Page 1945 - Week 06 - Wednesday, 25 June 2008

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

Let us highlight that in contrast to some decisions that those opposite were party to when they were in government. The best example is the Hall-Kinleyside development north of Hall. A decision was taken to provide land directly to a private leaseholder where that leaseholder had no right of renewal to that lease. A decision was taken to direct-grant it for a massive residential development without any public process. There was no notification, no public advice, no public information session. The cabinet just went and decided to grant the lease. We look forward to seeing those cabinet papers when they are available shortly, because that will highlight and show in contrast the process that this government is committed to through the planning and land act and the approach adopted by those opposite.

Mr Pratt: Boring.

MR CORBELL: Mr Pratt can say, “Boring.” Mr Pratt can resort to the typical schoolyard charms that he uses when he knows he has not got an argument. The bottom line is that this motion is without any merit. (Time expired)

MRS DUNNE (Ginninderra) (4.36): Mr Speaker, I seek leave under standing order 47 to speak again, because some of what I spoke about was clearly misunderstood by Mr Corbell.

MR SPEAKER: Mrs Dunne.

MRS DUNNE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Corbell held up a document, a copy of which I tabled during my speech, to show, erroneously again, that the opposition must have been in possession of the attachments to that document. In my speech in relation to this, I pointed out that I had referred to particular documents in the estimates committee. I held up the exact same document that I held up in the estimates committee. It was clear in the estimates committee—and I made it perfectly clear today—that at the time of the estimates committee the opposition was not in receipt of the attachments to that document. In fact, we received the attachments to that document yesterday afternoon at 4.57. Mr Corbell either did not hear or chose to misconstrue what I said. We did not have the document that he claims that we had.

MR SMYTH (Brindabella) (4.37): It is quite interesting that a comment, at page 13 of the GHD report called Hume industrial planning study, under “Environment and Recreation”, says:

Location of commercial blocks in Figure 34, Lots 1 to 48 and Lots 110 to 121, in close proximity to residential blocks, may result in properties in Gilmore and Macarthur being exposed to industrial pollution.

And that is the comment. These are the blocks that form the area that is now—

MR SPEAKER: Mr Smyth, you are going to have to come back to the amendment.

MR SMYTH: I am talking about it. The amendment is about environmental impact studies, and I am talking about environment comments.

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