Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2005 Week 5 Hansard (7 April) . . Page.. 1532..
MR HARGREAVES (continuing):
affordability. It is noteworthy that nothing was done prior to that. It was, in fact, the Stanhope government that started off the whole thing. Low income earners have more options for affordable housing after the opening of a 28-unit development in Gungahlin on 29 September 2004. The complex was built by Community Housing Canberra after a direct sale of land to it by the government.
As part of the government's commitment to targeted land releases for low to moderate income earners, the Land Development Agency is holding a number of moderate income land ballots for those with a household income of up to $100,000, with an additional allowance for dependent children. The first was held on 4 December 2004, at which 26 blocks of land were offered. The next ballot is scheduled for 30 April 2005, at which 13 blocks at Wells Station in Harrison and 24 blocks at Ginninderra Ridge in Dunlop will be offered. Dr Foskey, that gives, I would hope, a fair idea that we have not been sitting on our hands, but have actually been getting on with doing quite a few things.
Statement by Speaker
MR SESELJA (Molonglo): Mr Speaker, I seek your clarification. The statement you tabled during question time does not appear to be perhaps the one you meant to table. I asked you for the advice you had received from the Clerk and the document tabled appears to be the statement you gave to the Assembly this morning.
MR SPEAKER: I think that you need to understand how my office operates when I receive a piece of correspondence. By the way, members should not take this as a means by which they can add to supplementary questions to ministers. This is about a proposition which has been put to me and which I am happy to answer because, if it comes to a motion, I do not get a chance to speak; but if somebody asks a question, I can rightfully respond to it.
When Mrs Dunne's letter came to me last evening, it was sent to the Clerk posthaste and this morning we had a wide-ranging conversation about the options that would be available to me, given the issues that have been raised by Mrs Dunne. Subsequent to that discussion, I decided on the option I would pursue.
It was open to me to find that this matter warranted precedence but, on the evidence and the custom and practice in this place, I formed the view that the most important aspect of any of my consideration was whether members were improperly influenced in the way they performed their duties and I formed the view that, on balance, the matter did not warrant precedence. Subsequently, the Clerk prepared the statement that I gave to you and on which you will find some scribbled additions. That was the statement I tabled today.
MR SESELJA: So there was no advice given by the Clerk?
MR SPEAKER: Of course there was. There is always advice given by the Clerk, Mr Seselja.
MR SESELJA: With respect, that was the question asked, Mr Speaker.