Page 4651 - Week 11 - Wednesday, 19 October 2011

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

asked to now say that it was not anything to do with Joy Burch, her directorate acts on her behalf. That is how our Westminster system works. So when I say that, when the directorate breaches the law, the minister breaches the law.

Mr Hargreaves: On the point of order, Mr Speaker, Mr Seselja did not say that somebody else breached the law; he said “you breached the law”. He was directing that remark at Ms Burch. He was directing that remark quite deliberately to Ms Burch. Indeed, his command of the—

Mrs Dunne: Do you really want to prosecute this, John?

Mr Hargreaves: I am trying to get this point of order through. The legislation actually does not name the minister, anyway.

MR SPEAKER: On Mr Coe’s point of order, minister, I do not think the question was an invitation to run an extensive commentary on Mrs Dunne. I would ask you to turn to the question of any evidence you may have quite quickly.

On Mr Hargreaves’s point of order, I think there is an imputation. I would ask you to withdraw, Mr Seselja.

Mr Seselja: I will withdraw, Mr Speaker, and I just ask for your clarification then. Is it your ruling that, because I am saying that the minister broke the law through her directorate, that is unacceptable? Is that the aspect that makes it unacceptable or is it that we should use different language to determine whether or not the directorate broke the law?

MR SPEAKER: As I understood it, Mr Seselja, the way it was expressed was directed towards the minister personally. The subtlety that you are suggesting, whilst I think it is a valid one, was not clear from the way you interjected.

Minister Burch, would you like the floor any more to answer this question? No? I will take further questions without notice. Ms Le Couteur.

Planning—draft strategy

MS LE COUTEUR: My question is to the Minister for Environment and Sustainable Development and concerns the recently released ACT draft planning strategy. Minister, the draft planning strategy sets out targets of 50 per cent greenfield and 50 per infill development for the ACT, and these are the same as in the 2004 spatial plan targets which have not come close to being achieved so far. How is the government ensuring that these targets will be achieved in the coming years, and how will it evaluate whether the resulting development is consistent with the ACT’s legislated climate change targets?

MR CORBELL: I think an answer to that question would take considerably longer than three minutes; nevertheless, I will do my best. It is the case that the 50-50 split, if you like, between greenfields development and redevelopment or infill development or housing development in existing urban areas is a challenging target. It has been a challenging target since it was first adopted by a territory government in the mid-1990s.

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