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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 7 Hansard (19 June) . . Page.. 1903 ..

MR HUMPHRIES (continuing):

By that time an application under the Land Act was necessary and, as the applicant was aware of this requirement, the application was lodged on the same date as the gazettal. The lease variation was approved on 5 May 1994, again under the previous Government, and the betterment determined on 15 July 1994. An appeal was made to the Land and Planning Appeals Board by some residents at Kingston. I think we are all aware of that. The approval was later amended, under the provisions of section 148 of the Land Act, to reflect the reduction in the number of units that could be constructed on the site. This meant that the maximum gross floor area was reduced.

Members should note that all the decisions on this application were made long before the Stein inquiry was given its terms of reference in July 1995. Indeed, it was one of those matters that were extensively discussed by the Stein inquiry. The particular case was highlighted in the report of the Stein inquiry, and the Government's proposed response to the report addresses those issues. The club lease was also subject to a recent FOI request by the Save Our City Coalition. The lease was issued on 23 November 1995, but that is only the administrative instrument that gives effect to the approval granted on 5 May 1994.

Mr Moore also asked about the refund of betterment that was made in February this year. There was a letter of demand for a refund of betterment. That amount was for $52,161. The reason it was refunded without any further legal advice was that the Land and Planning Appeals Board had decreased the amount of space that was able to be built on on this site from 5,310 square metres to 5,002 square metres. The Australian Valuation Office said that that would reduce the amount of value that was attracting betterment, and the difference between those two amounts was $52,161. It seemed pointless to get any further legal advice on that subject, since there was a clear entitlement to have that money refunded, and it was refunded.

MR BERRY: My question is directed to the Chief Minister in her capacity as Health Minister. Chief Minister, on 6 December last year you assured the Assembly, and Mr Osborne in particular, that you would ensure that 100 per cent bulk-billing was available when you undid the salaried doctors in our health centres. Indeed, that was a direction of the Assembly. Chief Minister, will you now explain to us why, 10 days later, at your strategy weekend called to determine the future strategy of your Government, your policy had changed to a complete sell-off of public health centres and no requirement - no requirement, Mr Speaker - for 100 per cent bulk-billing doctors in the centres? Chief Minister, in February this year, in spite of your secret conclusion at Eagle Hawk Hill, you came back into the Assembly and said that you were still trying to arrange 100 per cent bulk-billing. Chief Minister, which of these statements is untrue?

MRS CARNELL: Mr Speaker, the document that exists is not, by the way, the minutes of the meeting on that weekend. It is, as was outlined on the cover sheet, I think, a breakdown of all of the things that were brought up by everybody on bits of butchers paper. For those who do not know how these sorts of events work, what happens is that

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