Page 5870 - Week 18 - Wednesday, 11 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
said, some two years now in putting this matter forward, and given the timeframe that we are in with the coming elections it is only appropriate that they know one way or the other whether their proposed development is to proceed.
I think that anyone who would be opposed to giving them a firm answer today clearly would not be interested in the benefits of the business community and, indeed, the rest of the business community at the Manuka shopping centre. I am not too sure where we go with exactly what I want to do with this proposal, Mr Speaker, but - - -
Mr Kaine: We speak on it and we vote on it, Mr Duby.
MR DUBY: Precisely. It has been pointed out to me, Mr Speaker, that it might be appropriate that I move that the question be divided. The proposed redevelopment affects two particular parcels of land. The questions on both parcels of land could be dealt with. We already have a disallowance motion on one parcel and one parcel only within the provisions that apply in this case. I move:
That the question be divided pursuant to standing order 133.
Mr Berry: Why?
MR DUBY: I heard a lonely voice on the opposite side of the room ask why. The advice has been that it may well be the appropriate way to deal with this matter. I have moved that the question be divided. One question will relate to block 1, section 96, Griffith; the other will relate to blocks 4 and 5, section 24, Forrest.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
MR SPEAKER: The question now is: That the proposed variation relating to block 1, section 96, Griffith, be rejected.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (11.04): Mr Speaker, I am quite happy to speak to both parts of the motion, whether it is divided or not, and I oppose both disallowance motions. I oppose it for two reasons. First of all, I oppose it on the ground that the proper process that has to do with variations to the Territory Plan has been faithfully followed. Secondly, I oppose it on the merits of the proposal itself.
Every time we get a proposal to change something that is going to do something for this city, the Residents Rally jumps to its feet and says, "Let us delay it. Let us stop it. Let us not do it".
Mr Collaery: That is funny, coming from you. You have never done anything about payroll tax.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .