Page 1542 - Week 05 - Thursday, 18 April 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The result seems to be that the ACT Government has no way of objecting to the non-purpose-clause changes that will be possible under the new section 11A(2)(a). Thus the Supreme Court will have to make up its mind without any clear guidance from the ACT Government; indeed the ACT provides no appropriate criteria to the court.
Can the Chief Minister confirm that he has received this letter, and, if so, what is his response to that problem?
MR KAINE: Yes, Mr Speaker, I have received that letter from Professor Neutze. As I understand it, his concern is based on a false premise in that he has misread, I believe, the nature of the amendment on which he bases his comments. I am writing to Professor Neutze to explain what I believe his misconception to be. I will give you a copy of that letter so that you can read the explanation for yourself.
Deputy Chief Minister
MR WOOD: I direct to the Chief Minister a further question concerning these internal disputes within the Government which damage, perhaps even destroy, any attempt to promote the future well-being of Canberra. Chief Minister, what will you do to prevent Mr Collaery repeating the public comments he made as Acting Chief Minister that he did not want a casino and again sabotaging the attempts to raise finance for the project? What more damaging evidence could you have when finance is a problem and he is sabotaging your efforts? When will you take him under control and stop shrugging your shoulders and saying, "Well, I am stuffed. I cannot do anything about it"?
MR KAINE: As usual in questions of this kind coming from the Labor Opposition, this is based on a false premise. The implication of Mr Wood's question is that the project failed to be financed because of something that Mr Collaery said. That is absolute rubbish. If there were any validity to the implication of Mr Wood's question, the people simply would not have put in a proposal. They certainly would not have proceeded with it over many, many months and persisted with the objective of gaining the contract - - -
Mr Wood: So you think he is a help, do you?
MR KAINE: He is a great help, yes. The fact is that Mr Collaery's views, public or private, have nothing whatsoever to do with the outcome. As I said, these people simply would not have persisted month after month, they would not have persisted even over the last 28 days, to raise finance for this project if they had been in any way influenced by what Mr Collaery or Mr Wood, or even Mr Connolly, had said on the issue. So, it really is an entirely irrelevant point that Mr Wood is trying to make.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .