Page 2798 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 13 September 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Kaine: I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. He is not entitled to read anything to you. You have ruled out his point of order. Tell him to sit down.
Mr Berry: She may seek to explain something that has been misquoted or misunderstood, pursuant to standing order 47; but Mrs Carnell rose under standing order 46, on my understanding of it.
MR ACTING SPEAKER: Standing order 47 states:
A Member who has spoken to a question may again be heard to explain where some material part of that Member's speech has been misquoted or misunderstood, but shall not introduce any new matter, -
there is no new matter, as far as I am aware, being introduced at this point -
nor interrupt a Member speaking, -
you are all guilty of that -
and no debatable matter may be brought forward ...
As far as I am aware, Mrs Carnell is not debating the issue. She is in fact explaining where she has been misquoted or misunderstood. She is not introducing any new matter, and I would not permit that anyway. I will also try not to permit any other member interrupting her speech. Would you please continue, Mrs Carnell.
MRS CARNELL: Thank you. The $34m, Mr Acting Speaker, would be spent on a slow-stream convalescent unit - something that would dramatically decrease the costs of acute care in the ACT; a cardiac unit for the 300 or so Canberrans and people in the region who go to Sydney every year for bypass surgery; a paediatric unit at Calvary Hospital; and, of course, two new nursing homes in the ACT.
DUAL OCCUPANCIES - BANKS
MR WOOD (Minister for Education and Training, Minister for the Arts and Heritage and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning): Mr Acting Speaker, may I give an answer to a question that you, in a different capacity, asked me last sitting?
MR ACTING SPEAKER: I do not see why not, Mr Wood.
MR WOOD: Thank you. You asked me, "Why did the Department of the Environment, Land and Planning go against its development conditions and allow dual occupancies to be developed in Banks?". The answer is this: The development conditions for the blocks in Banks did state that one dwelling unit was permitted on each block. This reflected the extent of development permitted under the lease at the time of issue. But it is open to any lessee to apply to vary the terms of his or her lease, and to apply for approval of the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .