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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 7 Hansard (30 June) . . Page.. 1886 ..

MR OSBORNE (continuing):

If another member of the committee would like to adjourn the debate on this matter, I will be happy to speak about it at another time, Mr Speaker. The only point I would like to add is that I thought all members of the committee attempted to come to what we thought was a fair compromise in relation to this report. Three of us were intrigued when the dissenting report arrived from the government member on the committee and a little bit disappointed that it was not spoken about during deliberations on the report; nevertheless, I will speak further about the report at a later date, Mr Speaker.

MR HIRD (9.31): I take issue with Mr Osborne. I did raise on a number of occasions the question of the cost to the community and I outlined in my dissenting report my concerns as to who was paying and the total lack of concern for the cost to the taxpayers of the ACT. I say no more than that.

Debate (on motion by Mr Humphries ) adjourned.

MR OSBORNE: Mr Speaker, I present Scrutiny Report No. 6 of 1999 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Community Safety performing the duties of a scrutiny of Bills and subordinate legislation committee, and I ask for leave to make a brief statement on the report.

Leave granted.

MR OSBORNE: Scrutiny Report No. 6 of 1999 was circulated on 17 June 1999 when the Assembly was not sitting, pursuant to the resolution of appointment of 29 April 1998. I commend the report to the Assembly.

MR HIRD (9.32): Mr Speaker, I present report No. 26 of the Standing Committee on Urban Services, entitled "Draft Variation to the Territory Plan (No. 111) relating to the Canberra Centre Consolidation", together with a copy of the extracts of minutes of proceedings. This report was provided to you as Speaker for circulation on Monday, 21 June this year, pursuant to the resolution of appointment. I move:

I am very pleased that it is another unanimous report on behalf of the standing committee and I would like to thank my colleagues - Mr Rugendyke and Mr Corbell - and Mr Power, our secretary. We consider that the revised proposal should be endorsed because of three important factors. Firstly, it will improve the amenity of business in the shopping area; secondly, it does not provide for excessive retail space. The proposal is very much watered down from the original plan, which had 6,000 square metres of retail space. That has been cut back to 4,000 square metres in the revised proposal.

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