Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (25 November) . . Page.. 4597 ..
MR CORBELL (continuing):
of woodland communities. The Plan embraces best practice in its guidelines for urban design and open space planning.
It is little wonder that those opposite criticise that because they are from the party that ripped millions and millions of dollars out of the former Planning and Land Management, reducing its capacity to deliver quality outcomes. Since our election, we have invested in planning and we have invested in a new structure for planning. We are now seeing the results in the context of these awards.
Mr Smyth: I take a point of order on relevance and under standing order 118 (b), which states that the minister is not to debate the subject.
MR SPEAKER: Come to the point of the question, Mr Corbell.
MR CORBELL: The point I am making is that Mr Smyth, when he was minister, ripped millions of dollars out of Planning and Land Management, which meant that they were not able to deliver such high-quality products. They can now.
MR SPEAKER: Just stay with the point of the question.
Mr Stanhope: I ask that further questions be placed on the notice paper.
Supplementary answers to questions without notice
MR STANHOPE: In the last sitting I took a question on notice from Mrs Dunne in relation to the sale of woodchips from the ACT. For the information of members, I table the following paper:
Sale of woodchips-Answer to question taken on notice from Mrs Dunne.
MR WOOD: Mrs Burke asked me a question the other day about investigations for a CRASH trial and the timing of that, and my answer is as follows: on 19 November in a response to a question taken on notice from Mrs Burke regarding investigation of the model for a CRASH trial, I undertook to locate any further details on the CRASH scheme. Having done so, I can only reiterate the points I made in my answer to Mrs Burke's question and the information in my letter of 27 October.
Specifically I am informed that one provider raised the scheme during consultations in forming the ACT homelessness strategy. Doubts have been expressed whether the scheme would have merit in the ACT, given our relative lack of empty buildings.
Whether notification of the New South Wales CRASH trial was first brought to the department's attention by Mrs Burke or whatever else, I don't know, but I am prepared to say that, if there is any competition here, Mrs Burke wins the race. Certainly, to repeat: it wasn't I who was first in the race; I have been looking at other aspects of ACT Housing.