Mr BELL - 1996-08-20
In 1984, this government used $1.2m-worth of taxpayers' money to compulsorily acquire land from the Desert Springs Estate in Alice Springs. In 1992, this government sold that land to Henry Walker Contracting at a loss, for a mere $535 000. That sale was subject to an agreement to develop part of the land as a retirement village. Shortly after, Henry Walker Contracting sold that land, subdivided, for no less - considerably more, I suspect - than $2.8m, and there was still no sign of the promised retirement village. A return of a cool $2m was obtained in a few months on land that is now valued conservatively at $6m. Why have Territory taxpayers lost so much money on this deal and why do central Australians still not have a retirement village?
Mr Ah Kit: Good question.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the member for Arnhem says that this is a good question. There is a small oversight in it. The member for MacDonnell forgot to mention how much it costs to put in roads, sewerage and water and electricity reticulation when constructing a subdivision. He sought to intimate, of course, that there had been an amazing windfall to the company that was successful in acquiring the land, and to suggest that it is a terrible thing to make a profit in this country nowadays. That is a typical Labor Party approach: no one is allowed to make a profit, no one is allowed to be successful, and no encouragement should be given to the private sector by government. That is Labor's view but it is not ours.
Concerning the sale of that land, I will obtain the full details for the member for MacDonnell ...
Mr Bailey: How much have they donated to the CLP?
Page 1506
Mr REED: That is the type of interjection we have come to expect from the member for Wanguri, Mr Speaker. He ignores completely your earlier request that Question Time be heard without undue interruption. It is broadcast for Territorians who are more interested in these issues, obviously, than the Labor Party representatives here are. That gives a good indication of their level of commitment to the Territory and their attitude to the important issues that are raised in this House.
To return to the question, the member for MacDonnell has raised issues that date back to the early 1980s. In relation to the sale of that land, my recollection is that a request for expressions of interests or some similar process was undertaken, the land was sold to the highest bidder, as it were, with a development proposal that would meet the needs of the people of Alice Springs. As he indicated, some development has since taken place. I guess some happy people are living in residences that have been provided in the subdivisions.
In relation to the further information he sought, I will obtain a more detailed response for him, rather than relying on my memory. However, I guess that the honourable member's interest in this matter may have been aroused by speculation in one of the newspapers in Alice Springs, which seems to suggest that a further windfall will accrue to the people who own this land and that, while they said they would build a retirement village, they intend now to use the land for alternative purposes. If that is the case, then the owners of that land, or the developer with the rights to that land, will have to pay the difference between the cost as assessed for its use as a retirement village and the cost as assessed for its use for alternative purposes, as a residential subdivision or whatever. There will be no windfall from that point of view. There will be no loss to Territory taxpayers.
I will obtain a full response for the honourable member. In the meantime, I ask simply that he not speculate unnecessarily about what may be happening. It will all be explained in full, and I am sure that he will be satisfied with the explanation.
Page 1507
Mr Ah Kit: Good question.
ANSWER
Mr Speaker, the member for Arnhem says that this is a good question. There is a small oversight in it. The member for MacDonnell forgot to mention how much it costs to put in roads, sewerage and water and electricity reticulation when constructing a subdivision. He sought to intimate, of course, that there had been an amazing windfall to the company that was successful in acquiring the land, and to suggest that it is a terrible thing to make a profit in this country nowadays. That is a typical Labor Party approach: no one is allowed to make a profit, no one is allowed to be successful, and no encouragement should be given to the private sector by government. That is Labor's view but it is not ours.
Concerning the sale of that land, I will obtain the full details for the member for MacDonnell ...
Mr Bailey: How much have they donated to the CLP?
Page 1506
Mr REED: That is the type of interjection we have come to expect from the member for Wanguri, Mr Speaker. He ignores completely your earlier request that Question Time be heard without undue interruption. It is broadcast for Territorians who are more interested in these issues, obviously, than the Labor Party representatives here are. That gives a good indication of their level of commitment to the Territory and their attitude to the important issues that are raised in this House.
To return to the question, the member for MacDonnell has raised issues that date back to the early 1980s. In relation to the sale of that land, my recollection is that a request for expressions of interests or some similar process was undertaken, the land was sold to the highest bidder, as it were, with a development proposal that would meet the needs of the people of Alice Springs. As he indicated, some development has since taken place. I guess some happy people are living in residences that have been provided in the subdivisions.
In relation to the further information he sought, I will obtain a more detailed response for him, rather than relying on my memory. However, I guess that the honourable member's interest in this matter may have been aroused by speculation in one of the newspapers in Alice Springs, which seems to suggest that a further windfall will accrue to the people who own this land and that, while they said they would build a retirement village, they intend now to use the land for alternative purposes. If that is the case, then the owners of that land, or the developer with the rights to that land, will have to pay the difference between the cost as assessed for its use as a retirement village and the cost as assessed for its use for alternative purposes, as a residential subdivision or whatever. There will be no windfall from that point of view. There will be no loss to Territory taxpayers.
I will obtain a full response for the honourable member. In the meantime, I ask simply that he not speculate unnecessarily about what may be happening. It will all be explained in full, and I am sure that he will be satisfied with the explanation.
Page 1507
Last updated: 09 Aug 2016