Page 2806 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 21 November 1989

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

---

(a) The government did not oppose the application for an adjournment made by Concrete Constructions Pty Ltd in its appeal before the Federal Court on 20 November 1989. However, the court did not grant the application, and the appeal hearing is proceeding.

(b) As to consideration of surrender and regrant of that lease, the Government generally accepts the thrust of the report of the Standing Committee on Planning, Development and Infrastructure, but before considering the question of a surrender and regrant the Government has adopted the second recommendation of the standing committee and is releasing data and assessments on the impact of traffic, parking, public transport and pollution levels for public comment.

In response to Mr Moore's supplementary question, I have been advised by the Law Office that the High Court decision in the case of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v. Peko Wallsend, that certain information was required to be taken into account before a particular decision was made, was based upon legislation, the subject matter, scope and purpose of which clearly indicated the requirement to do so. The legislation pursuant to which leases may be granted in the Australian Capital Territory does not either expressly or by implication impose such a requirement.

The above comment applies equally to the Errington case to which you also referred.

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .