Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1856..
MR SMYTH (continuing):
to give back to the people of the ACT the benefits of the hard years that they have had to go through.
Lyneham tennis centre
MR CORBELL: My question also is to the Minister for Urban Services. Minister, section 253 (a) of the Land (Planning and Environment) Act 1991 provides for the revocation of a development approval if the government is satisfied that the approval was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. Will the minister confirm that this is the section under which he was advised by PALM that he might be able to revoke the approval of the Lyneham tennis centre redevelopment? Will he table any such advice he received from PALM on this matter?
MR SMYTH: Mr Speaker, I answered this question yesterday, as we answered it the day before. They will not listen and do not pay attention. The whole point of what the government did here was to break the stalemate. The government wanted to achieve two things. We wanted to make sure-
Mr Corbell: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was quite specific: will the minister confirm that this is the section under which he considered revoking the advice and will he table such advice?
MR SPEAKER: Do not repeat the question, Mr Corbell. Sit down.
Mr Corbell: Tell him to be succinct and confine himself to the subject matter of the question.
MR SPEAKER: In which case, you can sit down too, Minister. A question fully answered cannot be renewed.
Mr Corbell: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker.
MR SPEAKER: I am sorry but the question was answered yesterday. You should read your standing orders.
Dissent from ruling
MR CORBELL (2.47): I wish to move to suspend so much of the standing orders as would prevent me moving dissent from your ruling.
MR SPEAKER: Proceed.
MR CORBELL: I move:
That so much of the standing and temporary orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Corbell moving dissent from the Speaker's ruling.
Mr Speaker, your ruling today is blatantly partisan and unacceptable. The ruling you have just made in no way reflects the situation when I asked the question today. I asked the minister to confirm whether or not the advice he received from PALM was