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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Wednesday, 4 August 2004) . . Page.. 3423 ..

Minister, how was it possible that ACTPLA was permitted to behave in such an arbitrary and dismissive manner towards this constituent, who has been forced by such arbitrariness to spend $4,500 in appeals and, in light of the latest questionable change to the DA, is now contemplating taking out an injunction against the project, which could lead to a protracted court proceeding against the government, costing both sides tens of thousands of dollars?

MR QUINLAN: I trust you appreciate that I am not across the detail and therefore can only undertake to have a look at the case. I add that it might have been referred to us first. There does not seem a lot of point to framing a question without notice on something like this when we could have done a bit of homework. I am happy to stand in this place and answer the question; I just do not have the filing cabinet with me.

MRS CROSS: Mr Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Minister, given the status of this matter and the expressed intentions of the constituent, can you get back to me by tomorrow afternoon with an assurance that the original AAT ruling will be complied with and that this construction will cease until matters are sorted out?

MR QUINLAN: I cannot make that commitment until I find out what is going on and what is necessary to unravel the problem and get the other side of the story. There is bound to be one.

Environment—greenhouse gas emissions

MS TUCKER: My question is to the Minister for Environment, and relates to government action on greenhouse gas reduction and my motion on 23 June. In the debate on my greenhouse targets motion, the minister said:

… I have … to acknowledge that we should be reviewing the territory’s commitment to meeting the greenhouse gas reduction targets. We do need to look at them and we have done that. The report is complete. It is being printed and it will be released in a few weeks.

Does the minister intend to allow us to see that printed report and, if so, when?

MR STANHOPE: As Ms Tucker is aware, her motion was successful. It called on the government to maintain the current strategy and to seek to meet it through a range of measures that Ms Tucker detailed specifically in her motion. The Assembly in its wisdom passed that motion. As a result of that, I have directed Environment ACT to give urgent attention to how we might implement the Assembly’s motion. I acknowledge the supremacy of the legislature and I am responding to the legislature and to Ms Tucker’s motion. It raises a whole range of issues in relation to how to meet our greenhouse targets and obligations. That is what I am doing. The work I was pursuing was not consistent with the strategy Ms Tucker’s motion called on me to implement. So, at this stage, no, I have asked Environment ACT to focus on the Assembly motion. As a consequence, I have had to redirect it from the priority I had set it to the priority the Assembly set.

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