Page 5578 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
concern. I have an amendment which, as Mr Barr mentioned, I will be seeking leave to move shortly.
In point (3) of Mr Seselja’s motion, there are three parts—legal justification, legal advice and any advice from ACTPLA. In regard to the first part, as far as I can tell, the justification is in fact outlined in the three pages of the explanatory statement at the front end of the amendment. However, I am happy to support Mr Seselja’s call for a more detailed explanatory statement as to why they are classified technical amendments, though.
The second part, legal advice, I do not think makes a lot of sense. I cannot see why we need legal advice on the changes in Crace and Casey. The only part of the variation which looks like it could have any legal issues would be the part that pertains to the Kingston height restrictions. My understanding is that an ACAT appeal decision a few months ago identified the need to clarify the height of buildings allowed at Kingston Foreshore. Given that this matter, as I understand it, is going in and out of ACAT, I am not sure that it is appropriate for us as an Assembly to ask for legal advice to be tabled which might relate to a current legal issue.
I do understand that the Kingston part of the variation is also contentious and that the ACT branch of the Institute of Architects has made a submission expressing concerns. Unfortunately I cannot tell whether this amendment does clarify anything. It is a very complicated set of rules and criteria. Hopefully, the architects, planners and lawyers can figure all that out. A more detailed explanatory statement will help on that.
As for asking for any advice from ACTPLA, I assume the whole technical amendment basically equals the advice from ACTPLA because I do not believe that the minister’s office is driving these amendments. I do not think that they are writing them.
I have an amendment to move. However, my understanding is that because amendments have already been moved, I cannot do it at this stage. I just note that I will be rising again to speak shortly on my amendment.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Minister for Transport, Minister for Territory and Municipal Services, Minister for Business and Economic Development, Minister for Land and Property Services, Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and Minister for the Arts and Heritage) (4.46): I am very happy to speak to the motion and to Mr Barr’s amendment and to address the issues that have been raised by members in this debate.
Ms Le Couteur is quite right: the Liberal Party’s outrage at this particular issue is completely confected and it does miss the point of the history of these two developments, the time that has elapsed, the nature of the technical amendment and the reasonableness of the approach that has been adopted in relation to both the increased or enhanced yield within Casey and Crace and indeed the issue around open space in each of those suburbs.
Ms Le Couteur has pointed out in her comments the information most particularly provided to residents that have bought into Crace, and I acknowledge that Crace is a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video