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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (14 June) . . Page.. 1749 ..

Mr Smyth: Excuse me, Mr Speaker. I have deliberately put forward no misconceptions in this debate.

MR CORBELL: There is no point of order. He has had his opportunity, Mr Speaker. The minister has put forward a number of misconceptions during this debate. If the minister is not happy with my assertion, he should know the appropriate form for addressing that. The first of his misconceptions relates to his argument that this is some sort of Clayton's review. Clearly the minister does not understand the provisions of the land act that allow the Assembly the opportunity to recommend that certain courses of action be followed in relation to the operations of the ACT Planning Authority, PALM.

The land act sets out three specific opportunities for the Legislative Assembly to recommend to the executive that certain things take place. They are encompassed under section 37 (2) of the land act and they relate to provisions in section 37 (1). Section 37 (1) says:

that is, the Territory Plan-

There is no provision, if you follow strictly the wording of the act, that allows us to say that we recommend to the executive that the Territory Plan be changed to provide for certain things to happen. Instead, the act says that we can recommend to the executive that the authority be given certain directions to review the plan or any particular aspect of the plan. There is nothing in it that says we cannot say, "We believe the Territory Plan should be reviewed to provide for this effect." That is what we are doing.

The minister uses a very literal interpretation of the act to argue that we can only say that a review should take place, not that a review should take place to achieve certain outcomes. "Review" can be interpreted in a number of senses. They include "looking again", "taking a second look", "deciding on an alternative course of action". Those are all reasonable uses of the term "review". The minister's argument about the use of the term "review" is a deliberate misrepresentation of the Labor Party's motion and provisions of the land act.

Mr Rugendyke raised a couple of points in relation to the approach by the minister, arguing that it was a compromise. The government's position is not a compromise. Mr Rugendyke should know that the north Watson site extends pretty much from where Phillip Avenue finishes to Antill Street. The lower part of the north Watson site, as he will not see on the map that has been circulated by the minister, includes a large portion

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