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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 3 Hansard (28 May) . . Page.. 721 ..

MS CARNELL (continuing):

Mr Speaker, with regard to Hall rural residential development, as I previously said, the process will continue. We are committed to rural residential development, as we told the people of Hall before the election, and as we have said on radio and television and in letters to everybody. We believe rural residential development is appropriate, but we do need to make sure that we do it properly in that area. That is the reason why we have continued with the consultancies that were part of the previous question. I understand that clause 8 of the preliminary agreement - that one that those opposite do not think we should have paid for - does give the ACT joint ownership in the studies and they can be used only by a party who is able to develop the site. So, Mr Speaker, it cannot be sold. It has to be used by a party developing the site. That is the reason why it pays to get good legal advice, and it pays, unlike in the case of those opposite, to make sure you get legal advice from those who understand commercial dealings.

MS TUCKER: I have a supplementary question, Mr Speaker. As I understand it, you are saying that Government policy is for rural residential development and that PALM is just undertaking your policy instructions. While working with the Hall Progress Association, has PALM explained to them that the development of this strategic plan will have to take into account the fact that, whether they like it or not, there is rural residential development?

MS CARNELL: Government policy, yes. How often do I have to say, Mr Speaker - and I have said it many times - that it is Government policy to support rural residential development? PALM is looking at how that should happen.

Ms Tucker: I take a point of order.

MS CARNELL: It is actually quite clear.

MR SPEAKER: There is a point of order, Chief Minister.

Ms Tucker: That was not my question, Mr Speaker. My question was: Is it the case that this Government policy was explained to PALM - - -

MR SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Ms Tucker: I know, but I am using a point of order because I am tired of her not answering the question.

MR SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Berry: Mr Speaker, I could not quite hear the point of order. Would you mind letting Ms Tucker - - -

MR SPEAKER: There was no point of order.

Mr Berry: I would not mind having the chance to defend it, but I could not hear it.

MR SPEAKER: Do not be provocative, Mr Berry.

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