Page 2275 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 1 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Wednesday, 1 November 1989
__________________________
MR SPEAKER (Mr Prowse) took the chair at 10.30 am and read the prayer.
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE - STANDING COMMITTEE
Report
MR COLLAERY (10.30): Mr Speaker, I present the report of the standing committee on the redevelopment of the former Canberra Times site, together with copies of the minutes of the proceedings of the committee. I move:
That the report be noted.
This is the second report of the Standing Committee on Planning, Development and Infrastructure. I would like to start by thanking my colleagues on the committee, Mr Kaine, Mr Duby and Mr Wood, but special thanks should go to the secretary to the committee, Mr John Cummins, who attended to the vast organisational aspects of this study, along with his multifarious other functions, with promptitude, accuracy and good humour. Much of the report and the substance of the input is due to Mr Cummins' capacity to deal with third parties in an effective manner to ensure that full cooperation, which all the many witnesses gave the committee, is secured. On that point, I would also like to thank, on behalf of the committee, all those witnesses who presented oral and/or written evidence to the committee, at times at short notice. Of course, not least, I should thank the clerical and keyboard staff, Miss Stirling and Mrs Blackburn, who have attended to this drafting effort, once again under pressure and with accuracy.
Mr Speaker, the report was finalised only in recent hours, and it covers both references received from the Assembly; namely, the redevelopment of the Canberra Times site, and the effects of the Supreme Court's decision on other developments. Two extensions of reporting time were sought. The first extension was sought because it was just not possible to produce the report in the time available, and the second extension was to enable fuller consultation with the community and planning authorities and also to enable the committee to consider various legal opinions, some of which we received in camera.
Some of the opponents to the proposal who were parties to the original Supreme Court action were approached, but those litigants declined to appear because of the Federal Court appeal. They did, in fact, provide submissions in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .