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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 590 ..

MR SMYTH: Mr Corbell says that I do not know. I do not know whether any applications have been received. That is not data that ministers would carry around in their heads. I do not get a briefing every time an application is denied. It is unreasonable to expect that and it is being incredibly overbureaucratic. As I have just said, I would have to seek-

Mr Corbell: Why is your department requiring development applicants to adhere to a law that isn't in force?

MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Corbell! You have not asked a supplementary question yet; you will have a chance.

MR SMYTH: The whole purpose of the ACTCode 2 revisions, which have been done with a lot of work and the involvement of a large group of people, is to restore and save the bush capital, some of which was denuded under the work that Labor did in the early 1990s. It is simply about giving trees more room to grow on the verges, about wider streets for communities to live on-

Mr Corbell: I rise to a point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker. My question was: given the statement, will the minister explain why PALM is requiring development applicants to adhere to the draft ACT code when it has no legal effect? That was the question, Mr Speaker, and he is yet to answer it.

MR SPEAKER: That is not my concern, I am sorry. The minister can answer how he sees fit.

Mr Corbell: Yes, it is, Mr Speaker; you are responsible for upholding the standing orders.

MR SMYTH: Mr Corbell does not like it when you expose the past mistakes of Labor and, of course, he is feeling tender about that.

Mr Corbell: Answer the question.

MR SMYTH: Mr Speaker, I have already answered the question. Mr Corbell asked how many applications were refused.

Mr Corbell: No, I asked why your department is requiring development approval-

MR SMYTH: You should go back to your question. You actually asked how many. Mr Speaker, it is impossible for a minister to know how many applications have been rejected and on what grounds at a given point in time. If that is their answer to planning, the so-called independent planning commissioner and the independent planning minister who does not want to be a minister insisting that every decision that PALM makes is run past their would-be planning minister, then what we would be setting up would be a bureaucratic nightmare for planning should Labor get into office.

Mr Corbell: Answer the question.

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