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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 1 Hansard (17 February) . . Page.. 262 ..

MR CORBELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sure the Minister will thank you for your protection over his gaffe. My supplementary question is this: Is it not the case, Minister, that the Commissioner for Land and Planning has no responsibilities under the Land Act for the maintenance of and variation to the Territory Plan, and that your attempt to accuse Labor of duplication of process was an awful error which revealed not only your ignorance of the Land Act but also your inability to properly handle the planning debate?

MR SMYTH: Mr Speaker, what we have is wishful thinking as a substitution for policy. The Government is getting on with reforming planning in this city to make sure that it is efficient and effective and meeting the needs of a modern city. What we have - - -

Mr Corbell: You made a mistake, Brendan. Just say you made a mistake.

MR SPEAKER: Order! Careful!

MR SMYTH: No, there are no mistakes here at all. What we have from Mr - - -

MR SPEAKER: You will not get an answer.

Mr Berry: Sit him down. He is not well.

MR SPEAKER: I will. Thank you. Please resume your seat. Questions without notice. I call Mr Rugendyke.

Mr Corbell: You are an embarrassment. What a joke.

Mr Berry: Sit him down.

MR SPEAKER: I have called Mr Rugendyke, thank you.

Mr Corbell: His public servants will be squirming over his press release yesterday. It was a disgrace.

MR SPEAKER: You will be squirming in a moment if you keep that up, Mr Corbell.

MR RUGENDYKE: My question is to the Attorney-General, Mr Humphries, and it relates to a report published in yesterday's Canberra Times concerning a decision of Chief Justice Jeffery Miles in a sexual assault case. Chief Justice Miles saw fit to place a sexual offender with prior convictions on a suspended sentence with a good behaviour bond for offences committed on a two-year-old child. The reason given in the report for the lenient penalty was because the child was unlikely to remember the attacks. Of course, I understand that the newspaper report is a summary of proceedings and does not necessarily present all the facts. Perhaps we are missing something. However, Minister,

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