Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2006 Week 12 Hansard (Thursday, 23 November 2006) . . Page.. 3869 ..

If the Liberal Party were seriously concerned about these types of matters, they would be supporting moves to provide a purpose-built remand centre—a contemporary remand centre that meets our needs and avoids the need for physical limitation on the movements of remandees to the degree that we currently experience at Belconnen.

Planning—EpiCentre lease

MR SESELJA: My question is to the Minister for Planning. It relates to the EpiCentre auction. Minister, the legal advice provided to ACTPLA prior to the auction raises the issue of a liability for the territory should the ACTPLA ruling be overturned in the courts. The advice states that, if it were found that the territory plan did not permit the development in the purpose clause, the lessee may have an action for breach of the lease. Minister, given this advice, what provision have you made for contingent liability for the EpiCentre site?

MR CORBELL: These matters are before the court at this time. It is not appropriate for me to comment on these types of matters.

Opposition members interjecting—

MR CORBELL: It is a hypothetical question, Mr Speaker, as to whether or not there will be any financial implications for the territory.

Mr Smyth: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. House of Representatives Practice states quite clearly that a civil matter is subject to the sub judice principle only when it is listed in the court. This matter has not been listed before the court at this stage.

MR SPEAKER: Who said it was sub judice?

Mr Smyth: Mr Corbell said it has been listed before the court. It has not.

MR CORBELL: I have not said that at all. I have not said it is sub judice. I have said it is before the court. I am answering the question. The matter has, in fact, been listed. It is listed for hearing early next month, I understand.

Those factors aside, the government would not, as a matter of practice, disclose whether or not any such contingency had been made ahead of a court ruling. It would not be appropriate. The government is confident of its position on this matter. The government will be vigorously defending the decision to grant approval.

Bushfires—vegetation restoration

MS MacDONALD: My question is to the Chief Minister. Could the Chief Minister please inform the Assembly of the role the ACT government is playing in restoring bushfire-affected areas through its regreening program, and of any recognition of these efforts?

MR STANHOPE: I must say that it is with significant pleasure that I inform the Assembly today that the ACT government’s program of urban revegetation,

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Sittings . . . . PDF . . . .