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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 1998 Week 9 Hansard (18 November) . . Page.. 2640 ..

MR RUGENDYKE (continuing):

Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, I also question how the Labor Party might expect to be able to trial the detail of this Bill, if it is agreed to in this Assembly. I believe that a line must be drawn, and that appears to be the argument. This particular provision seems to have been in and out of legislation through various Assemblies, and it seems to be the feeling that this is where the line ought to be drawn. My own gut feeling at this stage is that it ought to be drawn by not agreeing to this Bill; but I will give Ms Tucker the courtesy of listening to her final argument.

Mr Osborne: That is nice of you, Dave, when you have said that you are not going to support it.

MR RUGENDYKE: No, I have not. Mr Osborne interjects, claiming that he believes that I have made up my mind. I will give Ms Tucker the courtesy of listening to the closing debate.

MR OSBORNE (4.18): I will not, Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker. This is an interesting one. As many members have indicated in today's debate, this proposal has been before the Assembly before, certainly in the time I have been here. I have to admit that I do not recall much of the debate when we last had it. I do recall, though, that I did vote with Ms Tucker last time; but, from memory, I think I was caught up in a wave of crossbench solidarity on the issue - - -

Ms Tucker: We can do it again, Paul. Crossbench solidarity! I will accept any rationale.

MR TEMPORARY DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, Ms Tucker! I know that you are excited, but Mr Osborne has the call.

MR OSBORNE: Mr Temporary Deputy Speaker, when it became obvious that the Labor Party was going to support the Bill, I thought, "Perhaps we should have a really good look at it". Also, I have the added bonus of not having a planning activist sitting next to me anymore; so I might have to think independently on these planning issues. I do have some sympathy with what Ms Tucker is saying. However, the one important issue for me, and the issue that my staff have had concern about, is the issue of unfairly slowing up developments in the ACT. I think, in the current climate, we need to give developers, builders and private businesses every opportunity to generate their work. I feel that, in the current climate, Ms Tucker's legislation would be a negative step in regard to that. So I will not be supporting it - unlike Mr Rugendyke, who, I believe, has left his mind open, waiting for the summing-up speech from Ms Tucker.

MS TUCKER (4.21), in reply: I am definitely hoping that Mr Rugendyke is listening at this point. The discussion that has been generated inside and outside the Assembly as a result of this Bill indicates that there is confusion about the appeal rights available for development applications and how this Bill affects them. There are actually two processes available. The main one is to appeal against the development application to the

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