Page 2567 - Week 12 - Wednesday, 15 November 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Development Applications
MR WHALAN: Mr Collaery asked me a question about approvals and delays in project approvals. I now have a list of major projects approved since May of this year. It does not include housing approvals. There are 76 projects, the total value of which is over $260m. I seek leave to table it and have it incorporated in Hansard.
Leave granted.
Document incorporated at appendix 1.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
MR COLLAERY: Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented, and I seek leave to make a short statement.
MR SPEAKER: Please proceed, Mr Collaery.
MR COLLAERY: Mr Speaker, I speak not only for myself but also as chairman of the Assembly's Standing Committee on Planning, Development and Infrastructure. I refer to today's report headed "Move to delay site hearing" at page 7 of the Canberra Times, an article by Rod Campbell, a reputable, competent journalist who is well known to me. The following statement is made in that article:
Early this month, the ACT Legislative Assembly's planning, development and infrastructure committee recommended the redevelopment of the site, after an environmental assessment, and a grant of a new lease to Concrete Constructions.
In effect, it was suggesting that the Supreme Court's decision, and the impending Federal Court appeal, could be disregarded.
I wish to inform the Assembly that the first part of the statement is incomplete. The Assembly's recommendation was far more qualified than a mere environmental assessment. Secondly, I say also as a practising barrister and solicitor that I am dismayed that there could be a suggestion that I would be part of a committee which would suggest that the Supreme Court's decision and the impending Federal Court appeal could be disregarded.
I am sure that I speak for my colleagues on this, in saying that nothing would be further from our minds. All committee members took exceptional care to ensure that the proceedings of the inquiry, which preceded the report, raised no possible reflection on the judiciary. The committee reference was taken on board after advice was received on the question of the sub judice rule, which we were advised was not offended in any way by the inquiry.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .