the points listed in this motion have come about through FOI requests, through Auditor-General’s reports and through questions in the Assembly from members to relevant ministers. So how can we reject this publicly known data?
How does the Chief Minister reject the fact the government paid $3.9 million to purchase land from the CFMEU with no plans to use it? How does the Chief Minister reject the fact that his government is now renting that same block back from the CFMEU for $1 a year? How does the Chief Minister reject the fact that his government purchased land adjacent to Glebe Park for $4.2 million when valuations placed the property between $1 million and $3.8 million?
How does the Chief Minister reject the fact that the building, property and real estate sectors say they were blindsided by a huge 300 per cent increase in LVC on unit developments, let alone how that is going to affect the price of properties and, therefore, affordability for your average Canberran? How does the Chief Minister reject the fact that the purchase of the boat hire company and Mr Spokes near Lake Burley Griffin for $1 million took place when one valuation was between $50,000 and $100,000 and the other $900,000 to $1 million? And how does the Chief Minister reject the concerns expressed by a one-off deal given to a Mr Fluffy property in the inner south, with a non-disclosure agreement attached, but not give consideration to others in similar circumstances?
How does the Chief Minister reject the concerns of residents, of ratepayers, of constituents about that sneaky technical amendment which allowed the government to use CFZ land basically for residential purposes? How does the Chief Minister reject the fact that his government has been giving mixed messages to the Ainslie shops? One minute they are to be remediated; the next minute they must be demolished. How does the Chief Minister reject the fact of issues plaguing the youth justice system and of how to keep young people and staff safe at Bimberi? How do you reject the fact that there are peak bodies such as ClubsACT that the government is punishing and refusing to meet with for daring to disagree with them?
How can you reject the fact of issues in the health directorate, such as bullying, integrity of data and maintenance? The fire in the switchboard was another fact. How can you reject the Auditor-General’s findings that “transparency, accountability and rigour have been lacking” and that “the final ascribed value lacks evidence and methodology”?
Mr Parton mentioned that this government feel they can get away with anything. The Chief Minister has today rejected transparency, accountability and good governance.