Page 2035 - Week 08 - Tuesday, 5 June 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE - STANDING COMMITTEE - REPORT ON THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE FORMER CANBERRA TIMES SITE
Debate resumed from 1 November 1989, on motion by Mr Collaery:
That the report be noted.
MR KAINE (Chief Minister) (4.51): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is now some seven months since the Standing Committee on Planning, Development and Infrastructure reported on the redevelopment of the former Canberra Times site.
Mr Wood: Seven months!
MR KAINE: Mr Wood comments that it is seven months. The previous Government could not make its mind up; it kept putting it off and refused to make a decision. So do not talk to me about the time delay, Mr Wood. Talk to your own contemporaries who refused to take a decision on the matter. The previous Government did not have the intestinal fortitude to take a decision. The implementation of the recommendations of the committee - - -
Mr Berry: Settle down. You are a bit tetchy.
MR KAINE: Well, you were one of the culprits. You would not make up your mind.
Implementation of the recommendations of the committee was deferred pending the provision of the data which the committee recommended be obtained concerning the impact of development on traffic, parking, public transport and pollution levels and the handing down of the decision of the Federal Court of Australia. The Federal Court dismissed the appeal by Concrete Constructions against the decision of the ACT Supreme Court not to approve a lease purpose clause change for the former Canberra Times site.
It is to be noted that the role of the Federal Court was to determine whether the primary judge in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory made an error in the exercise of the discretion conferred on him by the relevant legislation; it was not to re-examine the evidence which was before him and determine whether it would have decided the case in the same or a different way. By majority decision, the Federal Court held that no such error had been made. It is also to be noted that the decision given by the Supreme Court was based on the facts which emerged from the evidence given in the case and the circumstances which existed at the time the decision was made.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .