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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 4 Hansard (30 March) . . Page.. 1128 ..

Mr Humphries: On the point of order, Mr Speaker: The standing orders provide that members may not ask a question that seeks an opinion. There is nothing in the standing orders to say that a member cannot pass an opinion in answering a question.

Mr Berry: Mr Speaker, bearing in mind your commitment to this Assembly at the last sitting period, I refer you to standing order 118:

Mr Moore, has offended that standing order regularly, and I would like you to apply the same standing orders to that side of the house as you try to apply to the rest of the house.

MR SPEAKER: I will uphold the point of order that Mr Corbell made. I do not think we can start coming into mottos. This is not part of answers, as far as I am concerned. Do you have any more to say, Mr Moore?

MR MOORE: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will give Mr Quinlan some accounting rules. These are rules he should apply to himself. Accounting rule 1: I will not confuse revenue issues with expenditure issues. Accounting rule 2: I will not pretend - - -

Mr Corbell: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Moore is flagrantly ignoring your ruling.

MR SPEAKER: Sit down. I uphold the point of order.

MR KAINE: I would like to inject some sense into this question time, Mr Speaker, by addressing a question, through you, to the Minister for Urban Services. I will need to give him a bit of background because the events on which this question is based go back as far as 1995. Minister, back in 1995 there was some controversial debate about a housing development in North Watson. It had to do with land of about 30 acres, identified as sections 72 and 80 and block 6 of section 64. It was quite a controversial matter and the then Minister, Mr Humphries, assured the people in North Watson that that housing development would not proceed in the foreseeable future. That was in 1995. Lately there seem to have been signs that the Government might be rethinking their decision and perhaps reversing it, because in answer to a question in the Urban Services Committee recently you were quoted as having said that the land there is being developed, in particular block 6 of section 64, which is behind the TV studios. There is a street about to be extended to allow access to block 6 and allow for its sale. Can you tell us, Minister, for what purpose that land is now proposed to be sold? Is it for residential development or is it for something else?

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