Page 1224 - Week 05 - Thursday, 4 June 2020
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
sitting in a park by themselves, like New South Wales did. The ACT currently allows 20 people to visit a home, where in New South Wales, unbelievably, it is still at five. You can have 50 people in a pub in New South Wales but you can only have five people over to your house. The ACT let people visit their mum on Mother’s Day; New South Wales did not.
We have deviated from New South Wales on some measures, but throughout we have taken the advice of the Chief Health Officer. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that he should read the legislation. The Chief Health Officer makes the public health determinations under the legislation. We have been listening to the advice of the Chief Health Officer throughout, and that is why we are in the good position that we are in now.
MR COE: Chief Minister, what is the rationale for allowing 20 people in a house and perhaps just 20 people in a pub of 400 square metres?
MR BARR: The ACT’s requirements have a one person per four square metre rule.
MR WALL: Chief Minister, how many jobs in the territory have been sacrificed as a result of your decision not to open businesses in line with New South Wales and let Canberrans spend their money locally first?
MR BARR: None; and, importantly, the ACT’s changes open a broader range of industries. You can go to the gym in the ACT; you can go to a personal fitness class. You can undertake a range of activities in the ACT that you still cannot in New South Wales. New South Wales inexplicably moved ahead of the national cabinet agreed position in relation to one industry sector. Why? Money talks, doesn’t it?
MADAM SPEAKER: Ms Le Couteur.
Mr Coe interjecting—
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Coe, give some respect to Ms Le Couteur. She is on the floor with a question without notice.
Planning—community access
MS LE COUTEUR: My question is to the Minister for Transport and relates to reports that Geocon was given an approval to completely close a busy part of Cameron Avenue in Belconnen for months, despite the impact that this would have on the Belconnen community and adjacent land owners, including one who would have lost all access to their car park. Minister, are these reports true and, if so, why are large developers being allowed to run roughshod over the local community?
MR STEEL: They are not. We assess applications that are put forward from developers in relation to a range of different matters relating to traffic in particular and access to public space. I will take the details of Ms Le Couteur’s question on notice and supply some further detail back to the Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video