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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 10 Hansard (23 September) . . Page.. 3515 ..

Mr Pratt: Do not bully Mrs Dunne into not taking a point of order, please.

MR SPEAKER: Order, Mr Pratt!

Mrs Dunne: In accordance with the standing orders, the minister has to debate the issue and not just recapitulate the arguments that he put forward, and which failed, on a previous occasion.

MR SPEAKER: Mrs Dunne, this is a serious motion about the censure of the minister. The minister is entitled to defend himself.

MR CORBELL: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What this motion did was ask me to do something which was unenforceable and for which the government had not appropriated any money to allow it to occur.

Mrs Burke: What, to just talk to people? Give me a break.

MR CORBELL: Mr Speaker, I hear Mrs Burke's interjection-"We just wanted you to talk to people."No, you did not, Mrs Burke. Read the motion: the motion said negotiate for a land swap or compensation. It said very clearly, "This is the outcome you must achieve"-no ifs, no buts. That is why the government did not agree to it, and why the government does not agree to it.

I do not like seeing trees cut down. No-one likes seeing trees cut down. It is very easy to go out there and say, "We love these trees and we are going to protect them."However, where were the members of the Assembly when the land use policy permitted development on this site? Where were they then, calling for a change to the land use policy, for a change to the planning policies that underpin the use of that land? They were not there. What has occurred at this site is consistent with every law in the territory.

The tree protection legislation was applied to the site even though tree protection legislation does not apply to unleased land. Even though this was unleased land prior to its sale, the tree protection legislation was applied to it, trees were identified for attention, and they were identified, not by the government, but by an independent arbiter.

First of all, the conservator, who is an independent statutory office holder, made the decision about which trees should be retained and which it was not appropriate to retain. Second, an independent adviser advised the independent decision maker about which trees should be retained and which should not. The law was complied with fully in relation to this site.

How realistic is it, if people want to make decisions about investing and building in this city, and they comply with every single law about tree protection, about development controls and about the territory plan itself, that this Assembly can then come in and say, "Yes, we passed all of those laws, but they mean nothing because we want to protect those trees."

Either there is a legislative framework for determining the land use on that site, and how trees will be protected or not protected on this site, or there is not. What members in this

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