Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 2 Hansard (11 March) . . Page.. 612 ..
Mr Humphries: The standing order relating to relevance, Mr Corbell.
MR CORBELL: The inadequacy of the discussion paper.
Mr Humphries: The inadequacy of the discussion paper, not the process used to put the discussion paper together.
MR SPEAKER: Under standing order 51, a member shall not allude to any debate or proceedings of the same calendar year unless such allusion is relevant to the matter under discussion.
Mr Rugendyke: Mr Speaker, I take a point of order relating to the fact that I believe that we need a quorum to discuss these many interesting points of order and this matter of grave importance to this Assembly.
A quorum not being present, and the bells being rung -
MR CORBELL: Are you going to rule that it is not relevant to discuss independence?
MR SPEAKER: I just read standing order 51, Mr Corbell.
MR CORBELL: Mr Speaker, if I say to you that it is inadequate because it is not independent, is that out of order?
MR SPEAKER: I will reread standing order 51. It says that a member may not allude to any debate or proceeding of the same calendar year unless such allusion is relevant to the matter under discussion. That is standing order 51.
MR CORBELL: Is it your view that it is relevant?
MR SPEAKER: No, what I am saying is that you have explained your reference to "independent" in relation to this debate. I think it is different from what Mr Smyth thought you were referring to.
MR CORBELL: Mr Speaker, the discussion paper has many inadequacies. One of those is that the Minister presented it as independent, and clearly it was not. Therefore, it is an inadequate presentation of the Government's position. It is inadequate in that regard, Mr Speaker.
Last year I attended a forum on the development of rural residential estates in the ACT, held by the urban research program at the Australian National University. It was a very interesting discussion because, without exception, every speaker at that forum condemned this paper - condemned it as an ineffective analysis of rural residential development in the ACT; condemned it as completely unable to address the complex social, environmental and planning issues surrounding rural residential development. Mr Speaker, among the points that were made in that discussion was the fact that the discussion paper flew in the