Page 2134 - Week 07 - Thursday, 20 August 2020

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

---

Question put:

That clause 17 be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Question resolved in the negative.

Clause 18.

MS LE COUTEUR (Murrumbidgee) (5.39): Just at the beginning, I want to let members know that, in the unlikely event that this clause is not supported, I will be calling another division. But that will be the end of the divisions that I will call on this.

This clause addresses a very sore spot with many residents around Canberra. Over the years the community has seen sites that were given to the community or to recreational bodies for free later deconcessionalised for the private gain of some members of that organisation. This runs down our stock of low-cost land for community and recreation facilities. There have been many, many sad instances of that.

A key point of this process is that, when the minister decides whether or not considering the application to deconcessionalise is in the public interest, traditionally it has always been yes, although I have to congratulate Minister Gentleman for making a very important set of rejection decisions last year. This clause would make the public interest decision disallowable by the Assembly, if the minister decides that it is in the public interest for the application to proceed.

MR PARTON (Brindabella) (5.39): The Canberra Liberals cannot support clause 18 for the reasons stated in the debate on the previous clause. As much as we often would disagree with the planning minister on a number of things, we think that his ability to act in this case is warranted on many occasions and we cannot support clause 18.

Question put:

That clause 18 be agreed to.

---

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