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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 10 Hansard (12 October) . . Page.. 2983 ..

MR HIRD (continuing):

There was a lot of hysteria. I noted this morning in today's press that one person objected because she thought that there would be the removal of some very fine pine trees in this area. That shows that in some cases those involved did not have their facts completely correct. Overall, the majority report reflects the conclusion that the club has tried to minimise the impact and size of the proposed housing development - they are to be commended for that - and that, given the many precedents for this type of development and the need for the club to adjust to the new water charging regime, it is reasonable to allow the proposal to proceed.

I urge members to bear in mind that when this matter was first brought before this place there was a proposal for 150 dwellings and the membership of the club objected to it; so it was back to the drawing board. Subsequently, a number of other suggestions were put to the membership and the one before you is the one that was agreed to overwhelmingly by the membership of the club. I urge members to support the recommendations of my committee.

MR SPEAKER: Before I call Mr Corbell, I note from the committee's report as presented that the petition referred to was not referred to the committee by the Assembly. The petition was only presented to the Assembly this morning. Under our standing orders, any committee consideration of a petition should be by way of referral by the Assembly itself. I remind members that the proper procedures should be followed in these matters. Where a petition is forwarded to a committee, the petitioners should be advised of the need for a member to arrange for its presentation to the Assembly in accordance with standing orders. A motion to refer a petition to a committee can then be moved pursuant to standing order 99 if that is the course proposed. That was for the information of all members and all committees.

Mr Hird: Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The petition was delivered to the committee, as I recall, while the house was out of session; so there was no opportunity for us to be able to bring the petition before the house.

MR SPEAKER: Never mind. It would require an amendment to standing orders to correct that.

MR Hird: How else could we do it?

MR SPEAKER: We would have to amend the standing orders, otherwise the relevant standing order has to be followed whether we are sitting or not.

MR CORBELL (3.50): As the chairman of the committee, Mr Hird, indicated in his statement, I have lodged a report dissenting to the committee's recommendations in relation to this draft variation. Mr Speaker, it is not often that I take the course of action that I have taken in relation to this draft variation. Most draft variations are dealt with in a tripartisan approach by the Urban Services Committee and often there is only a call, if there is any disagreement, for some additional comments or a small dissent in some respect of a particular inquiry. In this case, though, I would have to say that the majority report of the Standing Committee on Urban Services in relation to draft variation No. 94 is completely inadequate. I felt I had no choice but to present a dissenting report.

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