Page 1996 - Week 07 - Thursday, 23 August 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SPEAKER: The standing orders provide 20 minutes for an amendment. I remind you of that. Mr Seselja has had that opportunity.
Mr Barr: Yes. I will give him leave quickly.
MR SPEAKER: I do not mean to suggest that I would not enjoy being here for the rest of the night. Just keep that in mind.
Mr Barr: Not at all, Mr Speaker. I am sure this act of generosity will be repaid down the track.
Leave granted.
MR SESELJA: Thank you, Mr Speaker and members, for the leave. I will be brief. I will respond to Mr Barr’s comments, particularly in relation to the blank cheque argument, the straw man that was put up by his predecessor when we had the argument on Tuesday. It is interesting that it has now filtered into the official notes. I did not hear it when we had the debate on Tuesday. It seems the former planning minister still has some influence.
Mr Pratt: Stumped the guru.
MR SESELJA: He has come in and given advice. This blank cheque argument has not been put up by anyone. It certainly was not in that press release and it certainly was not in any of the arguments that were put by the opposition. We do not see it as a blank cheque, but we do make a strong distinction between legislation such as the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and a discretionary ability for ACTPLA to prevent a land title from taking up a legitimate use without there being certainty. That is where we object.
It is not about a lease being a blank cheque. No-one has ever argued that—certainly no-one from the opposition. I have not heard anyone in industry in any way publicly arguing that leases are meant to be a blank cheque. Nonetheless, the government is putting that up as the straw man. We do distinguish between legislation that is clear and does restrict landholders’ rights and the discretionary ability to prevent use.
The other point, in response to Mr Barr, is that, whilst there is improvement and it only applies when there is building or alteration of a structure, nonetheless the “use as development” does kick in and that is and continues to be our concern.
Amendments Nos 2 to 4 negatived.
Mrs Burke, pursuant to order, presented the following papers:
Equipment shortages—Canberra and Calvary Hospitals—
Letter to the Speaker from Mrs Burke, dated 23 August 2007.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .