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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 11 Hansard (29 November) . . Page.. 3378 ..

MR KAINE (continuing):

My question has to do with policy or guidelines relating to the siting and replacement of streetlights by ActewAGL. It may be an Urban Services matter and not an ActewAGL matter. My question is a very specific one. What was the reason for moving a particular streetlight in Quiros Street, Red Hill recently? Given that there appears to be no good reason for that move, what did it cost to move that light?

MR SMYTH: I think that question falls within the bounds of my portfolio. I will have to take the question on notice and get an answer for Mr Kaine.

MR CORBELL: My question is to the Minister for Urban Services. It relates to the ACT land stock assessment. Minister, if there was no intention to identify urban open space as potential areas for urban infill, can you explain why the then Department of Treasury and Infrastructure dedicated considerable resources, and used resources across the ACT government, to assess blocks classified as urban open space for possible urban infill, including assessments obtained from your own department relating to soil contamination and heritage constraints on sites?

MR SMYTH: Mr Corbell knows that what he has just said is incorrect, because for many months now he has been quoting the first paragraph of the Residential, Commercial and Community Land Releases in the ACT document, which says:

It is the same old story.

Mr Stanhope: I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is the same answer as the minister gave to every question that was asked yesterday. In his determination to refuse to answer any questions in relation to infill, because he has been taken out of the picture by the Chief Minister on this issue, he rattles off the same paragraph of the document. He is wilfully refusing to answer any questions in relation to this subject.

MR SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The minister may answer the question as he thinks fit. If the answers to a series of questions is the same, I cannot control that. The minister obviously knows what he is talking about.

MR SMYTH: Mr Corbell asks what was the intention of the land stock assessment. It is outlined here quite clearly.

Mr Corbell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I did not ask that. What I asked was: if there was no intention to identify urban open space as infill-which is the commitment given by the Treasurer last Saturday week-why did the Department of Treasury and Infrastructure dedicate considerable resources and use resources across the ACT government, including from Mr Smyth's own department, to assess urban open space for heritage and soil contamination constraints as part of identifying those sites for urban infill? If there was no intention to do it, why did they do it?

MR SPEAKER: Thank you.

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