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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1999 Week 10 Hansard (14 October) . . Page.. 3127 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

I will bring up one a little bit closer, a little bit more relevant. Ms Tucker and the Greens have been trying for several years to amend the regulations under the AD(JR) Act to allow extra appeals. Currently, we have on the notice paper - I think it is still on the notice paper; I will have to check - the third attempt by Ms Tucker and the Greens to bring that forward. Under Mr Corbell's rules, we should not allow that to happen. Why should people not be allowed to try more than once on something about which they are passionate? We have a process that allows for that. In fact, what we are doing in this very debate is allowing that process to meet its culmination, which is either validation or rejection of this Territory Plan variation by this Assembly.

Mr Corbell said that the previous commitment by Mr Humphries has been breached, that we have allowed this matter to go ahead and that is a terrible thing. But Mr Corbell always takes just a little bit of the truth. We are getting a pattern for that - we have already seen it three or four times this week - whereby Mr Corbell says one thing without revealing the whole truth.

Mr Corbell: I rise to a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am quite happy to listen to the Minister in silence in this debate, but he is casting an aspersion on me by saying that I misled in some way or did not tell the truth or that I told only part of the truth. He is casting an aspersion on me and he should do so only by way of a substantive motion, Mr Speaker. I ask you to instruct him to withdraw.

Ms Carnell: Mr Speaker, that is not a point of order because Mr Smyth did not use any of the words that previously have been ruled out of order in this place.

MR SMYTH: Mr Speaker, I am happy to withdraw whatever it is that I have said that upsets the member.

MR SPEAKER: Thank you. Continue.

MR SMYTH: But all I recall him saying in his speech was that the submission is substantively the same. The proposal has gone from 61 to 59 townhouses; therefore, it must be the same. Let us go through the differences, Mr Speaker. In 1997 the club canvassed a proposal to construct 61 dwellings on a 4.2-hectare site within the club's lease. The club then proposed a land swap which involved expanding the nature conservation area by some 6.25 hectares in return for being allowed to use 3.23 hectares of urban open space. It wanted then to construct the dwellings and it wanted to build some of the dams and the waterworks on the land that was swapped. That is not the case now. There have been substantial changes. There is not to be a land swap. In fact, there will now be a land surrender. As I have just said, I have here a letter from the club saying that they will give back 9.22 hectares. That is far more land than was being considered, Mr Speaker. The club listened to the community's concerns on this matter.

The current proposal does not involve the acquisition of territory land. The stormwater retention ponds would be entirely within the club's lease, the number of dwellings has been reduced and the nature conservation area has been expanded by nearly three

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