Page 3289 - Week 10 - Thursday, 19 October 2006

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

have an issue like this. I hope it is—it could be—but I suspect it will not. Thank you very much anyway for giving me the opportunity to represent the citizens of Kingston in this issue.

Question put:

That Dr Foskey’s motion be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 1	Noes 14
Dr Foskey	Mr Barr	Mr Mulcahy
	Mr Corbell	Ms Porter
	Mrs Dunne	Mr Pratt
	Ms Gallagher	Mr Seselja
	Mr Gentleman	Mr Smyth
	Mr Hargreaves	Mr Stanhope
	Ms MacDonald	Mr Stefaniak

Question so resolved in the negative.

Planning and Environment—Standing Committee

Report 22

Debate resumed from 17 October 2006, on motion by Mr Gentleman:

That the report be noted.

DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (11.46): One of Mr Corbell’s staff asked why I had moved the procedural motion to have debate on this report adjourned so that I could speak about it today. People here might have discerned that I am extremely interested in planning issues, and one of the committees I would have liked to have been on, had I been given that choice, is the Standing Committee on Planning and Environment. I also believe that the legislation on planning and development reform is a key piece of legislation that is going to change the face of development in Canberra. I would like to have my remarks noted by the government in its response to the committee’s report because I believe that in hearing my remarks the government is also hearing the remarks of a significant proportion of the community who are going to have to live with this legislation.

That said, I welcome the planning and environment committee inquiry into the exposure draft of the planning and development bill and its report. I respect the committee system in the ACT Assembly as it allows stakeholders to present their views in such a way that they are accessible to all in the Assembly. The report provides an invaluable overview of many aspects of the legislation and I thank the committee for it. I appreciate that ACTPLA conducted many information sessions prior to the development of the draft bill, and I attended many of those—enough to observe that the format and content of the sessions varied little despite the variety of fora at which the presentations were made, ranging from environment organisations to community councils.

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