Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2011 Week 8 Hansard (16 August) . . Page.. 3229..
That Mr Seselja's motion, as amended, be agreed to.
The Assembly voted—
Ayes 11: Mr Barr Dr Bourke Ms Bresnan Ms Burch Mr Corbell Ms Gallagher Mr Hargreaves Ms Hunter Ms Le Couteur Ms Porter Mr Rattenbury
Noes 6: Mr Coe Mr Doszpot Mrs Dunne Mr Hanson Mr Seselja Mr Smyth
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Debate interrupted in accordance with standing order 74 and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for a later hour.
Sitting suspended from 12.20 to 2 pm.
Questions without notice
MR SESELJA: My question is to the Deputy Chief Minister. On 17 May 2010, the chief planning executive wrote a brief to you which conveyed his concerns about widespread interference in the planning process. In the brief, the chief planner stated, amongst other things, that the process was so compromised that the prospect of it being taken over by the government itself needs to be raised. Minister, what did you do in response to these serious concerns raised with you by your chief planner on 17 May 2010?
MR BARR: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. There were three responses from me. Firstly, some legal advice was sought from the GSO in relation to particular issues that were raised by the chief planning executive. I understand that that advice and subsequent information were available to the Leader of the Opposition from the freedom of information request that he sought. In relation to the specific matters that were referred to in Mr Savery's correspondence, I also sought the involvement of the head of the ACT public service in relation to the officer-level issues that were apparent between the Planning and Land Authority and the then Department of Land and Property Services. Finally, of course, I had some conversations with the Chief Minister in order to facilitate a meeting of all of the parties to resolve the matter.
MR SPEAKER: A supplementary, Mr Seselja.
MR SESELJA: Thank you, Mr Speaker. The chief planner also raised concerns about the government's stated intent to keep the politics out of planning being delivered as a result of the interference. What did you do in response to that claim in the brief?