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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 10 Hansard (5 September) . . Page.. 3139 ..

MR MOORE (continuing):

In particular, its application means that decisions about the detailed layout of the area are left to officials, and there is no opportunity for public input into those decisions. In the case of Bruce, section 2, the application of the defined land policy meant that residents were caught, it seems unawares, by a change in the landscape provision applying to the area. As an aside, I would comment that perhaps the defined land policy does need to be reviewed, in the light of community expectations in 1996.

Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion that the statement be noted.

Leave granted.

MR MOORE: I move:

That the Assembly takes note of the statement.

Ms McRae: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: If Mr Moore gets leave to make three statements and then moves a motion in the middle of it, it does mess things up a little. If there is a motion now in front of the house that the paper be noted, people might like to speak to it; but leave has been given for three separate statements to be made. Could you please clarify that.

MR SPEAKER: Mr Moore, would you mind withdrawing that motion for the moment. Continue your statements, if you are going to speak to the other two.

MR MOORE: What I would prefer to do, Mr Speaker, is withdraw the request for leave to make three statements, having made one statement. I will seek leave for each of the other statements, if the Assembly will allow me to do that.

MR SPEAKER: If there is no objection, I will allow that course to be followed.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General and Minister for the Environment, Land and Planning) (12.10): I want to make a few comments on the motion by Mr Moore to take note of the paper, Mr Speaker. The matter Mr Moore has just spoken to the Assembly about has been raised with me, both through his writing to me as chair of the committee and through Ms McRae writing to me on the same subject, and some residents have also written to me. I have reviewed this matter in the last couple of weeks and am rather concerned about the implications. What Mr Moore has described to the Assembly is true as to the way in which what was originally zoned as a buffer between residential land and commercial uses of land has changed to remove that buffer.

Mr Moore: Except that 4750 still remains; it has not been revoked.

MR HUMPHRIES: Indeed, variation 4750 has not been revoked. My understanding, on reviewing the matter, is that, because of the way in which the variation was originally put forward, because the variation made reference to the fact that there was a proposed use of the land on the other side of the buffer for commercial uses, and because the

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