Page 4131 - Week 10 - Wednesday, 21 September 2011

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

described in section 7 of the sentencing act; secondly, what sentencing options the ACT currently does not have access to and how well those options are working interstate; thirdly, what the attitudes of the community are to sentencing currently; and, fourthly, any options that exist to improve the general level of knowledge and understanding that exists in the community about sentencing.

In undertaking that work, the bill does require the minister to consult with a range of groups, including the Director of Public Prosecutions, the police, groups representing victims, the legal profession, civil liberties and offenders groups. Then there is provision for the minister to consult with others that he considers might have a view. I think that provides quite a breadth of perspectives that will give that review real substance and real insight from those who have day-to-day experience.

In conclusion, I am pleased to present this bill today. The need for an evidence-based approach to sentencing reform has been talked about for some time now and this bill delivers on that talk. I look forward to discussions with the Canberra Liberals and the government about the bill and I am hopeful of being able to set up this important review with their support. I commend the bill to the Assembly.

Debate (on motion by Mr Corbell) adjourned to the next sitting.

Planning—shopping centres

MS LE COUTEUR (Molonglo) (10.16): I move:

That this Assembly:

(1) notes:

(a) that the ACT Government approved a development application (DA) in Giralang for a shopping centre development in a local centre:

(i) which was called-in on 11 August by the Minister for Environment and Sustainable Development;

(ii) despite an application for a substantially similar proposal having been withdrawn by the proponent on a previous occasion when an appeal of the DA was lodged in the Administrative and Civil Appeals Tribunal (ACAT);

(iii) which cannot undergo a merits review in ACAT due to its having been called in; and

(iv) which seems to allow the size of the Giralang Shops to be inconsistent with the existing retail hierarchy;

(b) that the approval of this development has had unintended consequences, including:

(i) the acceptance of an increase in the size of a local centre with minimal analysis of the impact on other centres, creating confusion around the

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