Page 4176 - Week 13 - Thursday, 6 December 2007
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
(21) Did this supervision apply to Mr Robert Callaghan’s contractual work on rural leases and pay issues but not in the matter of an application for an order to the lessees of block 45 section 37 Waramanga;
(22) Will the Minister provide any factual evidence personally given by Mr Robert Callaghan whose complaint compelled him to make an application for an order;
(23) Is it a fact that Mr Robert Callaghan’s application for an order was not based on his personal knowledge, concerns or experience but on hearsay, prompted before 2 December 2002 by overhearing discussions of PALM officers who previously, before that date, had made an inspection of Block 45 Section 37 Waramanga the subject of Mr Robert Callaghan’s alleged concern/complaint.
Mr Barr: The answer to the member’s question is as follows:
I have no intention responding to the member’s questions. It is clear that these questions are designed to interrogate matters that have been the subject of court and other legal proceedings, and in doing so, seek to by-pass those judicial arrangements.
The fact is that the lessees flagrantly flouted the law and have failed to comply with numerous opportunities to rectify the matter that they are required to attend to. Dr Foskey would do well to remember that there is another constituent whose quality of life is affected by this ongoing matter that has been the subject of compliance by ACT planning bodies over many years.
Further, I regularly see correspondence from Assembly Members who chastise ACTPLA for not taking compliance action and when the Authority does take such action it gets taken to task for doing so.
This matter has been comprehensively dealt with through the legal processes and the lessee is required to attend to the orders of the Court. It is disappointing that Dr Foskey continues to act for the lessees who continue to avoid their obligations.
My detailed response to Question on Notice No. 1677 of 25 September 2007 provided detailed information about the processes and actions that have been taken in relation to this matter. The Supreme Court has considered all relevant matters in regard to this case, and neither the ACT Planning and Land Authority nor the ACT Government can act contrary to the decisions of the Court.
It should be noted that since August this year Dr Foskey has raised detailed matters relating to this matter through Questions on Notice No. 1677 (13 parts), No. 1706 (15 parts) and No. 1816 (23 parts). I do not intend to continue to debate aspects of the matter that have been properly dealt with through the judicial processes.
Land—prices
(Question No 1819)
Mr Seselja asked the Chief Minister, upon notice, on 6 December 2007:
What has been the price per unit of land paid by joint venture partners in each of the joint venture arrangements undertaken by the Land Development Agency.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .