Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 6 Hansard (15 June) . . Page.. 1859 ..
Mr Quinlan: What humbug.
MR MOORE: Mr Speaker, every single one of those members has interjected loudly during my speech. It is exactly the same thing as when they stand up and take points of order that are not points of order and that you have warned them about again and again. Mr Speaker, I have to say it is entirely unsatisfactory. For Mr Corbell, who has been breaching standing orders the way he has, to stand up and move dissent, I think requires incredible gall.
MR SPEAKER: I remind members that we are debating a motion to suspend standing orders to enable Mr Corbell to move a motion of dissent. We are not actually debating the arguments. Strictly speaking, you were both out of order.
MS TUCKER (2.55): I would like to amend Mr Corbell's motion so that we ask you to report back here in the next sitting week with a considered view on whether or not it was the same question that was asked. You can have an opportunity to look at the detail and consider your ruling.
Mr Kaine: Let us suspend for 10 minutes so the Speaker can check the Hansard.
Mr Wood: No, you will hear that now. You are about to hear it.
MR SPEAKER: Order, please! Ms Tucker has the floor.
MR BERRY (2.56): Thank you, Mr Speaker. She did have the floor. I will read the questions to you, Ms Tucker. This is yesterday's question:
This morning, ABC radio carried reports that the deadline for the payment of outstanding creditors of Pacific Academy Sports Trust had been extended ... to 29 June 2001. The initial deadline ... was set by the Chief Minister when calling in the development application and was 6 June 2001. That deadline was extended to 8 June 2001. All of those deadlines have passed without the outstanding payments being made to the creditors. ... the government has taken no action.
It was reported in the Canberra Times on 9 June that the minister saw no need to revoke the development approval. However, a spokesman for the Chief Minister is quoted in today's Daily Telegraph as saying, "The approval was conditional on the developer settling outstanding claims from contractors associated with stage one". Can the minister explain the contradiction between his statements that there is no need to revoke the call in and the statement of the Chief Minister ... that the approval remains conditional? What action, if any, does the government propose to take if the fourth ... deadline of 29 June is not met by Pacific Academy Sports Trust?
This is the supplementary question:
Will the minister table any legal advice he has obtained in relation to revoking the calling in of this development approval?
Mr Humphries: That is it. That is the same question as today.
Mr Corbell: It is not.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .