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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1996 Week 11 Hansard (25 September) . . Page.. 3355 ..

Mr Berry: You can foreshadow it.

MS McRAE: I will foreshadow it then and circulate it in my name. I will speak to the amendment, which we will oppose because "significant" does not add anything at all. By many people's definition, what happened with futsal park was not significant in any way, shape or form; it was just a minor change to the lake foreshore. It was not in fact even a new use of that lake foreshore because it was entirely within the rules of what was allowed in that area. "Significant" does not really help us. If Mr Humphries would like our support, he should put either a bottom-line or a top-line definition of what "significant" is and not couch it in terms of costing; otherwise, every time a new development happens we have to worry about what is and is not significant.

Mr Humphries: It is in your foreshadowed amendment, too.

MS McRAE: Mr Humphries, you can urge me to do exactly the same thing there, but I am speaking to your amendment at the moment. I think that part of the problem is that it leaves far too great a level of ambiguity in the use of the word. I do not think it helps us very much.

MS HORODNY (12.02): Mr Speaker, I will not be supporting Mr Humphries's amendment either. I agree with Ms McRae that "significant" is a highly subjective word. You would have to actually pin that down and define it by actually putting a costing on it or define it in some other way that clearly specifies what would and would not be included in that terminology. It gives too much leeway, and I can just see you coming back to this Assembly and saying, "We did not think this was a significant development", when, in fact, the rest of the Assembly might believe that it is. We will not be supporting it.

MR OSBORNE (12.02): I will be very brief. I will not be supporting Mr Humphries's amendment - not because I do not agree with a lot of what he said, but because I think, given the rhetoric and the promises of the Liberal Party prior to the last election about being open and consultative, they have an undertaking to disclose everything.

MR HUMPHRIES (Attorney-General) (12.03): Could I just make some brief remarks. I know members are feeling very testy at the moment about what has happened until now about these things.

Mr Moore: I think you need leave, because you do not get to make a closing speech on an amendment.

MR HUMPHRIES: Can I speak twice on an amendment?

Mr Berry: No, you cannot.

MR SPEAKER: Just seek leave. You do need leave.

MR HUMPHRIES: I seek leave to make some brief comments.

Leave granted.

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