Page 3682 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 21 November 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and if they were unhappy with that they had remedy available to them. That is what Justice Connolly said.
I am not aware of the documentation Mr Stefaniak and Mr Seselja are referring to. I will need to look at the documentation they have tabled. But what I will say very clearly is that this matter was raised by Mr Snow before Justice Connolly in the Supreme Court a couple of days prior to the auction. Justice Connolly threw out the suggestion that it was unclear what was being sold. The view of the court was that it was not at all unclear as to what was being sold. Justice Connolly said that the potential bidders knew what was being made available for sale. He rejected claims made by Mr Snow to the contrary.
MR SESELJA: Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Minister, how were the potential bidders meant to understand the territory plan implications if the government’s own solicitors were unsure?
MR CORBELL: As I have just said, this issue was tested in court prior to the auction. The whole point of Mr Snow’s injunction in the Supreme Court a couple of days before the auction was on the ground that he did not know what was being sold. The Supreme Court rejected that argument. The Supreme Court decided that it was clear. The Supreme Court said bidders knew what they were lining up for and how they were going to be negotiating the sale of the land and that there wasn’t ambiguity in that regard. That is what the Supreme Court found. I do not know what the document is that Mr Stefaniak and Mr Seselja are referring to but it is quite clear that this matter has already been raised in the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has found against Mr Snow on exactly the same arguments that Mr Stefaniak and Mr Seselja are now raising.
Housing—public
MS PORTER: My question is to the Minister for Territory and Municipal Services and Minister for Housing. Minister, what initiatives have the ACT government undertaken with our housing stock to ensure water and energy savings that benefit both the household and the environment?
MR HARGREAVES: I thank Ms Porter for the question. It touches on issues that are the subject of considerable public debate at the moment—the impact of climate change and what we can do to respond to climate change. It also has a bit to do with whether or not the government, through its housing stock and its housing tenancies, can take a bit of a lead for the rest of the community to start embracing climate change. It really goes to whether or not we have more practice than rhetoric, and I suggest that we have.
Housing ACT has for a number of years progressively installed a range of energy and water efficiency devices as part of its regular maintenance and upgrade work. Since the introduction of water restrictions and the community focus on water efficiencies, public housing tenants in the ACT have reduced their water utilisation, matching, and in some cases bettering, the general community achievement, with the spin-off benefits to people in public housing and community housing that the cost of running their household reduces as well as their having a responsible approach to climate change and efficient water usage.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .