Page 6215 - Week 19 - Tuesday, 17 December 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Ms Follett: I think you are.
MR COLLAERY: The Chief Minister interjects and says that I am wrong.
Mr Moore: No; she said, "You are". You do not have the capacity.
MR COLLAERY: She says that I am wrong.
Ms Follett: I said, "I think you are".
MR COLLAERY: Of course, Mr Moore joins with her with his usual comment, and we will stay away from that. The Interim Planning Act was to guarantee us a fair process, proper consultation and just and timely review until we had the Territory Plan in place.
I move now to another matter that concerns me, the lease at the National Convention Centre. There is one? I have not had time to search that yet either. Presumably, there is a sublease with lease purpose clauses in it. I would like the Chief Minister to let me know whether the placing of an interim casino in the Convention Centre is consistent with the lease purposes there. There may be a simple answer to that. If it is not consistent with it, there needs to be a variation, perhaps, and you can use section 72A of the Real Property Act. That provides for a variation of purposes for which land may be used. Members may note that that section is preserved in the Land (Planning and Environment) (Consequential Provisions) Bill, which is coming before the house, for three months after the changeover.
I am troubled by this Bill. I believe that the Minister, if she were minded to make sure that there is no unfounded speculation about these processes, should make the law officers available to brief members of the Assembly so that we can determine exactly whether we are acting consistently with the head legislation, the fount legislation, the PLM Act.
I stress that the observations I make are only observations. It is not within my time or capacity to look to those in any further detail, but they were not addressed in the presentation speech and I am using this speech to pose those questions. I often do that and I rarely, if ever, get a substantive answer to the questions I raise in this Assembly on legal matters. That is the fact of the matter and I think members know that. Perhaps I am not wrong always.
The other issue that Dr Kinloch addressed was the view on the casino. The Rally has always said about a casino that we opposed a casino at section 19, but our policy was quite specific and we sat by it during the Alliance Government. Our policy was as follows:
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .